Time To Make A Choice!


GOP    I have waited to see how things would play out in the proposed write-in campaign by Jeff Christopher. And now it has come time for some people to make a choice.     cry baby   We all know that the soon to be, former Sussex County   Sheriff, Jeff Christopher, lost the Republican primary, and has now decided to run a write in campaign. Okay, well that is his right, and even though the numbers are against him, he is free to waste his time and money anyway he chooses. Better he waste his money, rather than wasting more of the tax payer’s money on more futile law suits just so he can play Hopalong Cassidy.

Shortly after the primary failure Mr. Christopher called a meeting of his supporters, which I attended at great risk to my sanity, at which there was a large number of Sussex County Executive Committee members in attendance.

Here is the list I post previously,

  John Rieley, Sussex GOP Chairman

   Fred Silva, Sussex GOP Vice Chairman

   Miguel Pirez-Fabar, Sussex GOP Parliamentarian

   Laurene Purdy,  Election District Chair of the 14th RD

   Tom Jordan, Election District Chair of the 20th RD

   Will Fox, Election District Chair of the 36th RD

   Jim Dundas, RD Chairman of the 36th

   Vincent Calabro, RD Chairman 40th

   Larry Calhoun, Election District Chair of the 40th

   Phil Daisey, Election District Chair of the 40th

   Lacey Lafferty, Election District Chair of the 40th, and supposed candidate for governor 2016

   Scott Witzke, Election District Chair of the 40th

   Matt Opaliski, RD Chairman of the 35th

In my previous post I abstained from pointing out what any of these people said, I was willing to wait and see where their loyalty would fall.
It has become clear that some of these people have decided that they are more beholden to Jeff Christopher than they are to the GOP. And that is fine, but if they choose, as some already have, to support and to actively campaign for a write-in candidate who is in opposition to the endorsed GOP candidate Robert Lee, then they should resign immediately from their positions within the Committee.
At the meeting held following the primary loss, Sussex GOP Chairman John Rieley spoke up against a write-in campaign, even though he supports Jeff Christopher’s position on the issue of a so-called constitutional sheriff. Mr. Rieley was quite clear in his opinion that this write-in campaign would fail based on simple numbers, he was booed and shouted at.
Other members of the Committee were more than ready to commit to helping Jeff Christopher that night, one in particular,  Laurene Purdy,  Election District Chair of the 14th RD, stated more than once that she did not care what effect the write-in might have on other GOP candidates on the ticket, another point made by Chairman Rieley.
She has since posted on social media comments that Jeff Christopher has always had her support.

Purdy   Ms. Purdy is also closely affiliated to Lacey Lafferty, Lacey unplugged   Ms. Lafferty has been telling us that she will be a GOP candidate for governor in 2016, she is also an ED in the 40th,  Ms. Lafferty has also shown strong support for Jeff Christopher, she has posted instructional videos of how to do a write-in vote following Mr. Christopher’s announcement of his intentions.

Another Committee member Larry Mayo, an ED in the 20th has also shared the instructional video with the title, “this is how we do it”.   larry mayo
So as you can see, there are just a few members of the Executive Committee who are openly supporting a challenger to the GOP endorsed candidate, which they are free to do, but in my opinion, not from within the Committee. And these are just the ones who have dared to be open in their support, who knows how many others are quietly working for Jeff Christopher, using GOP email list and other resources?

There are also outside agitators at work here as well, the IPOD people are working with Jeff Christopher in the hopes of leaching voters away from the GOP and into their completely irrelevant third, or maybe it’s fourth party.

State Republican Chairman, Charlie Copeland made it crystal clear in an email blast that party members were to support the primary winners and endorsed GOP candidates.

I did want to re-enforce one of the messages from this weekend’s Convention… The Republican Party State Committee and Executive Committee sent a strong message in 2010 —Republicans want to have Primary Elections to determine our candidates.

One week ago we held those elections, and we have our candidates. As members of the Executive Committee, it is our role as leaders to reflect and promote the values of our Party — and that means that we need to focus all of our attentions on helping our Republican candidates get elected. This means that we should not assist the losers of Primaries switch Parties or run write-in campaigns.

Look, I’ve lost elections — and it stinks. However, Republicans have made their choice. We are the leaders of the Republican Party, which means that we need to respect the will of the people & support the winners.

