In a letter to the editor that appeared in the Discovery Bay Press, February 22, Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf, scolded the Board of Supervisors and Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho (D-3) in particular for not funding law enforcement appropriately. The letter follows earlier correspondence, in which the Sheriff’s department was urged by Supervisor Piepho to provide better service to outlying areas including Knightsen and Brentwood. In his letter, Rupf writes:
To illustrate this, I point to the sheriff’s budget for fiscal year 2007-2008. The board, over my clear objections, adopted a budget that reduced our maintenance of efforts needs by $2 million. This required uss to hold vacant the equivalent of 14 deputy sheriff positions…
It is Supervisor Piepho’s vote that has perpetuated the lack of increased law enforcement coverage: shame on her for blaming the dedicated men and women of my office.
In other District 3 news, Amanda Dove, Publisher of the Delta Sun Times, endorsed Guy Houston for the Supervisor seat currently held by Piepho.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
byby MP- You are just a great big bundle of sunshine walking around, aren’t you? I had just a couple of valid questions, and you opted to turn it into an argument? If you don’t know the answers, disregard the questions. It’s not hard to understand why the residents of Disco. Bay have built up a reputation of being loud, rude, and ignorant to surrounding communities.
If you didn’t hear the woman at the crime prevention meeting say it was the sheriff himself, maybe you didn’t hear her clearly. I was directly to the left of her and yes, she stated it was Rupf. Also, I was there when a deputy walked up to her to calm her down and she told him again it was Rupf.
Thanks for all your help, fellow community member. I’ll just give Terry or Aaron a call next time I have a question. They’re much more pleasant and can handle adult conversation without all the drama.
Wow, very entertaining blog. I was directed to this site by folks who know my feelings and share my concerns for Discovery Bay. I’m posting under my real name because I believe the noise and constructive suggestions I have made (and will continue to make) to the DB CSD are worth consideration. Why hide if you have nothing to hide. As for the comment that David Piepho is posting as Fact Checking In DB, I would have to completely agree that no other person could possible be as entrenched in the minutia of the county. Please, who else could wax on about prop 172, or the % of the sheriff’s budget reduction or what the grand jury said about mary’s raise. David if your are sincere about all this forget the screen name, admit who you are and man-up. If you can’t muster the courage that is too bad.
I freely admit to being oblivious to the political goings-on in the county and DB until last year when I approached the CSD with housing development questions and questions related to the then emerging no-tow fiasco. I was hit upside the head with arrogance and a total disregard for the public. I was lied to and manipulated. From that time forward I have come to understand some of the background issues and I continue to witness what in my opinion amounts to “piss poor” leadership at both the local DB level and county supervisor level. I firmly believe the people who have chosen to live in DB deserve better. I’m just one guy with one vote but I have a hard time sitting idly by and watching while history and current events tells us that without improved leadership the town of DB is in for hard times and irreparable damage. David Piepho you know what I’m talking about, anyone else interested you can ask the DB CSD to give you a copy of my submissions aimed at constructively improving the towns governance and leadership.
I have no long-term interest in this B.S. or the silly political games I have witnessed. I just want to see a CSD that works for the people and a county government that does not manipulate and take advantage. If you disagree with me fine that is your choice. If you agree and you live in the DB area I would suggest that you do something constructive to make the situation better.
As I said, If you believe in what you have to say there is no reason to hide. In-fact this is my personal email address: jeffbarber@earthling.net (no offense but if you send me a message I may or may not reply). If you love the way the DB CSD behaves and think the board of supervisors does a great job for DB, fine use your real name, tell us why and post it on this site. If you think DB will benefit from more housing development I would love to specifically know why. I do not have tons of time to sit and post so I may not often respond to this blog but if and when I do it will be with my real name.
jeff
Like I said earlier, quite predictable behavior. The facts are inconvenient to your position and acknowledging you might be wrong just isn’t in the repertoire for most of you.
I’ve already stated I’m not David Piepho. Don’t play him on TV either. But I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
If you need to engage in this search for the boogeyman under your bed, then so be it.
