Skip Alexander: a new name in the race for sheriff

Phil Redmond may have won the Republican nomination for Iredell County sheriff in the May 4 primary, but the election results couldn’t have possibly left the incumbent feeling overly confident.

After all, more voters in his own party voted against him than for him.

Mooresville resident Robert E. “Skip” Alexander plans to tap into that momentum, joining Redmond and Democratic challenger Bill Stamey on the Nov. 2 ballot as an unaffiliated candidate for Iredell sheriff. The Iredell County Board of Elections on Thursday verified “well above the 4,037 signatures of Iredell County voters required” for Alexander’s name to be included on the general-election ballot.

“Unfortunately, the May 4 primary found 87 percent of Iredell’s voters uninvolved,” states a press release issued by Alexander’s campaign late last week. But of the voters who turned out, “51 percent of Republican voters voted against Sheriff Redmond,” the release points out.

“Two days after the May primary,” it continues, “a Statesville Record & Landmark editorial acknowledged ‘…this election has highlighted several areas where a large number of people feel Redmond and his department could improve. What is perceived as poor inter-agency cooperation and unfair treatment of certain deputies…’

“These observations,” Alexander’s campaign states, “fit squarely with a January 4, 1995 front page R&L report, following Phil Redmond’s first election, that ‘…14 sheriff’s department employees were not resworn after the November election.’ A 14 year veteran deputy was given just three days notice of his termination.”

Alexander’s campaign contends that “such a history may explain why many current and former Sheriff’s Office employees hesitate to express their concerns publicly.”

What Alexander’s campaign didn’t mention in its release was Redmond’s more recent firings of four part-time/reserve deputies who supported a different candidate for sheriff in the May 4 primary. In addition to firing those employees and dropping their law-enforcement certifications, Redmond dropped the certifications of five other inactive officers. All nine had supported Republican challenger Mark Nicholson in the primary. (For more, visit http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/06/sheriff-on-collision-course-with.html)

Alexander, according to his campaign press release, “was encouraged to run for sheriff by citizens concerned about matters within the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office and its relationships with other first responder organizations.”

The press release states that Alexander “is continuing his one-to-one contacts with Iredell voters, and will do this as Sheriff, regularly interacting with residents, schools, and organizations throughout the county.” Alexander will also “focus credit for achievements upon all enforcement and corrections personnel, not upon his own re-election.”

Being an unaffiliated candidate, Alexander has had to work harder to join the sheriff’s race than the candidates who vied in the May 4 primary. He also was not able to participate in a candidates’ forum that preceded the primary, which means he’ll have to play catch up with Redmond and Stamey.

Like the other candidates in the primary, Alexander agrees that drugs are “the foremost crime problem in Iredell County - in our communities and in our schools.” He says “to best target illegal drugs and other crime problems, it is essential that all levels of law enforcement – municipal, county, state, and federal – have strong, cooperative relationships and joint efforts.” Alexander, according to his press release, also "supports the right of honest, law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for sport and self-protection."

Alexander says his focus and vision as sheriff would include:

• A visible sheriff, in uniform, a role model professionally and personally
• Aggressive, county-wide response to drugs, gangs, violent crime, DWIs
• Strengthening relationships with police, fire, medics, SBI, federal agencies
• Leadership by example and encouragement, not politics or intimidation

Alexander “believes that a law enforcement leader, acting with fairness, openness, and honesty, serves best by equipping, advocating for, and encouraging all of his personnel.” His hope “is that Iredell will be a great place to live and work, and that the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office will be a great place to serve and grow as a law enforcement or corrections professional.”

Alexander – whose father served 39 years with the N.C. State Highway Patrol – served almost 24 years as an FBI Special Agent in four states and at FBI headquarters as an investigator, negotiator, legal advisor, and supervisor. At age 54, he completed Basic Law Enforcement Training. He has served alongside corrections personnel while teaching Bible studies at Mecklenburg’s Jail Central, and he has also served as a reserve deputy in the Mecklenburg County Sheriffs Office. As a youth, Alexander served as a Red Cross instructor and Civil Air Patrol Cadet. His passion for volunteering has followed him into adulthood, serving his church, nonprofit boards, EMT squad, Peace Officers for Christ, and Boy Scouts.