Warmest Regards,
Charlie Copeland

Chairman – Delaware Republican State Committee
Phone: 302-377-1465

It is clear that there is an element within the Sussex GOP Committee that is not loyal to either the GOP, or its endorsed candidates. Chairman John Rieley did the right thing when he spoke against the write-in campaign, he now needs to once again show his loyalty to the GOP and act to purge the detrimental element from the Committee.

The rules of the Sussex County Executive Committee are as follows for removal of its members,

Article VI, sec.4, sub sec. c; states, ” Voluntary actions or omissions that are deemed as significantly against the interests of the National, Delaware State, or Sussex County Republican Party.” 

Since I was removed using this very section, I believe it is reasonable to say that supporting a write-in candidate against the endorsed GOP candidate clearly falls under this definition of being, “significantly against the interests of the National, Delaware State, or Sussex County Republican Party.

So as I have said, it is time for some people to make some choices, will the Committee members who support Jeff Christopher choose to continue to support him, and  resign with some semblance of honor. Or will Chairman Rieley choose to call for their resignations, and or move to out them otherwise, or will he choose to preside over a rogue committee that he has no control over as its chairman?

This was taken at Jimmy’s Grille on Friday morning 10/10/14, notice that this is Tom Jordan wearing what looks like a Sheriff Christopher T-Shirt, Tom is the RD of the 20th, and the husband of Nelly Jordan, state Vice-Chair for the GOP, and sitting beside Tom is Laurene Purdy, ED of the 14th.  Looks to me like they are openly supporting Jeff Christopher, since they were at Jimmy’s to support Jeff Christopher who was being interviewed.



54 Comments on "Time To Make A Choice!"

  1. I never understood blind party loyalty. It’s one of those concepts that has destroyed the political system. If more people would ignore the party affiliation and vote for what they think is right, maybe we would have better public servants running a more efficient government.

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR, we are not talking about voting here, everyone is free to vote as they choose when they enter the booth. We are talking about people who have taken on positions to represent the GOP, to work to elect Republicans and have in essence agreed to support the party in general. The people who choose to support Christopher are free to do so, but again, in my opinion, not from a position of leadership from within the party, they need only to resign those positions, or be asked to leave.
    I liken it to being hired to work at McDonalds, but when people come to the drive-thru window you keep telling them to eat at Burger King, how long would you have that job?

  3. waterpirate says:

    Spot om Frank!
    To be a SCC member and fly in the face of direction from the Chairman JR, and the state Chair CC, is a conflict of interest of epic proportions and how the Chairman deals with this issue will be the litmus test for relavance. Stay tuned.

  4. Dave says:


    The problem you have with all these individuals is not what the say or do. Rather, it is the fact that they are members (and holders of positions) within the Republican Party. The questions to ask yourself are these people actually Republicans? I don’t mean their registration, I mean in their principles, values, concepts. One the GOPs idols is Reagan. But ask yourself if even Reagan could win in today’s party? Would he get the nomination? You know the answer as well as I.

    The second set of questions you should be asking, is if these individuals are not real Republicans, how did they manage to get in positions of responsibility within the party? What failure of real Republicans opened the door to those who hijacked the party? And lastly, how do you expel them? Or can you? Is the GOP gone forever, existing only as a fringe party? Or is there some hope for the party?

    Christopher’s write in campaign is the means by which you can determine the true colors of those who are currently members of your party. That you don’t like what you see is evident, but you need to figure out how those people got in the door, and delude yourself that it’s because the GOP has a big tent. We both know they don’t.

  5. Reasonable Resolution says:

    This is a very simple fix, and no ones principles need be questioned. If you are supporting a candidate other than the R, you need to resign your committee position. Those who supported Christine asked for nothing less, it’s time to see if folks support the Party or if they are Republicans in Name Only (RINO).

  6. Frank, I understand that. But sometimes the party makes bad decisions. Would you really want a bunch of “my party, right or wrong” people running the show? We’d be having a different conversation if the election decisively favored Lee, but a 21 vote lead is not a decisive victory. Instead of posting pics of crying babies and ridiculing those in the party who sided with the Republican candidate who lost by a mere 21 votes, Republicans should be asking why is there an almost even split on the candidates and what should the party be doing to unite themselves behind one candidate. Like it or not, about half the party believes a sheriff should have arrest powers and the other half sees arrest powers as a non-issue. What is Lee and the Republican leadership doing to address the wishes of the half of the party who sees arrest powers as an important issue? Had you posted a pic of an ostrich with its head in the sand and touched on the failure of Lee and the Republican leadership to address the concerns of the other half of the party, that would have been a big step towards uniting the party instead of further dividing it.