I’m not here to sway or attempt to win YOUR opinion. I’m just here to tell folks the facts and even point them to where they can verify it for themselves. There are some readers who are actually interested in the truth.
For budget figures, it’s simple. Go to the County homepage. Right side panel look for budget docs. Then look for recommended budget. Numbers you want for the Sheriff start around page 161.
For the Grand Jury docs it’s http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/sc/grandjury/0607/0607rpt.htm and look at number 0702
You can also call your Supervisor’s office and I’m sure they’ll be willing to share the information. I’ve got my information from a combination of the three.
If you spent just half an hour of your time and read, you could become a better informed voter……or you can be a member of the intellectually lazy crowd and just cast a few stones from the comfort of your keyboard like some already do here.
Your call.
Well if it isn’t David, maybe it is his alter ego “Sherry Seaton.” You may recall awhile back “she” wrote a letter to the editor in the DB Press blasting the Sheriff. Well, Sherry is David’s cousin, she was not comfortable signing his letter, but felt obligated. What kind of a person would put someone who cares about him in a position like that. So how much of a stretch would it be that he is posting here? Style of writing, manner, political positions, blatant dislike for the Sheriff…wait a minute…maybe it is Mary herself…or perhaps one of her staff?
This #13 Fact Finding DB sounds like an big time arrogant booty and acts if he is the only one who knows anything in the County. If it is David Piepho that explains everything. I should have recognozied the arrogant demeanor instead of thinking it was someone that had any factual validity.
The poster who calls himself “Fact checking in DB” is absolutely 100% David Piepho. Just read his last post, it is laced with stuff that only some one directly attached to the BOS would know or bother to dig out. I have been around DB for a while and there is no person other than David Piepho who cares this much about what people think of Mary Piepho or who is this in-tune to the local political scene. Please keep it up David you are very amusing.
Doing some research I found the following regarding the good ole boys that “Fact Checking in DB” forgot to mention. He states it was Kramer, Polleck and Ybarra (the good ole boys) that contributed to the financial mess the County is in. I do not think the trio had anything to do with raise the Board of Supervisors gave themselves. Just in their increased salary alone it cost the County an additional $200k per year and add their benefit package to that and you have another $120K. And don’t forgot the Stipends for LAFCO and whatever meeting they can find to attend. During their 4 year term that is over $625,000 of increased obligations. Add the John Cullen raise (1 yr only) to the mix and you have got a whopping bill in excess of $725,000. Voted in by Mary Piepho who states the County is facing a financial crisis. You can’t blame that one on the good ole boys. I too say: by by Mary Piepho!
Ahh yes, the all too predictable pattern that is online debate. If you wade into a discussion with folks who are shooting from the hip when it comes to facts, it’s only a matter of time before it degrades into the shoot the messenger approach. byby_MP appears to have a running personal issue with the Piepho’s as evidenced by the very petty, fact challenged closing comments. Did you run out of ammunition to argue the merits of your position(assuming you had some?)
In the interest of keeping this productive and informative, let’s look again at the facts; the Sheriff’s budget has increased every year. He is playing with words in that only some general fund monies have been reduced. His overall budget has not, as monies from Prop 172 have helped offset. This “obscure information” as this individual puts it, is readily available with a simple phone call to your Supervisor’s office or you can look up the budget docs online at the County website. Not real difficult to obtain and
it’s telling when you are wading into this debate without having that information in the first place.
The ’07-’08 budget from general fund monies for the Sheriff was indeed cut by $2 M or some 3.3%. I’ve seen no evidence on the streets here that it has negatively impacted police services in DB. In fact, I’ve had some quite pleasant and informative discussions with Deputies and Lt. Mike Burton in the last year on the topic of service. As I stated earlier, the budget hit will simply trim some excess the Sheriff has enjoyed, but if Mr./Ms. byby would like to point to evidence of this claimed “reduced our
maintenance of effort” I would be happy to stand corrected. And BTW, just what the hell does that double speak mean in plain English? Seems to me you can conveniently twist it to suit one’s argument.
