Viewer’s Voice

On the surface, the forum appeared to be unbiased, at least with the two commentators.  They seemed to be focused on keeping the debate moving along and within the rules set.  That being said, I must ask the questions (1) what qualification does Mr. Wagner have in running RPSO?  Has he ever been in charge of anything that huge, at least in regard to personnel?  Has he ever had to navigate through personnel issues?  Has he ever made an arrest? (2) is the voter mass going to make their judgement based on appearing comfortable in the debate setting, accent, country boy appearance, defense of the department, defense of the supervisors, OR the businesslike appearance of a candidate who was in then out of law enforcement, now in the business sector and will return to the business sector if not successful in the election? (3) will the selection be made based on personality vs qualification?  It is time for the electorate to flex their muscle and quit being swayed by political ads, news reports and obvious biased personalities and make an educated choice on the next sheriff.  It pretty much comes down to who you want in charge of the department and how qualified they are to be so.

Stumper - 14 November 2007 09:36 AM

On the surface, the forum appeared to be unbiased, at least with the two commentators.  They seemed to be focused on keeping the debate moving along and within the rules set.  That being said, I must ask the questions (1) what qualification does Mr. Wagner have in running RPSO?  Has he ever been in charge of anything that huge, at least in regard to personnel?  Has he ever had to navigate through personnel issues?  Has he ever made an arrest? (2) is the voter mass going to make their judgement based on appearing comfortable in the debate setting, accent, country boy appearance, defense of the department, defense of the supervisors, OR the businesslike appearance of a candidate who was in then out of law enforcement, now in the business sector and will return to the business sector if not successful in the election? (3) will the selection be made based on personality vs qualification?  It is time for the electorate to flex their muscle and quit being swayed by political ads, news reports and obvious biased personalities and make an educated choice on the next sheriff.  It pretty much comes down to who you want in charge of the department and how qualified they are to be so.

Personally, I thought the debate was very flawed in its structure, or, rather, the commentators didn’t do a good job of mediating the discussion.  This was especially apparent during the candidates question and answer session where instead they merely made negative statements instead of asking and answering questions.

As for answering your questions:
(1) There’s nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can’t clearly articulate why we’re doing what we’re doing.  As another poster mentioned earlier, Major Slocum’s lack of education is readily apparent in his speech and body language.  Obviously, Mr. Wagner is at a severe disadvantage when it comes to running a large department such as the RPSO, but, as Major Slocum said repeatedly, he is neither Chief Deputy, nor Sheriff, and has not made many decisions of significance.  With that being said, Major Slocum does appear to have more direct experience when it comes to leading the RPSO, however, he does not seem to possess the character to lead the RPSO.  Mr. Wagner, on the other hand, seems to sincerely favor change in the department and even went to the lengths of putting his intentions in writing.  In addition, leading and managing people has more to do with your character and your ability to lead.  The very essence of leadership is that you have a vision.  Lastly, in my honest opinion, making an arrest really doesn’t apply to being Sheriff.  It does, however, seem to be a “sticking point” for the Slocum campaign.

(2) Honestly, I think the answer to this question could go either way.  Obviously, voters will vote for the candidate that they can identify with.  Personally, with no offense intended, I want a candidate that can speak the English language correctly.  In addition, when referring to Mr. Wagner leaving the RPSO and State Police, you can’t honestly blame Mr. Wagner for doing what’s best for his family.  I know several deputies who would love to move into positions with the FBI, Secret Service, DEA, ICE, State Police, etc.  To be perfectly frank, Major Slocum may not have been qualified to work for any of those departments.  With Major Slocum’s speech being an indicator, I honestly can’t see how he could have passed the FBI Phase I exam, Treasury Enforcement Agent exam, State Police exam, etc.

(3) As I said earlier, I believe the answer to this question could go either way.  It all depends on who the voters identify with.  Every voter has a personal vested interested in voting either way and the interests vary widely.

Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement.  It comes down to who the voters want to see in office and that will be decided on Saturday.

Nonetheless, I would like to wish both candidates good luck.  I think either candidate will be a fine Sheriff.

I certainly hope that the inconsistent rants of Slocum did not go unnoticed. For example:

He quickly pointed out and corrected Mr. Wagner about his campaign expenditures as being “over $250,000.00” and that (in all fairness) so were his. Then later, when all hot and bothered he stated that he “had spent over $500,000.00 on this campaign” and that the idea that he would ask RPSO employees for $10 is “unbelievable”. Yep....that sure is “over $250,000” Slocum. WAY over. I hope he does better with that budget he thinks he can handle.

Did anyone notice the picture and the signatures in the paper today (which Slocum referenced in the debate)? The bottom says that it was paid for by the pictured employees. Slocum was in the picture, but yet he stated he “had no idea” about all the allegations surrounding that “petition”. SAY WHAT?

THEN, he questions Mr. Wagner about his arrest count as a police officer. When Mr. Wagner asks him the same question in relation to his title as patrol supervisor (or whatever) he says “I arrested someone 2 months ago” Well what the hell...I thought you were on “vacation” and “leave” for 5 months now. Wow...he really IS good with “them there” numbers.

And the list goes on and on. Watch the debate for yourselves. Make an EDUCATED decision. The answer is clear. Wagner won the debate because he was TRUTHFUL. Maybe all his answers weren’t all wrapped up with pretty bows, but his integrity was obvious.