    Just my two cents worth.

  7. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    An RD or ED chair who doesn’t support the primary winner must step down or be removed immediately. Many of the people on the above list were part of the “Great Sussex County GOP Purge” in 2010 and 2011 when the “moderates” were removed from the ranks, and now they want a pass for themselves?!?! Get out hypocrites! That includes the treacherous slimeball David Anderson from Dover who had a Democrat’s sign on his lawn during the primary.
    What is the 14th RD doing running around with Jeff Christopher when her District couldn’t come up with an opponent for Pete Schwartzkoff?????? Purdy needs to walk down the plank first! Her dereliction of duty should not go unpunished.

  8. Winston says:

    Frank, give me a reason why you added a photo of yourself as an infant, sniveling and whining over the write in candidacy of Christopher. I see you grew to adulthood with the same snively and whiney attitude.

  9. Frank Knotts says:

    Let the last be first, Winston, is that the best you can do?
    Dave, you are correct, the problem the GOP is having is because far too many libertarians have registered as Republicans, thank you Ron and Rand Paul, and these are not a complete match of ideals.
    How it happened is that when Christine O’Donnell ran and the TEA movement took over her campaign it brought along the fringe libertarians with it.
    FDR, the question is, if you are going to be a party of a party, then you have to support the primary winners and endorsed candidates or there is no need for a party.
    These people are free to support who they choose, but should not be allowed to use GOP infrastructure and the banner of the GOP to actually oppose the primary winners and endorsed candidates, as Reasonable Resolution pointed out above, many of these people called for the removal of Tom Ross and Ron Sams simply for the perception of not supporting the primary winner, while these people are openly opposing the endorsed candidate.

  10. And, Frank, that philosophy is exactly how a group (or party) ends up withering and dying. If there were a clear cut victor, you have a sound argument. Instead, almost half the party is left disenfranchised.

  11. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    After the 2010 primary over half of the state was left disenfranchised but that didn’t stop many of the same people on the above list from pushing out every Republican in Sussex from an ED or RD chair who didn’t walk lockstep in their support of a lying witch. They even went so far as to rewrite the SCGOP rules to make sure all EDs and RDs supported the primary winner into eternity.Get them out.

  12. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    These morons wrote the rules, now they need to live by them. Get the f*ck out, you filthy RINOS!

  13. Gerald says:


    With your continued, constant and repeated blog trifling, everyone seriously thinks and knows your obsession with the SCGOP member’s and their daily routines and activities is way over the line. Your just showing the world how mentally disturbing you truly are. As I see it. Get a life Frank, because you don’t have one. Campaign laws give candidates the options and the rights to run in primaries, generals and as write ins.
    For someone who keeps shouting rights, you sure don’t live by your own words.

  14. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    Gerald do you know who doesn’t “live by their own words”? Sheriff Jeff Christopher. He didn’t “leave this Godforsaken place” when he lost his court battle, and he did not abide by the “will of the people” when he lost the primary. He’s just another political opportunist carpetbagger.

    Do you know who else doesn’t “live by their own words” ? The hypocrites on that list who threatened, harassed and pushed people out of ED and RD positions in 2010, and then re-wrote the SCGOP rules to oust the people who would not be threatened out of their ED and RD positions, yet they break those sacred rules that they applied to Castle and Rollins supporters in 2010 when it comes to Jeff Christopher.

    In a nutshell, Gerald, go f*ck yourself, Frank has 10x the character than anyone on that list, and 100x the character of Jeff Christopher. In fact, Mike Castle has 1000x the character of Jeff Christopooper because Castle knew a write in would hurt the ticket and opted out.

  15. JS says:

    There was a clear cut winner of the primary. It may have been slim but Lee is the winner and the Republican candidate for the office of Sheriff of Sussex County. There is no 1 and 1A. You don’t get a “do over”. The people on the committee are free to vote for anyone they want once the curtain closes behind them but they were not elected to the offices that they hold in the party to ignore the majority of republicans who voted for Lee. If anyone on the committee will not publicly support the candidate they should forfeit there post. That was the end result 4 years ago, that needs to be the result now. It was all fun and games until it was their ox that was gored. It also is not enough to say “I publicly support our candidate for Sheriff” because actions speak louder than words. To that end, what if anything, is the party doing to require Christopher to take down (let alone continue putting up) the signs that identify him as the republican candidate. It is false and misleading and, to the extent that the executive committee does nothing, they are complicit in Christopher’s deception.