He and his wife, Amanda, have twin sons, David and Matt, 22, and have served as foster parents to 19 children. For more information on Alexander, visit www.Alexander4Sheriff.com.

So what are your thoughts on Alexander joining the race for sheriff? Even before he officially joined, people were already abuzz about what impact a third candidate would have on the race. Many people have expressed doubt that an unaffiliated candidate stands a chance at all. Some believe that Alexander may simply take votes away from Stamey, who already faces an uphill climb since he is a Democratic challenger in an overwhelmingly conservative county. Still others believe Alexander’s involvement is the perfect example of what the democratic process is all about – and the additional competition will force a healthier race and give options to voters.

Another observation: Mooresville’s voter turnout in the May 4 primary was nothing short of shameful. What impact, if any, will Alexander’s candidacy have on southern Iredell County voters since he is a Mooresville resident?

Former top cop turns himself in; released on bond

Former Mooresville Police Chief John Crone turned himself in earlier today to the Iredell County jail and has since been released on a $5,000 secured bond.

Crone was indicted last month by a state grand jury (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/crone-indicted.html). He is charged with two counts of embezzlement by a public official and one count of obstructing justice.

More details as they become available...

Sheriff on collision course with Constitution?

Iredell County Sheriff Phil Redmond may have violated the U.S. Constitution when he fired four reserve/part-time officers and dropped the law-enforcement certifications of nine people – including the four who were fired – who openly supported Mark Nicholson, Redmond’s strongest competitor, in the May 4 primary.

The day after the primary results were in, the sheriff’s office began contacting four of Nicholson’s supporters who were reserve/part-time officers to inform them that their “services are no longer needed” by the sheriff. The sheriff then dropped those four individuals’ certifications, which means they cannot practice law enforcement unless or until another agency agrees to hold their certifications. If within one year they do not find someone to hold their certifications, they would have to start over with basic law-enforcement training if they ever decide to enter the law-enforcement profession again.

In addition to firing those four officers and dropping their certifications, the sheriff – within 10 days after the primary – took it upon himself to drop the certifications of five additional inactive officers who openly supported Nicholson. The reason provided: “resignation of officer.” But interestingly, the officers had been resigned from the sheriff’s office for up to a decade. Though they were inactive, Redmond had chosen to hold their certifications - obviously until they chose to openly support someone else for sheriff.

While employment in North Carolina is generally at-will, which means an employer can fire an employee for virtually any reason, public employers such as the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office are obligated to abide by the Constitution. And Redmond’s apparent decision to alter the employment status of nine Nicholson supporters may have run afoul of the First Amendment’s protection of the right of political association. This is the case despite the generally at-will nature of employment in North Carolina, as explained by the Supreme Court.

The Court has held that “the First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate.”

Supreme Court Justices also agreed in 1976 that “the practice of patronage dismissals is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” because they “severely restrict political belief and association” (Elrod v. Burns). “Political belief and association constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment …”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~ First Amendment

One potential exception to the rule is a person who helps set policy – that person can actually be dismissed if s/he supported another candidate or is a member of a different party. The Justices noted “the need for political loyalty of employees, not to the end that effectiveness and efficiency be insured, but to the end that representative government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration, policies presumably sanctioned by the electorate.”

Therefore, the Court held: “Limiting patronage dismissals to policymaking positions is sufficient to achieve this governmental end.”

The problem that the Court acknowledged with that, however, is that “no clear line can be drawn between policymaking and nonpolicymaking positions.”

“Nonpolicymaking individuals usually have only limited responsibility and are therefore not in a position to thwart the goals of the in-party,” the Court said. At the same time, however, even someone with a number of responsibilities cannot necessarily be considered a policymaking individual. Therefore, “the nature of the responsibilities is critical.”