The bottom line is the Sheriff’s current budget from a County general funds reduction standpoint effectively reduced the full time positions from 1109 to 1093 in effort to balance the budget. The 16 position reduction were UNFILLED positions, so there was no effective or actual reduction in existing services.
If you haven’t been paying attention, we have a budget crisis, including some significant unfunded pension liabilities. Under Piepho’s watch the Supervisor’s have at least stopped the bleeding by getting spending inline with revenues, and yes, even the Sheriff’s office budget has had some impact. But the fear mongering about police services is clearly unwarranted. To my knowledge there are no money trees in Martinez, so unless you enterprising types can come up with ways to create some, then program and department cuts are a necessity.
As for this running nonsense about Supervisor’s pay, let’s get real. OK, under the current circumstances the timing is bad from a PR standpoint. But nowhere in the printed dialog is it noted that a County Grand Jury was recommending a sizeable increase of 51% or that there hasn’t been so much as a cost of living increase since 2001. The raise ONLY brings them inline with the median salaries of like Counties. If you want quality people running for those positions, you aren’t going to get them by paying peanuts. Taking that back might offer the distracters some “feel good” but it does nothing to solve the budget and revenue issues facing this County. Grand Jury docs are available online, BTW, for the conspiracy theorists who will suggest this is inside info.
Guy Houston is being suggested as some white knight for District III. And his historical accomplishments for this District are what, exactly? His contributors list is a who’s who of Developers, Lobbyists, Indian Gaming and other special interests. But in true knee-jerk style, our most vocal locals who are advocating such things as building moratoriums are supporting him? That’s damn funny, if you ask me. Let’s keep in mind, the District III slot is not Guy’s first or even second choice. It’s his ONLY
choice to keep his political career alive because his own Party wouldn’t support him in a run for a higher position in Sac or DC. Thanks for treating us like the red-headed stepchild there, Guy. Wonder if he would be running if that BoS salary increase were not in place?
Bob Cecchini is a farmer. Don’t know where this poster got any other take on it. Any proposal for development on his land, in a best case scenario, wouldn’t see the light of day for 10 years or better. That is beyond the life expectancy of a couple of folks I’ve watched yell pretty loud against it at local meetings. Further, any proposal for this property has not advanced beyond scribbling on the back of an Aladino’s Pizza napkin, to my knowledge. If anyone is aware of this going beyond very preliminary discussions, then post up where we can find the details of the project on paper.
Discovery Bay Resident, if you read this entire thread you will see that BGR was kind enough to post links to another thread at the bottom of my first post which has both letters. You could also easily get it via a fax request from the Supervisors office or even via a demand for copies of public records docs, if that suits your pleasure. Happy hunting.
I stand corrected in my previous correspondence stating that County Administrator John Cullen supported Guy Houston. Cullen’s positive statements about Houston being an asset to the County should not be mistaken for support. I forgot it was our Supervisor, while the County is asking entire departments to cut back, decided to give Cullen an outrageous raise, like her own, so the taxpayers will be stuck paying his high pension the rest of his life. There’s another real “best management practices” financial decision for you. As soon as Mary leaves the room Houston gets more support than you can imagine. Not good when the people surrounding her are afraid the rath from the Queen will rain down upon them when you don’t agree or support her. Even our own local newspaper has is now supporting Houston. I have a visual of the Supervisor making that phone call and giving them her rath for their smart honest decision.
Fact Finding from DB says: Sheriff gets funding from the Board of Supervisors for more deputies than he is willing to hire and then takes the extra money and blows it.
If this fraudulent description of the process did not have such negative impact, the writer could be excused for simple stupidity. I believe however that his/her motives are more sinister( If your story is not restricted to the truth it is possible to shift blame for any malfeasance). The truth is that, any shift of money from it’s original use must be approved by the BOS’s after review by the County Administrator. County records will show that any budget “surplus” is described as a fund balance and swept back to the County’s General Fund.
