Bret King Run-Off Rebuttal

Sisters and brothers,

Well, I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone incapable of understanding what it means when the membership repeatedly tells him, “No”, would be so easily confused.

The short bullet point list of issues of concern brought to me by our members and related to you was much longer and, in some cases, more personal, but these were the items I was able to verify through discussion with affected members and E-board members, past and present. These aren’t accusations. They are facts and they attacked no one. Please, go back and read my letter. Regardless of the convoluted, selectively worded explanations and excuses, they all happened.

As my opponent chose to attempt to excuse some of the concerns I listed, I’ll counter: The E-board violated Article 5, section 8 of our constitution by appointing my opponent to his interim position. Plain and simple. Had it been a legal move, there was nothing so pressing that required this appointment other than to establish him as an incumbent who has attended meetings with command staff in place of other E-board members who were actually elected by the membership. An election could have been scheduled and concluded by now had our E-board simply followed the very rules they are sworn to uphold and not ignored the membership. My opponent was at the center of this and any attempt to excuse it is a simple attempt to distance himself from the very process that put him in place. This, all of it, is inexcusable.

It is true that our member, who was discriminated against, made a choice to drop out of his race. That is not the point. No member should ever be forced to make that decision. There was no conflict of interest. IAU sergeants are simply investigators, fact finders. They make no recommendations and encourage no punishment. That is the responsibility of the inspector. The E-board should have at least made this argument. Instead, they were so complacent in this issue, they created questions as to their complicity. And our attorneys, the ones we pay? They serve at our pleasure. Not the other way around.

Finally, the board and all those they appoint are bound to protect the rights and jobs of our membership. Now, I recognize and respect that the membership voted on this and I am 100% behind reenforcing the voice of the membership. The language in question, however, was supported by our board and members of the negotiation team, to include my opponent, not resisted. They didn’t even warn members in the two informational meetings they were required to have before the vote, of the possible ramifications. It allowed those who are not our members to do our jobs, thus leaving those jobs vulnerable. There has been no benefit to our membership, and it has only opened the door to further encroachment from the sheriff.

Remember what I made clear in my previous letter to you; They can’t be trusted. Senior members of our association who can recall a history of violation after violation by the sheriff and the county vehemently opposed this language for that reason. No arbitrator in either Northwestern state would have supported this language in a decision, yet we took it laying down. I will encourage exclusion of this language from the upcoming contract. I will do it in the interest of our membership.

In my opponent’s position, instead of making excuses, I would acknowledge these issues and say, “Yes”, “We need to do better”, then get started. Some of these issues have needed attention for years, so none of this is an indictment on our current E-board. Just an objective and abbreviated list of ongoing issues or practices that, I think they would agree, need correction, along with my plans to work with them to do so. And I do look forward to working with the E-board to do just that. It is ideal that the E-board can be united, however, when the voices and concerns of our membership are being ignored, the E-board oversteps its authority and procedural missteps are becoming common practice, I don’t mind being a dissenting voice on your behalf. That shouldn’t be confusing to anyone who respects your interests.

Life has taught me to speak the truth. Socrates inspires me to see who is angered by it. That is always telling. I, and by proxy, you, may lose in this election, but if we do, it won’t be because I have shown any disregard for your voice or your wishes and it won’t be because I have been dishonest. I will respect your voice and continue to offer my service where you will accept it.

Again, the choice is all yours

Your brother,

-Bret