“An employee with responsibilities that are not well defined or are of broad scope more likely functions in a policymaking position,” the Court said. “In determining whether an employee occupies a policymaking position, consideration should also be given to whether the employee acts as an adviser or formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals …”

The Court placed the “burden of establishing this justification” onto the shoulders of the public employer. Cases in doubt, it was determined, should be resolved in favor of public employees.

“More fundamentally, however,” the Court determined, “any contribution of patronage dismissals to the democratic process does not suffice to override their severe encroachment on First Amendment freedoms. We hold, therefore, that the practice of patronage dismissals is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments …”

In concurring in the judgment in Elrod v. Burns, Justice Stewart noted: “The single substantive question involved in this case is whether a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee can be discharged or threatened with discharge from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs. I agree with the plurality that he cannot.”

When the Iredell County sheriff and his sworn staff take their oath of office, they affirm by God that they will “not be influenced in any matter on account of personal bias or prejudice” and that they will “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States…” They also swear to “faithfully and impartially discharge and execute the duties of [their] office as a law-enforcement officer” to the best of their skills, abilities and judgment.

Many comments have been made here during the past few months asserting that sheriff’s office employees fear retaliation for practicing the freedoms that are enjoyed by common citizens – freedoms that are granted and protected by the U.S. Constitution. And many people, throughout the campaign season, stated that employees at the sheriff’s office are often reminded that they “work at the pleasure of the sheriff.”

That kind of work environment seems to contradict the very principles that the sheriff has listed on his homepage (www.iredellsheriff.com). Among those principles:

• recognizing the importance of each individual employee,
• maintaining a work environment where employees can grow professionally, and
• upholding the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of North Carolina.

The U.S. Constitution gives citizens the right to speak and associate freely. And the Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms that firing public employees because of political association is unconstitutional.

Yet shortly after the Iredell County primary, Redmond fired four part-time/reserve officers and then dropped their certifications, along with the certifications of five other inactive officers, who had demonstrated their support for another sheriff candidate during the campaign season.

If Redmond in fact altered those individuals’ employment and/or certification status simply because they supported a different candidate for sheriff, he very well may have done so in violation of the Constitution.

And, unfortunately, the sheriff’s recent actions seem to lend credibility to the assertions that public employees within the sheriff’s department have real cause to fear retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights and freedoms.

Crone indicted

Former Mooresville Police Chief John Crone has been indicted by a state grand jury, the Report has learned from a number of sources this week.

The charges are unknown at this time because the indictment was apparently ordered sealed. That means the charges will not be public record until the indictment is served.

Nearly two years have passed since questions were first posted here about Crone’s Cops for Kids organization (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-cops-for-kids.html). Within a week after the Report and The Mooresville Tribune exposed questions about, and discrepancies in, the Cops for Kids financial records – including a $361 deposit of “loose change from the evidence room” into the Cops for Kids account – the Town of Mooresville asked the DA's Office to bring in the SBI to investigate. And within the month, Crone was suspended, then fired.

Three months ago, District Attorney Sarah Kirkman confirmed that the SBI’s probe was complete but said she still had questions for the investigating agent (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/sbis-cops-for-kids-probe-complete-da.html).

It’s clear those questions have been answered.

What is not as clear is why the indictment issued early this week was sealed, and why it apparently hasn’t yet been served. Current and former members of the law-enforcement community indicated to the Report this week that it’s common practice for the judicial system to allow current/former government officials – and even some private citizens – to turn themselves in, as opposed to being shamed by an official serving of an indictment.

The Iredell County Sheriff’s Office will reportedly be responsible for serving the indictment.

We’ll keep you posted as more information becomes available.

Victim receives check, tongue-lashing from sheriff's chief deputy

Less than 24 hours after Robert Goforth went public with his recent experience with the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office, he was hand-delivered a $3,715 county check from the sheriff's right-hand man, Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle.