“Mr. Fact Finding” has two recurring themes: The Sheriff tricks the BOS into giving him money for Discovery Bay and then spends it on some secret project(s) and the Sheriff wrote a nice letter to Supervisor Piepho and then slammed her in a more public letter. with regard to the first theme, I suggest that the critics of the Sheriff do one or more of the following: 1) review the public records of County Budgets and process, including audio- video recordings of public budget sessions. 2) Ask a third party e.g. the County Administrator to explain the budget and process. 3) Attend the next public hearing on the Budget. ( despite repeated pleas from the Sheriff, not one member or agent of the Discovery Bay Community Service District has argued their concerns over funding to the Board of Supervisors). The second theme is more easily addressed: If Supervisor Piepho will not provide a copy of both letters, ask the Sheriff for copies. I am sure that he will accommodate the request. Just like the Editor from the Discovery Bay Press informed you get involved and find out the real truth. If you listen to David you always get the slanted version. Perhaps Bill Gramham Reefer will contact the Sheriff and verify the truth about the mysterous letter Fact Finder referred to.
Lets talk facts……
You say Sheriff Rupf himself made that statement to the woman? I was there and I never heard her say the sheriff himself made the statement. Big difference don’t ya think.
You mentioned a group that endorsed Piepho but you failed to mention that the endorsement list on her website includes Robert Cecchini the person who owns the 1000 acres next to DB and who optioned that property for a development of up to 6000 homes. Wow Mary Piepho in bed (sorry David) with the person who stands to profit by doubling the size of DB. Nice!
Back to the sheriff and straight answers…..if your read the exact words in his letter…..”the board, over my clearly stated objections, adopted a budget that reduced our maintenance of effort needs by $2M”. To me that is a very clear statement that I take to mean county wide he had $2M less to try to provide the same level of service as could be provided the previous year. We all know this is a big county with a lot going on including some very high crime areas.
To Mr. fact checking in DB: You seem to know a lot about the county budget process. Care to tell us how you come to have this obscure knowledge? Sorry David, the fact remains you are very transparent. I know times will be tough with Mary out of work. I guess a G.E.D. doesn’t quite go as far as it used to.
It is interesting to hear all of these comments about how respectful and caring the Sheriff is to the residents of Discovery Bay. I have lived out here for several years now, and have yet to hear anyone say a good word about him. The latest being at the public forum in Disco. Bay on crime prevention where one poor woman stood up in front of hundreds of people and stated he personally told her the next time she left her door unlocked, he was personally going to burglarize her home. I’m sure he was speaking in jest, but for an officer of the law to speak to anyone in that way, especially after her home was broken into, is extremely unprofessional.I also have to wonder why the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff’s Ass.,the one’s who know the sheriff best, the one’s who work with him side by side everyday do not back him up with his endorsement for Guy Houston, but have endorsed Supervisor Piepho. That says a lot about the sheriff.It also raises some red flags for me about the abilities of the sheriff. I’m also wondering about all the negative comments I’m reading about Houston in the Contra Costa Times- a lawsuit, using campaign funds for jet ski’s and am wondering why he will not give a straight answer for any of these questions.So far all I’ve heard him say is he can’t remember anything or just flat out doesn’t want to discuss it. That also raises red flags. Please, keep the smart remarks to yourselves, I’m just looking for some straight answers in order to make a good decision on who to vote for in the upcoming election!
That makes two posts in a row from individuals who don’t comprehend the budget process for the Sheriff’s department or the discretionary nature of that budget. Let’s put it in simplistic terms that any casual reader could understand. The Sheriff’s office for years has submitted budget requests for Deputy slots. For the sake of this discussion let’s use the figure of 100 Deputies. But the number of Deputies on the job is only 80, so that gives the Sheriff funding going forward to fill 20 slots or put 20 new Deputies on the streets, perhaps even improving the police services within Disco Bay should he see fit. But when he hasn’t filled those slots, has Rupf turned around and given that money back to the County? Of course not. Because he and he alone gets to decide where that lump sum budget actually gets spent, the funding ends up being spent elsewhere within his department and the residents of DB continue to do without an increase in services. Clearly some folks here are falling for his double speak on the issue and not asking the tough questions.