  16. Gerald says:

    Despicable people have despicable behavior. This blog site and its participates show their true intent and colors. Foul language shows your IQ and thats how low this blog site is for allowing such behavior. Civility is a virtue. Frank and your half a dozen brainless idiots with their sour dough dialogue is all this blog site is good for – sucking up with Lucy Thumb and her four daughters.

  17. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    Despicable behavior like calling someone “mentally disturbed” for expressing an opinion? Sell it somewhere else. Your so called “Sheriff” will lose and in the process another Democrat will be on the ladder to a political career. In the meantime all of your RINO buddies need to step down from leadership positions in the SCGOP.

  18. Old Sussex County Native says:

    If all the R’s are in as much disarray as the discussion on here, Delaware is going to be blue for a long time. Glow in the dark blue, visible from the Space Station. I spoke with someone just recently who used to be in a very influential position in state government — we were discussing this R conduct and they said to me: “Republicans seem to have forgotten that you have to win first, then fight later.”

  19. JS says:

    Old Sussex Native, You clearly don’t get it! It is all about “My conservatism is purer than yours”. We may not be electable but at least we hold the high moral ground. Instead of governing we have the important job of sitting on the sidelines saying “Tsk, tsk this country is going to hell” The political reality is that there are not enough “Rs”, especially when we fracture ourselves based on some conservative litmus test, to consistently win without the independent vote (and I’m not referring to IPOD). Until we start playing to win we are going to be spectators as the country makes like NASCAR and keeps turning to the left.

  20. waterpirate says:

    In my mind, a primary that was this close shows that the losing candidate ” failed to get out the votes needed “. If more than 50% of the party support him, where were they on election day? The primary had horrible turn out numbers, but Lee got out enough to win. Trying to call a Mulligan on the primaryis just not Kosher.

    This also means that the SCEC members crying for a Mulligan also failed to get out the vote in their respective ED’s and RD’s on primary day. Sorry, there can only be 1 winner, those are the rules.

  21. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR, Okay, that is how it works, one side wins and one side loses. This is not, I repeat not about voting, it is about people who took on party leadership roles and now have decided because they didn’t get their way to just chunk the system and do what they want, okay good on them, but they need to resign.
    By the way your 50% argument is flawed. This was a primary, and historically only the die hard voters come out for the primary. One would assume that Christopher supporters within the GOP would have been eager to vote. So that 50% of those voting in the primary may actually be 100% of his support within the GOP, which means when the rest of the GOP voters come out for the general election he stand no chance even if he manages to get unaffiliated voters, and it is a write-in campaign, a waste of time.
    By the way, I heard your follow up call after me today on 105.9, would you like to share your, as you said, “vested interest” in Christopher winning? You expecting to get a deputy job? Or just leading the posse?
    Hey Gerald, I merely relate what happens in public. You are correct, candidates are free to run write-in campaigns, but the issue here is that members of the Sussex County Executive Committee are working openly for a write-in candidate that is challenging the endorsed GOP candidate. And the Committee rules clearly say, “c. Voluntary actions or omissions that are deemed as significantly against the interests of the National, Delaware State, or Sussex County Republican Party.”
    It’s not about rights, it’s about rules and will the Committee live by their own rules?
    The hue and cry of these people following 2010 was grass roots, rank and file, voice of the people, they demanded that the party listen to the will of the people. Now they are acting like the elites they condemned and ignoring the voices of the GOP voters who took the time to vote on primary day. They are attempting to disenfranchise the very people they claim to represent.
    And no manner of spin changes that fact, and the fact that they have become the RINOs!

  22. Nah, Frank, nothing that sinister. Without details, suffice it to say that a political commentator stated that the average DE voter is too busy keeping up with the Kardishians to bother educating himself on the issues to make an informed decision on a write-in candidate. I would love to see the commentator eat his words if Christopher wins. I give far more credit to the average voter than many political pundits do.

    I will disagree with your math. One important stat to look at is the 14% voter turnout. Nationally, voter turnout runs closer to 20%. If I were a party leader, I’d be looking at the voter turnout and asking what is the party leadership doing wrong to disenfranchise so many voters. Are there so little differences between the candidates, not only within the party itself, but also between the Democrat and Republican candidates, that most voters are simply waiting for the main election to cast their vote for the lesser of two evils, regardless of which party they pledge allegiance to? As an outsider looking in (remember, I’m in that other backwards state, MD) I don’t see diversity, energy, and a clear plan from your local politicians or candidates.