Goforth also received an apology – but not before being lambasted by the chief deputy himself.

Dowdle showed up at Goforth’s house, unannounced, Thursday morning, being driven by another man whose identity is unknown. In Dowdle's hand was a county check for $3,715 – restitution for the sheriff’s office destroying Goforth’s property in violation of state law (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/04/evidence-room-error-destroys-property.html)

“I got this check for you,” Dowdle said to Goforth, “but I’m a little disappointed this turned into being a political thing.”

“I’m just disappointed that it turned out … why somebody take this and … I don’t know that you had anything to do with it … but somebody take this and turns this into a political situation that they don’t know what they’re talking about,” stammered Dowdle. “And that bothers me.

“I wouldn’t think that you would back something like that without being man enough to come and look me in the face and explain the situation to me,” the chief deputy said to Goforth. “Now am I right or wrong?”

Interestingly, however, when Goforth asked Dowdle later in the conversation – a link to which can be accessed on this page – if he could “go to the person that destroyed [his property] and ask them myself why they did such a foolish thing,” Dowdle refused to provide names. “Well, I’m not going to give out the names for that because I’m not going to get them involved in this,” Dowdle said.



Oftentimes stuttering and not completing his sentences, Dowdle apologized that Goforth’s property had been destroyed. But each apology was followed by yet another tongue-lashing. “I’m sorry; this don’t happen. We don’t do this,” Dowdle said, interrupting Goforth and talking over him. “If you go to the finance office, I don’t go write restitution checks for property that we get destroyed because that ain’t the way we do business.

“But when things get strung out to other people, and get misled, that’s what bothers me,” the chief deputy continued, adding: “I hope you understand that cause that’d be just like me turning around and writing something about you that, you know, that aint the way you do business. And that’s why it bothers me.”

At one particular point in the conversation, Dowdle sounded sympathetic toward Goforth. The chief deputy explained that while he cannot account for the items that were destroyed, he said one possible explanation is that the evidence room had been moved. “We moved to a different building,” he said. “Some of this stuff could’ve got put into some things that got destroyed. I don’t know that. But it could have been a mistake.”

Dowdle said “the paperwork had marked it being destroyed. When we found the paperwork – when you brought it up – that’s when I got involved.

“Understand,” said Dowdle, “I ain’t been involved in this but a couple weeks. I don’t know how far this thing goes back, but I think it goes back quite a bit of time.”

However, said Dowdle, “I don’t think somebody would’ve took the artifacts like that … the common sense person … gonna take artifacts like that and just destroy them.”

Dowdle said he had recently ordered Det. Poteat to look into how and why the items were destroyed. “That don’t make no sense to me,” Dowdle said. “Why would you go out here a destroy a steam engine? That don’t make no sense to me because I got ‘em myself.”

But once again, any apology – or any attempt by Dowdle to treat Goforth like the victim he is – was short-lived. “I’m a good person, and I’m sure you are, too,” said the chief deputy, “but it just disappointed me that I hear that somebody took that information and sent it to somewhere that has totally nothing to do with this situation.

“Rumors makes in for a bad situation,” Dowdle said. “I’m not a man that deals with rumors. You put facts in front of me. And I would think you’d be the kind of a person that wouldn’t go off of rumors, too,” the chief deputy said to Goforth.

“You got problems, come and talk to me,” Dowdle continued. “I don’t like somebody going around saying this or saying that. I can come and tell you 10,000 things, but, you know, unless you got the facts in front of you, that bothers me.”

“And, you know, the sheriff don’t … I assure you … we don’t go around just destroying peoples’ property,” Dowdle said, chuckling. “It don’t work like that. We’ve been in office too long for that to happen.”

Dowdle continued: “I don’t go on these blogs and stuff that gets throwed out there. I’ve never had the opportunity to come and talk to you and then I hear that my name’s getting throwed around that I won’t pay you. And that was totally not the fact.”

