“On the Friday before the Supervisors meeting I thought I went far enough in calling for Mike Carona to take a leave of absence. Over the course of the next week and repeated discussions and deliberations–especially after debating John and Ken for an hour about the Moorlach proposal which called for Supervisors’ ability to remove an indicted official from office (while excluding themselves; Norby later insisted that the measure apply to Supervisors as well or he could not support it) and then listening to John Ziegler’s profound and intense analysis distinguishing between the criminal procedures versus the court of public opinion (which fairly or unfairly judges all of us electeds) I was moved to go even further in my position supporting resignation.

I admit that my position evolved over the course of several days as I was biased in my personal feelings for the Sheriff as a friend and the ability to see with more clarity as I listened to the difficult and tortious discussion about his alleged misconduct in office and the overall harm it could do for OC law enforcement for possibly the next decade.”

So now we go from Todd saying he was “very clear “that Carona should resign to admitting his position “evolved over the course of several days.” And Todd can be biased in his personal feelings for the Sheriff but Steve Greenhut is admonished for alledged bias.

I have to wonder Todd, did you read any of Moxely’s coverage about the sheriff over the course of the past few years? Did you bother to ask the Sheriff if there was any substance to it or did you dismiss the stories as biased chattle from the publication with all the stripper ads?

I, for one, can’t wait to hear the audiotapes between Carona and Haidl.

So Todd, are you so willing to admit an error in judgement as a member of the BOS when Carona made the case for elevating Jaramillo and Haidl to lofty positions in the department. How do you resolve the case Carona made for his guys then with the scapegoating of the same two men now?

I also think when you make announcements such as you did on John and Ken” you probably should have issued a more formal statement on the case. I check around before posting this and no one seemed to remember your position on this much before your Letter to the Editor.

That all aside, I do commend for you speaking out. So many of your Republican peers are silent on the Carona case. Either too afraid to tick off Mike Scroeder or involking Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment (Thou shall never speak ill of another Republican).

All my statements about any issues surrounding Mike Carona have been made in public on the record. The LA Times reported (David Reyes) that the DA and I believed that Carona needed to take a leave of absence. That was reported by Reyes on November 3rd, 2007 in the OC edition front page story in the California section “DA calls on Carona to go on leave.” I was quoted as follows:

“Assemblyman Todd Spitzer (R-Orange) joined the chorus Friday, agreeing with Rackauckas that ‘there’s no way’ Carona could run the department and simultaneously wage his court battle. ‘If he wants to fight the charges, that’s his right,’ Spitzer said. ‘But if this were a rank-and-file employee, they would have to be on administrative leave. He should take administrative leave.’”

Both the DA and I said the same thing on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

My interview with John and Ken was that same day:
http://kfiam640.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=JohnandKen.xml

As of this posting, the interview is still listed in their archives.

I have not issued any press releases on my opinions about Sheriff Carona. All my statements have already been a matter of public record and have been widely distributed as shown above.

I have been frank and honest about my assessment of the Carona situation. I, like to so many others who called Mike Carona their friend, am deeply saddened by this situation–both for the Carona’s and their son, Matt, as well as for the entire County of Orange. I am not pleased about having to comment about this; I testified at the Board because I believed the action item to remove indicted officials was overreaching based on an allegation. John and Ken beat me up pretty good interpreting my objection to removal for an indictment as defending Carona (too complicated for talk radio, I suppose). But I also know that these type of allegations most likely mean that Carona will not recover professionally and will likely make it impossible for him to ever lead the Sheriff’s Department again if he were to come back after beating the US Attorney’s charges.

For those of us who believe in law enforcement and have our roots in law enforcement this is a complicated and sad state of events. But to defend law enforcement you have to stand up and point out when there are errors or lack of judgements that result in public trust issues. This is not just about Mike Carona; this is about what impact his actions may have or may not have on law enforcement and public safety issues in the months and years ahead. I was taught this in the police academy 17 years ago and I believe it the same today. Actions by police–in public or in private–effect the public’s perception of one of government’s most important powers. Any abuse by one, reflects on all. Mike Carona’s resignation, under these circumstances, seems to be the appropriate remedy.