    What I do see is a soap opera of all those “in the know” name calling and insinuating scandal of one kind or another. With the sheriff’s race, that game is a tricky tight rope to walk. The two candidates did have a clear cut difference. One believes the position has a mandate to be a real law enforcement officer, that is, have arrest powers. The other believes arrest powers aren’t necessary to serve papers and is happy with the status quo of the job. The 14% who voted, I believe, were a fair representation of the split of opinion in the party on the role of the sheriff since I don’t think arrest powers is a big concern among the majority of voters. Unless you can show me through exit polling that the main reason most voters turned out that day was to show their support for Christopher, I have no reason to believe that the voting was skewed in favor of Christopher supporters. If it were, then your party has bigger problems.

    Judging by some of the other responses as well as your own writing, the party leaders you singled out may need to go. But remember, you’re walking a tightrope when using the sheriff race as an example. If half, or slightly less than half, of the Republican voters feel strongly that Christopher should be their sheriff, when you attack party leaders who support Christopher, half of those Republican voters are going to feel like you are attacking them, too.

    Now, I’m a facts and figures kind of guy. If I read an article that clearly showed the party rules state “all party leaders will endorse the winner of the primary regardless of closeness of the race and regardless of one’s personal opinions”, then ok, I see a clear cut violation of rules. (That’d be a stupid rule, but a rule nonetheless.) Instead, I read an article insinuating Christopher is a big cry baby (which implies half the Republican voters are cry babies, too, because they support him) and a lot of speculation and innuendo against those leaders who support Christopher, presumably in an attempt to discredit them and their views (which, by implication, will make half the Republican voters feel discredited for sharing their support for Christopher).

    Since you wrote the post, let me ask you, “Who was your intended audience to read this piece and what did you hope the article would achieve?”

    Of course, you don’t have to answer those questions nor do I expect you to. As an outside observer, I am hoping to give you (you’re my intended audience) something to think about when you write your next post (hoping my response sways you to include more factual stances and less speculative writing so it is easier for someone not “in the know” to connect the dots on their own). Oh, and lighten up on Christopher. I really want the political pundit to eat his words! 🙂

  23. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR, I have no “intended audience”. I write for all to read. As for facts, well everything I wrote is fact. These people have publically supported Christopher’s write-in campaign.
    I am merely pointing out their hypocrisy, both on this issue and their use of the rules of the GOP.
    What I hope to achieve is to make others aware of the hypocrisy.
    By taking leadership roles within the GOP they have made an agreement with the party, and if they feel they can’t live up to that agreement, then the solution is simple, step aside and support Christopher. I think your numbers are flawed if you think that even 50% of average voters, whether in or out of the GOP will vote for Christopher.
    Don’t forget, even if, and I don’t believe he can, Christopher again splits the GOP vote in the general, he would have to also split the unaffiliated, and the Democrat votes, all from a write-in campaign. Not going to happen. Look back at the numbers for the O’Donnell write-in campaign of 2006, and Christopher does not have the personal appeal that she did.

  24. Harry Whittington says:

    The 14% number was statewide R turnout, the turnout of Rs for the Sheriff’s race in Sussex was 20%. Sussex may be conservative, but there is still a slight D lead in voter registration. IPoDs are a microscopic percentage of registered undecideds in Sussex. The math is not in Christopher’s favor.

  25. JS says:

    FDR, Christopher certainly never ran on a “law enforcement for the Sheriff” platform 4 years ago. In fact Christopher even denied having a view of the Sheriff’s office that remotely resembled Bob Reed’s stance. If law enforcement powers for the Sheriff was his goal all along, then his failure to state that before the last election was a fraud upon the electorate. I really doubt that he had an epiphany after being sworn into office.
    The law enforcement powers of the Sheriff is a non issue, or should be, in this year’s sheriff’s race. That issue was decided in the legislature and in the courts. Had Christopher run on this platform 4 years ago and had not been seen as unilaterally grabbing for power the situation today might be vastly different.Who ever takes office in January will be serving papers and conducting sales the next day. There is no way for the person in the office of the sheriff to change that. Christopher If it is to be changed at all, short of armed insurrection, it will have to be legislatively. Christopher is running for the wrong office. He should be running for the State legislature or, at the very least, County Council. A majority of the Republicans who cared enough to vote in the primary are simply tired of the drama and understand that the distraction is costing them tax dollars and lost revenue from the Sheriff’s office. I suspect that the primary was less a referendum on law enforcement powers for the sheriff, and moe a referendum on Christopher the man himself.