Dowdle did not elaborate on who, exactly, has stated that he would not pay Goforth.

Continued Dowdle: “This is an election time; you know that. People’s picking up every little rock they can throw left and right. Has any of them people throwed any rocks come and stood in front of me? No. What does that tell you?”

“I’ll leave it at that,” Dowdle said.

Though Dowdle said he had been involved Goforth’s case for “a couple weeks,” Goforth said Thursday’s visit was the first contact he had received from any top-ranking official with the sheriff’s office. To date, he still has not heard from the sheriff, Phil Redmond.

County finance director Susan Blumenstein said today that the county check for Mr. Goforth was from “sales proceeds from items sold through the Jail Commissary to inmates.” In other words, she said, “no taxpayer funds were used to make the payment.”

Evidence room error destroys property and raises questions

The evidence room at the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office has problems.

Less than two years ago, Sheriff Phil Redmond told the Statesville Record & Landmark that “the smallest scrap of paper and a vehicle merit the same detailed accounting process” in the evidence room. "We have multiple checks and balances to make sure everything is done properly," he told the newspaper.

But at some point between November 2007 and March 2010, the sheriff’s office, in violation of state law, destroyed personal property belonging to Statesville resident Robert Goforth.

Over the course of five different incidents since 2003, Goforth has had thousands of dollars worth of items stolen from buildings on his East Iredell property, from antique, solid-oak furniture and other household items to engines, farming equipment and tools.

Some of the property has been recovered and returned to Goforth. Some of it was logged in as evidence at the sheriff’s office pending resolution of the cases. And some of the people who were convicted for the break-ins have been ordered to pay restitution to Goforth, although he said he has not received a penny of the restitution to date.

And now, Goforth is expecting a restitution payment – up to $3,715 – from the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office itself, after it destroyed, without a court order, items that had been seized in connection with the break-ins and were supposed to be stored for safe-keeping as evidence until the court cases were resolved.

Those items (from two different break-ins, one in 2003 and the other in 2005) include what Goforth calls “odd-ball antiques and collectibles” – all family heirlooms – including tools, a Surge Milker, a cream separator and a Weeden No. 32 Eureka steam engine, which Goforth said was a metal engine made before World War I.

But perhaps the biggest personal loss to Goforth was a plastic, battery-powered M14 rifle that he received for Christmas from his grandparents when he was a boy.

Goforth remembers being enamored at the time with the black-and-white television series “Combat!” about “World War II dogfaces in Germany,” Goforth said. Being the craze at the time, toy companies manufactured children’s toys after the series, including play sets, coloring books and games.

Goforth remembers the Combat! M14 rifle being among the most coveted of the Combat! toys. Being from a poor family, Goforth recalls wanting the toy rifle when he was in the first grade, but he didn’t expect to receive it when he asked for it for Christmas that year. But to his surprise and delight, his grandparents bought it for him. “It was one of the biggest prizes,” Goforth said, becoming emotional.

“I took good care of it all those years,” he said. “When you’re poor, you take good care of things. We learned that if you can’t take care of what you’ve got, you won’t get anything else.”

Goforth said he was ecstatic when he learned that the sheriff’s office had recovered the stolen toy rifle from one of the initial break-ins and had it safely stored in the evidence room. “I was so thankful that was found and identified. I was really longing for the day to get that back.”

But Goforth would never see the toy again.

In November, Goforth visited the sheriff’s office to pick up items from the fifth and most recent break-in. While there, he said he asked Property and Evidence Staff Sgt. Darlene Wells about items that deputies had retrieved from prior break-ins and had stored in the evidence room. Goforth told the Report this week that he had asked the sheriff's office to notify him when the cases were resolved so he could retrieve his personal property, but he never received such notification.

On March 2, the District Attorney’s office drafted a letter, which Goforth took to the sheriff’s office, saying any property belonging to Goforth and still in the possession of the sheriff’s office could be released. The letter, signed by Assistant District Attorney Mikko Red Arrow, stated that the property “was no longer needed by the District Attorney’s Office and may be returned to the lawful owner(s).”