The Board of Supervisors doesn’t dictate that spending and this is where the posters here go off track. Further, to try and pin this problem solely on Piepho suggests an existing personal beef these folks have with her which, judging from the talking points posted here, are preventing them from objectively looking at the problem and asking the tough questions of the right people. Interesting that the town hall meeting is noted. Rupf did not attend, his delegate did. Piepho, OTOH, did not send a Staff member, she was there on her own. The attempt to spin this is rather odd.
Poster “byby_MP” prefaces an entire paragraph with “let’s look at some facts” and then launches into personal jabs at the Supervisor with generous verbage using “in my opinion” and “I think”. Are the facts too inconvenient or just not at the person’s disposal?
As for the suggestion that Houston has all those endorsements, I’m sure that will come as a news flash to John Cullen. The balance of your list is the good ole boys group on who’s watch some of our current financial mess has gotten worse.
While some would like to call the recent letter to the Editor “direct”, I call it unprofessional and rather petty. I still don’t understand why a more professional tone was used in his direct letter to Piepho’s office, then a swipe was taken in the paper. Granted, he’s a Guy Houston supporter, but personally I’m offended when police services within my community are being used as a pawn to get back at one’s political adversaries. If that is your idea of serving and protecting the citizens of this community, then thanks, but no thanks.
Lip service and jaw boning in the OPINION section of the local paper doesn’t put additional Deputies on the streets to reduce the horrible existing ratio of one dedicated Deputy per 10k residents that exists today. But making that effort will provide some talking points and pick off a few of the naïve who don’t understand the budgetary process or who really controls resources within the Sheriff’s department.
Sorry to disappoint, but the name’s not David.
In June the Mary Piepho saga comes to an end. So blah blah blah!!
While it is fair to say the Sheriff has distain for the political antics of the Piepho’s, it is a gross misrepresentation to say that he has anything but respect for the people, the community and issues of Discovery Bay, as he does for all of the citizens of this County.
“Mr. DB Fact Finding” continues to misrepresent the facts associated with unincorporated patrol coverage for the last 20 yrs. Coverage is an extension of funding and the Supervisors has not increased general fund dollars for a single new deputy sheriff position over the last 20 yrs. “Mr. Fact Finding” distorts an objective reality by suggesting that there are only 14 unfunded positions, and that somehow even if there was money, they could not be filled. Wrong on both counts. 14 unfunded positions are simply the latest deputy positions to be unfunded by the Supervisors during the Budget Yr 07-08 and bring the number of positions de-funded to over 50 deputies.”Mr. DB Fact Finding” suggest the Sheriff has been over-funded for many years, and now the Board is simply acting to shift these excess monies to other important needs. The Sheriff has vacancies as every other outlying county and the entire US. “Mr. Fact Finding” suggest Supervisor Piepho is blameless, it takes 3 members of 5 to make any decision. Every individul vote reflects the position, priortization and philosophy of the individual that casts the vote and sends a statement to the communities with regard to importance. To hide behind the majority foresakes one’s own valules and demonstrates a lack of courage and leadership. “Mr. Fact Finding” suggest the Sheriff has not seen fit to reallocate “resources. There is not an area in the County where resources have increased, and even a casual observer should recongnize that the source of increased resources is the responsibility of the Board, not the Sheriff! Our Sheriff only continues to ask them to get their priorities straight to protect the citizens of this County they way they deserve to be protected. It is no wonder why Sheriff Rupf and the 4 top financial officers Polleck, Kramer, Ybarra, Cullen) of this county support Guy Houston.
Let us keep in mind how this current back and forth between Mary Piepho and the Sheriff got started. There has been a perceived increase in crime in DB with no local leadership to seek a solution. In early January concerned citizens convened a town meeting attended by near 500 people. The sheriff’s office participated in this meeting. At the end of the meeting an attendee called on Mary Piepho who was in the audience to comment. She immediately cast dispersions at the sheriff by saying there had been no increase in policing for DB in 20 years. She further insinuated that the sheriff choose to neglect DB. Piepho and Rupf then exchanged letters. Hers was superficial, his was to the point…we need more $$ to even maintain the past level of service. The sheriff then replied to her public comments by way of a very direct letter to the editor. Again he was clear….if you don’t give the $$ I cant give the service. I think the person who said you have an armature vs. a pro is right on. She says lets talk and he says talk does not not put deputies on the street.