  26. Yeah. I forgot about O’Donnell. That she had any appeal to Sussex County voters tells me that political pundit is probably right, although I doubt the average voter is keeping up with the Kardashians. Sussex County appears to be full of angry old people with a chip on their shoulder who believes the world began the day they were born. They don’t care about the Kardashians. They only care about themselves.

  27. And voters should be outraged over the waste of money in maintaining a sheriff’s office, or more appropriately, a glorified paper server office, JS. The responsibilities of the sheriff’s office could easily be outsourced to a private security firm and the county could save millions of dollars in salaries, vacation pay, benefit expenses, holiday pay, and pension plans.

  28. JS says:

    FDR, I am not arguing that the Sheriff shouldn’t have law enforcement powers. I’m pointing out that philosuphical

    FDR, I am not arguing that the Sheriff’s office shouldn’t have law enforcement power. Most people in this County would at least be interested in exploring what extra protection, if any, would be afforded and, most importantly, what it would cost. Unfortunately, Christopher’s ham handed grab for power triggered a legislative response that has been upheld in the courts. What has been done can not be undone from within the Sheriff’s office, it must be undone, if at all, in Legislative Hall, in Dover.
    The political reality is that Christopher is tilting at a philosophical wind mill. The results of the primary indicate that the majority of Republicans, who cared enough about the issue to vote, don’t want him tilting at that windmill anymore.The political reality is that Christopher’s now saying “Vote for me because I want law enforcement powers” has the same practical relevance as saying “Vote for me because I wear blue shoes on Tuesday”. If Christopher wants a Sussex County Sheriff with law enforcement powers he is running for the wrong office.
    Those people who want the Sheriff to have law enforcement powers should be pissed at Jeff Christopher, not lauding him. He tried to do with a chainsaw what needed to be done with a scalpel and he was too inept to understand that. Slamming the door on law enforcement powers for the Sheriff was just as much about slamming the door on Christopher himself,, his personality and how he set about to implement his vision, as it was about the issue itself.
    We spit out the word “politician” as an epithet but all politics is is the art and science of dealing with people. We talk about “office politics”or politics at the club and at its core we are talking about not only the interaction of ideas but also the interaction of personalities. An effective leader is an effective politician. Perhaps if Christopher had had a background in Delaware law enforcement he would have understood that, just as social security is the “third rail” of federal politics, the Delaware State Police (and a perceived threat to their power) is the “third rail” of Delaware politics. Christopher’s failure to recognize that, to egotistically believe that he could unilaterally reverse over 100 years of practice without any support from even one other elected official (especially having never mentioned this “vision” in his first bid for election”) doomed his efforts from the start. In so botching the effort, he put out of reach, perhaps forever, the Sheriff of Sussex County having any law enforcement power. Instead of holding Christopher up as their champion, the people who may have shared his vision should consider him the village idiot.

  29. JS, what you say is a sound analysis. What I am saying is the legislature screwed up and current political leaders are still screwing up. The business manager side of me simply sees a.way to save money – outsource the duties of the sheriff’s office to a private security firm and eliminate the office. If I were running for office (I wouldn’t because I try to hang with a better crowd), I would work to eliminate the office. Republicans stand by the “small government” mantra so where are the candidates advocating government reduction including the sheriff’s office?

  30. JS says:

    FDR, I think that the office of Sheriff is still an important one.As opposed to many other departments, the Sheriff’s office generates many times the revenue than what it costs and even as it does so produces a service to the citizens at a much lower cost than a private agency. The best example of this is to look at the fee page of the Sheriff’s office on the county web site. You can see what everything costs but if you look at the bottom of the list, it states that these are the fees for Superior Court, the Court of Chancery and the Court of Common Pleas. Perhaps the busiest court in the state. Family Court, is missing. Family Court is missing because, unlike the other courts Family Court puts their “work” out for bids. It isn’t that Christopher got outbid but rather I’m told, that he screwed up the application so badly that it wasn’t even considered. The lost revenue to the county is tremendous and, at the same time, the private services cost more. It costs me $15 to have a subpoena served on a witness to a traffic accident for a matter pending in the Court of Common Pleas. A woman wanting to subpoena a witness in to Family Court to testify on her behalf in a Protection from Abuse action pays $10 to Family Court for the subpoenae and another $30 to have it served.Privatizing the Sheriff’s office will, in the long run, cost us all more than we save. By the same token, simply making the Sheriff’s office a department in the court system basically means that no one would be accountable for inefficiencies and screw ups like the one above. I believe that the people have a right to have the Sheriff accountable, to them, in the form of an election.