Upon being provided the letter from the DA’s office, Wells looked for Goforth’s property in the evidence room, Goforth said. He said she found the “paper trail” for the property, but could not find the property itself.

At that time, Goforth said he approached Donna Swicegood with the Statesville Record & Landmark, which had previously written the story about the security systems governing the evidence room, asking the newspaper to look into the matter. An article was never written.

Meanwhile, Goforth was contacted by Lt. Andy Poteat, who had apparently been assigned to the case of the missing evidence. Poteat broke the news to Goforth that the sheriff’s office had destroyed his property.

In a recent telephone conversation between Goforth and Poteat, a recording of which can be accessed via the link on this page, Poteat said he had “talked with the folks [at the sheriff’s office] about it, and the lady confirmed, ‘Yeah, my signature’s on it. It was destroyed.’

“So that’s all I’ve had to go on,” Poteat told Goforth. “They didn’t say anything about a court order. They said it was destroyed. That’s why they signed off on it.”

Poteat acknowledged that the sheriff’s office destroyed the evidence without a court order. Said Goforth: “They did not follow procedures of law.”

Referencing the toy rifle in his conversation with Poteat, Goforth said: “For that to be foolishly destroyed, especially without a court order, is really a grievous thing for me.” He added that the steam engine “was something that was given to me by my father who’s no longer living.”

Poteat said that he was ordered by Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle to find out from Goforth the value of the items that were destroyed so the sheriff’s office could make restitution.

Goforth said the monetary value of the items is secondary to the sentimental value that the items held. And no amount of money can make up for that, he told the Report.

Goforth told the sheriff’s office his destroyed property was worth $3,715. Goforth compiled a list of the items, along with their value, and had it notarized before submitting it to the sheriff’s office earlier this week. He is currently awaiting his restitution payment. As of today, he has not received it.

Goforth, in his conversation with Poteat, asked from what type of fund the restitution would be paid.

“You’re asking questions that I don’t know the answer to,” Poteat said. “That’s not my territory. Matter of fact, this is the first time I’ve ever dealt with anything like this. And the only reason that I got involved was they asked me to look into it to see what was going on, if I could figure it out, and I did the best I could to come up with what I can, but I wasn’t part of the cases. I didn’t turn the stuff in way-back-when, with the exception of the three nut drivers. Well actually I just handed those to another detective that did. That’s neither here nor there.”

Poteat is referencing the initial break-in at Goforth’s. Poteat himself signed the paperwork on the evidence logged by the sheriff’s office from that 2003 break-in – three Craftsman nut drivers. Those tools were among Goforth’s destroyed property; all the other property that the sheriff’s office destroyed was from a break-in two years later, in 2005.

When Goforth provided the combined total of $3,715 in losses to Poteat in the telephone conversation last week, Poteat said: “I will pass this figure on to Chief Dowdle. And I guess I’ll call you back. Or better yet, I’ll ask him to call you back, maybe. Whichever way he wants to do it. He might tell … well anyway, I’ll wait and see what he tells me and I’ll be back in touch with you.”

Poteat assured Goforth that “whatever happened” to the property, “it wasn’t the detectives. It happened in the evidence room, and that’s where the mistake is, and I sincerely hope the folks are gonna fix this.

“Actually,” Poteat added, “it has already been fixed because none of them are working there anymore. But still, that’s neither here nor there and I hope my bosses do what they can to correct any problems there, prevent any future issues. But, I think they will actually.”

Goforth told the Report that he is disheartened by the actions of the sheriff’s office. “They are in charge of taking care of people,” he said.

Goforth shared with Poteat his suspicion that “someone [at the sheriff’s office] had helped themselves to my stuff.” Said Goforth: “I would rather have my stuff back, and – I don’t know – I’ve just got a bad feeling. I think somebody just helped themselves to my stuff, actually, more than it being destroyed. But that’s just my opinion, but I don’t know.”

