Few would argue with the statement that a sheriff’s most important and most difficult job is to ensure that his subordinates carry out their duties lawfully and in accordance with the policies he has established. His success in this regard-or lack thereof-has a direct impact on the trust and confidence that members of the public are willing to place in the work of his office.

This task is made more difficult for the Sheriff of St. Mary’s County by at least three factors for which he is not responsible, yet which he should consider and address. First, the Sheriff’s Office is relatively small in size. Thus, the personnel assigned to investigate allegations against other members of the staff generally know, and often well know, the people whose actions are under inquiry. At best, this gives an impression to the public that complaints are not fairly and thoroughly investigated unless compelled to do so by a Rodney King-type of video.

Second, personnel assigned to address allegations against other members of the office often rotate out to other duties thereafter. Because of this, a perception may exist that they are too mindful that their next supervisor or partner may be a person whose actions they are now being called upon to examine. Other agencies have sought to reduce this problem by making the investigation of internal complaints a final assignment and to select for that task, without regard to rank or internal politics, those individuals who have demonstrated both personal integrity and investigative thoroughness throughout their careers.

Third, the recent history of the Office has raised questions about the commitment by the Sheriff’s Office to enforcing basic honesty by its personnel. Most notably, the notorious Loot Suit, in which tens of thousands of dollars of private property went missing while in the Office’s possession, left many citizens with a less than laudatory view of the Office.

In light of all of this, we were disappointed by the Sheriff’s recent press release reporting the status of 66 complaints made against personnel of the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office during 2006. According to the press release, 8 complaints (12%) were substantiated, 8 complaints (12%) are still pending, and the remaining 50 complaints (76%) were deemed to be unsubstantiated or otherwise were closed. In fact, while seeking to give the appearance of providing information, the press release fails to contain useful information which by law may be disclosed to the public.

For example, the document doesn’t identify, by complaint, whether the subject was a deputy sheriff, a correctional officer or a civilian member of the office. Nor does the press release provide, for the cases where the allegations were substantiated, a narrative description of the misconduct and a report of the corrective or disciplinary actions taken, if any. The public cannot evaluate the report without these additional items of information. The Sheriff should reconsider the press release in light of these comments and supplement it as warranted.