  31. Fair enough response, JS. Since I haven’t done a cost analysis, I am not willing to say outsourcing is the answer. Nor am I willing to drop consideration for outsourcing until a complete study is done. Of course , a complete study is unlikely so Sussex County is left with a glorified paper server.

  32. JS says:

    FDR, No disagreement from me (well maybe about the glorified part) These are all issues that can and should be explored by reasonable people who can make judgements regardless of whose conservatism is purer.

  33. Old Sussex County Native says:

    You can call the Sheriff’s office a glorified paper server if you want to, but when it was run efficiently it generated millions of dollars in profit to the coffers of Sussex County, and was very lucrative for the Sheriff in the days when he collected commissions off the sales and paper deliveries. The business of the Courts is very important, and crucial is the role of the Sheriff office in carrying out those matters. And the simple fact of the matter is with the puny salary the head sheriff gets, and only four deputies, the department does not cost the county millions in salaries, benefits and vacations. Sussex Sheriff office is a TINY organization. The Ocean View Police Department is TWICE the size of the Sheriff’s office. Troop five is something like NINE times the size of the Sheriff’s office and I imagine the Corrections Officers group is probably 20 times the size of the Sheriff office. How in the world will 4 or 5 deputies ever make any real difference, even if they had the powers of full arrest? It’s like dipping out Trap Pond with a punch bowl ladle. They don’t even work at night or on the weekends. Drive up there right now, at 6:15 PM and you will find the office CLOSED!!!

  34. A friend worked for a big hospital here in Maryland. He was one of five couriers. When the hospital merged with a western shore hospital system, the decision was made to outsource those five couriers to a third party company instead of keeping them as hospital employees. The justification for the outsourcing was the money that would be saved in payroll and benefits pay despite all the money their department generated for the hospital. All five employees were making a little more than minimum wage so they had “puny” salaries.

    With that example in mind, the business manager side of me clearly questions if the office of the sheriff really needs to be part of the government. Again, I have not crunched the numbers nor have I looked at the entire operation to make an informed decision, but if a major hospital saw a worthwhile savings by outsourcing five positions responsible for collecting and transporting patients’ specimens between the doctors offices and the hospital (that was the money the couriers generated) and being able to hold the third party company accountable for the safeguarding of the specimens and adherence to HIPPA standards, I’m sure it would be a worthwhile effort to look at your sheriff’s office and determine if a private security company could handle the responsibilities, continue generating the millions of dollars, and save the county money in salaries, benefits, and all that other “hidden” pay government employees earn.

    Isn’t the Republican party’s mantra “smaller government”? Why so much opposition to the idea of outsourcing the duties of the sheriff’s office or is “smaller government” simply empty rhetoric that sounds good and gets votes?

  35. Frank Knotts says:

    A follow up point. Lacey Lafferty, ED in the 40th, and wanna-be candidate for governor, gave $200.00 to Jeff Christopher on 10/05/14, almost a full month after the primary. https://cfrs.elections.delaware.gov/Public/ViewFiledReports?theme=vista

  36. Dave says:

    When the government desires to maximize efficiency, effectiveness, etc, they have some additional criteria that they must consider. Chief among these is whether the function they desire to outsource is inherently governmental. That is the function is “so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by federal government employees.”

    That’s a federal definition of inherently government, but it obviously can be applied to any governmental function. Process servers certainly is not an inherently governmental function. But how about sheriff sales? A sheriff’s sale is a public auction sale of property held by the sheriff pursuant to a writ (court order) of execution (to seize and sell the property) to satisfy (pay) a judgment, after notice to the public. Private enterprises cannot seize property. That can only be done by the court or other government entity.

    The bottom line is that some functions that are accomplished by the sheriff could be outsourced but others must be performed by the sheriff. Of course even the sheriff’s inherently government functions could be assigned to some of government entity, such as the courts, but they would have to create positions and staff them, with something like a sheriff.