Replied Poteat: “Well, like I said, I’m just going by what I can find, and everything I can find – the paperwork – it says it was destroyed. I’m just going by the computer so that’s where I stand on that one.”

Poteat added to Goforth: “Actually, I was hoping I would find your stuff too. I was hoping somebody made just a typo and it was in a corner somewhere. But in no accounts can I find anything.”

In August 2008, the Town of Mooresville Police Department was embroiled in controversy over a deposit slip with a handwritten note showing that the police department – then under Chief John Crone – had deposited “loose change” from the evidence room into the department’s Cops for Kids account.

At that time, the Statesville Record & Landmark published an article that addressed the “multiple layers of safeguards” in place at the sheriff’s office and the Statesville Police Department.

Redmond cited the “multiple checks and balances” in the evidence room. Interestingly, however, he said that those “checks and balances” are exactly what “helped uncover improper procedures in (the) handling of some surrendered weapons.”

A date for that incident was not provided in the article, but it states that “the weapons were handed over by their owner to a deputy, who didn't follow the right procedures in submitting those weapons to the evidence room.” Redmond said the guns “were not evidence in any case.” However, he told the newspaper, “those procedures still needed to be followed.”

The referenced deputy was not named in the article; however, Redmond told the newspaper that the deputy “got in trouble because it wasn’t handled properly.”

According to the Record & Landmark article, Redmond said “it was the tight set of regulations for handling evidence that brought” that particular situation to light. “And changes were made,” the newspaper reported.

Those changes didn’t help prevent the improper (and probably illegal) destruction of Robert Goforth’s property. And that raises a number of questions: what procedures are in place at the sheriff’s evidence room? Why and how did they break down in this case? And how much other property, if any, has been wrongly destroyed or otherwise disappeared from the sheriff’s evidence room?

Top cops meeting less than sheriff said

Just how strong are the relationships between the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies?

At the April 13 candidates’ forum, all four men seeking to oust Phil Redmond said if the relationships exist at all, they are strained and need improvement. One candidate pointed out that the higher the rank, the worse the communication seems between the agencies.

But Redmond disputed that. “The higher up you go, we’ve got a good working relationship; I think the chief of police would back that up,” he said, citing joint task forces with the Statesville Police Department and monthly meetings “to interact” with the police chiefs of Statesville, Troutman and Mooresville.

But e-mails this week from all three municipal chiefs revealed that the three have not met collectively with Redmond for a monthly meeting. And two of the three chiefs have met together with him only once in the past six months. Statesville Police Chief Tom Anderson said that meeting occurred the first week of December 2009.

Troutman Police Chief Matthew Selves, who attended the meeting with Redmond and Anderson, said during the meeting, “we talked about meeting again in January but I knew that I was going to have a scheduling conflict for that date.”

Mooresville Police Chief Carl Robbins said he hasn’t been meeting with the sheriff at all. “I cannot speak for the other chiefs since they may meet with him regularly,” said Robbins, “but I have not been meeting with him.”

Robbins said that Redmond sent a message to him “sometime after August 2009,” stating that “he wanted to start having a lunchtime meeting every month with the chiefs.” However, Robbins said, “Just before the first scheduled meeting, someone had a scheduling conflict and we did not meet as scheduled.”

The meetings were not planned monthly, said Selves: “I would wait to hear a date from the Sheriff’s Office."

The sheriff apparently decided recently that he wants to resurrect the idea of monthly joint meetings. "A few weeks ago," said Robbins, "I received another message that the Sheriff wanted to start meeting again."

Selves said he believes the joint monthly meetings would be beneficial for the law enforcement community. “The Troutman Police Department feels that anytime law enforcement is able to interact in these types of meetings and/or in the field of operations, the entire law enforcement network in Iredell County is strengthened,” he said.

Said Statesville’s Anderson: “my department strives on a daily basis to work proactively with all law enforcement agencies and the community as well. This is a priority for my agency.”