For sure this is a county with money problems. There are past mistakes that need to be dealt with. But that does not change the fact that the county government must prioritize and provide necessary services to the tax payers. Lets look at some facts:
Soon after Mary Piepho was elected she voted herself a whopping raise. She has very nice offices and plenty of staff all over her district. The county puts a very high priority on the expansion of social services including luxuries like home health care. The county has said it intends to open a new regional office in East county so to better dole out social services. In my opinion all the above is well and good if the county is flush with cash and not facing a fiscal crises. In my opinion the county’s most important jobs are to protect its citizens, then provide adequate schools, then provide adequate roads/infrastructure; everything else gets looked at when the first three priorities are met. I think Mary Piepho and the BoS have their priorities wrong. Fist fund the cops then consider the rest. At the end of the chain are Mary Piepho’s nice offices, her staff and the “nice-to-have” social services. Ok David the floor is yours. I understand you need to protect the family income.
DBR, that’s an interesting take you have there, but I’m not sure you and I are reading the same letters.
Where in Piepho’s letter did she blame Rupf for lack of coverage? I saw the equivalent of extending her hand to explore solutions. Did I miss a passage somewhere and could you point me to it?
For the sake of discussion, let’s look back 4 years or “pre Piepho”. So what or who was the scapegoat for lack of increased police services back then? Rupf has clearly stated he’s been there to fight for budgets for 14 years. Clearly the tax revenue from DB has increased in that period. Why do you think he’s not seen fit to reallocate resources based on the population growth out here? Are we not worthy?
I am embarrased that our Supervisor Mary Piepho would be so smug to think that we as citizens don’t realize she has cut the Sheriffs budget for the past years. For her to try and blame the Sheriff for the lack of coverage is ridiculous. If Supervisor Piepho was so concerned about the citizens she would be voting to increase his budget instead of cutting it. Our Supervisor has not made one effort or attemtpted to work with the Sheriff to increase is budget, look for alternatives to assist him in protecting the citizens of this County. The mismanagement by the Board Finance Chairwoman is who is to blame for the declining services in our County. I agree with the Mr. Renegade Republican it is time for her to go.
RR, doesn’t appear you’ve done your homework. Rupf has a fairly well documented disdain for Disco Bay that extends back before Piepho took office. Her recent letter to Rupf is in reponse to outcry within DB over some recent high profile home breakins. He counters with some gobbly gook repsonse and you lap it up. If 1 Sheriff Deputy per 10k residents sounds like adquate coverage for DB(unchanged in almost 20 years), then let’s agree to disagree.
Further, the 14 unfilled positions for which he’s claiming are now unfunded, he hasn’t been able to fill open Deputy slots for years. If memory serves, the count was as high as 30 at one time. I’ve personally witnessed the the pleas from Deputies to send any potential Candidates their way for a couple of years now. Forget this thinly veiled nonsense that it is somehow responsible for reducing coverage or that Piepho herself is the one to blame. I believe there are 5 Supervisors and it takes 3 to decide a vote.
So after years of overfunding for unfilled billets and under tremendous budget pressures all around, you can’t understand why the Supes pull back excess monies for those unfilled slots?
You might also request a copy of a letter Rupf sent directly to the Supervisor’s office and attempt to reconcile the very different tone between it and the Letter to the Editor. A little grandstanding maybe?
~Editor says… we believe we did publish both the Piepho and Rupf letters you mention in the Point-Counterpoint post. If there is some other document we don’t have, maybe someone can send it along so people can judge for themselves whether Sheriff Rupf is “grandstanding” or not. bgr
Piepho the amature for picking a fight with Sheriff Rupf. She just does not unerstand the high level of respect that the public in Contra Costa holds the its Sheriffs. Sheriff Rupf like Sheriff Rainey before him are solid public servants who love this county and care about the safety of the people who live here. Mary Piepho is a political amature who got lucky to be elected as supervisor four years ago. It is time for her to go!!
Next Comments →