  37. Nikki says:

    The same wanna be candidate threatened to post a CORI report of someone she believes is opposed to the Sheriff. Is this the behavior that would occur if the wanna be got elected ? How did the wanna be get her hands on a CORI report.? CORI’s are only accessible to authorized agencies. Since this wanna be made a recent donation to the Sheriff who has access to run an inquiry over in MD maybe that’s how she got it. Maybe Gerald will explain.

  38. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    Seems to me that Lacey Lafferty made her choice, and she chose to step down from her ED position. Don’t let the door hit you on that ass you like to wave around.

  39. Brian says:

    Can someone tell me if that’s a picture of a man or a woman with the towel wrapped around his/her head?

  40. Hypocrazy Watch says:

    Brian that question may be illegal under current Delaware law pertaining to gender identity.

  41. Frank Knotts says:

    Brian, that is a photo that Lacey Lafferty posted of herself on Facebook. Now if that doesn’t show the type of judgment that she has, well enough said/

  42. Gerald says:

    Frank you are typical. All it shows that she is a attractive female with or without makeup. She is secure with whom she is and can hold her own. Grow up! Grow a pair.

  43. Frank Knotts says:

    Please go back to the original post, another photo has been added at the end of Tom Jordan and Laurene Purdy.

  44. William Christy says:

    Frank I was at Jimmy’s when this photo was taken. The RDC of the 36th District had the gold colored Sheriff Christopher shirt tossed over his shoulder, his wife an EDC in the 36th was wearing the same shirt as Tom Jordan . Not only did these people have the Sheriff Christopher shirts on, a number of them spoke in support of Jeff Christopher when the mic was passed around after Dan asked a question. Nelly Jordan also passed a copy of the write in document which you have as a photo above. On a side note I am no longer an ED for the 3rd 36th apparently my speaking out against these RDC/EDC members resulted in my removal. I don’t recall ever hearing about an vote taken by the SC executive committee to remove me. Same old same old !

  45. Frank Knotts says:

    The outside is getting mighty crowded!

  46. Gerald says:

    No breeding, no class, as well as the company IT keeps!

  47. Dave says:

    “threatened to post a CORI report”

    LL insinuated that she looked me up as well (don’t remember the screen name she was posting under). Of course since I don’t have a criminal record it wouldn’t be anything similar to a CORI. Regardless, those who threaten to abuse power are probably those who would abuse power if they ever gained such power. This particularly sheriff also falls in that category. I suppose that’s one reason why I err on the side of the DSP. There probably is a good degree of cronyism but there is also a chain of command and offices of recourse to keep them in line. After the experience with this sheriff, it will take a lot of convincing for me to ever support a county mountie system unless it works for and not independent of the county.

    It’s been an interesting experience that is nearly over. I’m sure whether we get Lee or Gooch it will be a refreshing change. Of course it’s also evident that SC GOP is in such disarray, that it is unlikely they will ever be able to influence any election.

  48. Gerald says:

    Sock puppetry alive and well on this gross site!

  49. Dave says:

    Sock puppetry? Everyone here has been posting under the same screen name (like me) or under their real name like Frank or William Christy, except for umm. oh how inconvenient! except for you Gerald! Regardless your one liners like “No breeding, no class, as well as the company IT keeps!” well, all I can say is ouch!

    And FYI, it’s one thing to say someone has no class, but to say they have no breeding presumes that good manners and a certain way of acting can be bred by the reproductive process? I mean, look at how you turned out. Watermelons can be bred, cattle can be bred, but humans have the capacity to overcome their heritage. Perhaps you were confused and lapsed into an agricultural context by habit?

  50. Gerald says:

    I stand corrected. No morals, no integrity, no character, no honor and the rest of Webster’s definitions of a despicable and unsavory person(s). Your conscious?

  51. William Christy says:

    GeraLLd now I understand why you don’t realize that you have no morals, no integrity, no character, no honor or any of the other pronouns to describe yourself besides despicable or unsavory.

    You are clearly un conscious and lack any CONSCIENCE

  52. William Christy says:

    Now I understand why you don’t realize that you have no morals, no integrity, no character, no honor or any of the other pronouns to describe yourself besides despicable or unsavory.

    You are clearly un conscious and lack any CONSCIENCE

  53. Dunleve says:

    Whether it is or Not Don Ayotte’s fingerptints are all over some of these posts.

Got something to say? Go for it!