Ya know, there are a lot of businesses (which the RPSO is) with employees that have been there for many many years, but years do not make an employee management material. Consider that. Slocum spells that all out for us. He “stayed the course” and remained in law enforcement in order to “make a difference”. Well it seems as though he wasted his time. His supposed “suggestions” that he has been giving Hilton for years have gone virtually ignored, it appears. Either which way you slice it, Slocum hasn’t accomplished much in his attempt to make a difference. Our parish is in trouble. Let’s elect Chuck Wagner and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

I appreciate the question Michelle but why is the winner so important to you? I thought you were supposed to be an unbiased journalist. Could it be that a Wagner victory would mean a new job title for you? Your biased stance in this election indicates some sort of “quid pro quo.”

I believe the winner of the debate was michele goddard more have talked about how her interview with les at ten than the debate. Most that i have talked to say slocum was better in the debate but michele and les both did ddamge control better than either camps managers could have for chuck but leave it to the voters not the media i often wonder how politics were before media when they had to be on the stump instead of being on the defense of a news camera

I am proud of Sheriff Wagner for being honest and not participating in dirty/negative comments as did slocum.

I feel that no one “won” the debate. Say what you want, Michelle Goddard is prejudice and her bias was really revealed in her interview with Hilton. I have work in an organization that time and time again promotes people to their highest level of incompetence. Just a thought: Your child, your Mother, your loved one is standing in a doorway with a gun to their head, who do you want leading the Sheriff Department, someone who “wants to be sheriff” but knows “nothing” about being a sheriff, someone who wants to start at the top and work down or some one who has started at the bottom and worked threw the ranks, learning, growing in knowledge. Maybe Mr. Slocum doesn’t do the best interview, maybe he’s just an ignorant ol’ workin’ man..but when it comes to my family I want the best we have to offer, I don’t want someone “learning to be sheriff”..Just my opinion and my feelings. I respect all.

At Least you got the ignorant part right…

RUNNINMOM, I hope this never happens to you but if so, I would pray that the sheriff himself is not ansering the call. This is why the department has management and specialized units. The person I would like to be sheriff is not a person who can kick a door or shoot a gun. I need someone who can honistly manage a department in a productive efficient manner. I have a right to that expecially since my tax money is paying for it.

If what you are saying os true lets elect an officer with about three years of patrol time. He would be up to speed on police tactics.

No, you would not do that because he would not have the management skills needed for the job.

Chuck has the police experience and more importantly has the education and management qualifictions for the job.

Ms. Goddard why didn’t you answer the question on KSLY about your husband and contributing to Mr. Wagner’s campaign? The reason that you were asked to not host the forum is because of your OBVIOUSLY BIASED editorial two weeks ago including iterviews with the black faced-warbled voices deputies and the contribution.

You have lost sight of your JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY.  You should be in the middle with your interview and not show a biased. My question if the telephone lines had not been blocked ( I have a friend who works there) would have been:

Michelle, Why didn’t YOU step aside when you knew that you could not be unbiased? The Professional thing to do would have been to stay off of this Q & A- Debate. You have intimate through your post news/debate interview with Les that you and/or the station KLAB were intimidated. If that was the case then you should have MOST DEFINITELY not been on the set of the debate. If I were the political consultant or Mike Slocum I would have made the same request. Just like Mr. Wagner asking to do it with no paper. He wanted to be able to slander without physical paper to DENY his lies.

You should be ashamed of you behavior Ms. Goddard.

I too am also upset with Ms. Godard and her journalism. I can’t believe she went to all 500 employees of the Sheriff’s office and asked them If they were being intimidated. What a waste of time, that must have taken months. How could she have done that at a time like this. Why did she not wait until after the election? Where did she go to Journalism school? Harvard?  And you guys know that since the company her husband works for donated around $200 to Wagner, she had to have something to do with that. I know, Michelle went around her husbands job with a petition to sign and asked everyone for $10 for Wagner. Thats how she made that crap up in the first place! (I know this guy that has phone service w/ Turner Telco) Shame on you Ms. Godard. Maybe you need to go work for the town talk.

I understand he has management training. I deal with pharmaceutical salesmen regularly, I know a lot of management experience is not needed to do the job. I am troubled that he has no supervisory experience, the sheriff’s department is massive, many jobs and families will be affected. The Sheriff’s Department itself involves many levels of supervision. I don’t expect Mr. Slocum, in person, to address a crisis situation but he will be supervising and delegating. I have nothing against Mr. Wagner personally, just concerned.

In answer to RUNNINGMOM, if you family was in danger it certainly wouldn’t be Slocum to the rescue
unless there was a TV camera around and even then he’d have someone else do the work then he would take the credit for it. Also remember he’s the one that had Deputies hunting for BIG FOOT for over a week a few years back....

WATERSLIDES you are way of base with your comment.  Michele did her job and reported a currant event,
one that was important to the town and parish.  It wouldn’t make sense to wait till after the election to tell a story that concerned the election....your not happy that the TRUTH came out.

Just because Slocum says he has managed people doesn’t mean he is good at it. You have
earn the respect of people and you have to respect them back and Slocum is not capable of that.
What he tells everyone that he’s done and what the truth is are two different things.....