Police officers are required to perform the functions of their job in accordance with Maryland law and agency policy while working professionally to uphold the rule of law while keeping our communities safe. In certain situations, they are compelled to use deadly force to stop an immediate threat. Can you imagine a world where we ask our plumber to judge whether a medical doctor acted appropriately? Perhaps it would make better sense for an auto mechanic to review and oversee the activities of pharmacists? Or vice-versa in these examples? Of course, these suggestions are as outlandishly foolish as you might imagine, yet this is the process and thinking our legislators have given us when it comes to the law enforcement profession.

The recent police-involved shooting in Baltimore City and subsequent comments made by members of the city’s PAB during its “emergency meeting” last Friday are clear examples of the concerns raised by law enforcement leaders. There is no place for activism or personal agendas when sitting in positions that review the actions of those tasked with keeping order in our communities.

When tragic incidents occur, in which officers must use deadly force to neutralize a threat, a full and thorough investigation should take place before any conclusions are drawn or public statements are made that could bias the process. The comments made by one PAB member in Baltimore City concerning that police department’s use of force policy and whether officers should “shoot to kill” demonstrate a clear, premature and biased judgment of this incident by an activist, not an informed professional, before any investigation has been completed.

Frankly, it is both disturbing and disgraceful that a member of any PAB would even need to ask whether it is departmental policy to “shoot to kill.” The fact that such a question was even posed highlights the alarming ignorance and complete lack of training and understanding among certain board members — individuals who have been irresponsibly entrusted with judging the split-second, life-or-death decisions made by trained law enforcement professionals.

This level of uninformed commentary would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. Our citizens and our law enforcement professionals deserve better, much better.

Jeffrey Gahler is the Harford County sheriff.

On the capital budget front, and despite overwhelming public and County Council support, the Central Precinct and Training Academy remains stalled again in this year’s budget, with no plan to move forward from Cassilly. He has also failed to fund the sheriff’s office’s needed upgrade to our taser, body camera and in-car camera programs to ensure our deputies are equipped with the most up-to-date and effective non-lethal use of force tools available. And nowhere is Mr. Cassilly’s lack of support for law enforcement more evident than, in a time when protests and civil unrest are on the rise, Mr. Cassilly’s refusal to even fund a modest $122,000 request to replace outdated and expired riot helmets to protect our men and women. It is clear that Bob Cassilly does not want to ensure our deputies have better tools and equipment to more safely perform their dangerous duties.

It’s a sad coincidence that the dollar amount needed for riot helmets or updated taser requests is similar to what Mr. Cassilly has spent to purchase 12 drones for the Department of Emergency Services (DES), apparently from a company whose CEO’s father is one of Cassilly’s major campaign donors. By his own admission, DES does not need 12 drones, and Mr. Cassilly has stated that he will give them to his other departments, private fire companies and municipal police departments, which would be in direct conflict with the information presented to the Board of Estimates to justify the initial purchase. It is shameful that Mr. Cassilly chooses to mislead through creative wording in his budget messaging to paint a picture that he supports law enforcement and corrections, but the reality of his budget actions over the past three years tells an entirely different story.

Lastly, it’s troubling that Mr. Cassilly has once again excluded the sheriff’s office from key budget discussions — a pattern throughout his three years as county executive. Despite claiming to prioritize public safety, his actions consistently undermine the vital services the sheriff’s office provides to Harford County. This contradiction between rhetoric and reality cannot be ignored.

Jeffrey Gahler is the Harford County sheriff.

In his letter (“Harford County government devolves into a sleaze fest,” March 15), Patrick Wallis asks and then self-answers a bunch of questions without reaching out to the individual who could actually help him separate facts from his own assumptions.  If he actually cared about truth and facts, he would have contacted me and done some degree of due diligence instead of using his imagination to make up a story.

To help offer some honest perspective, I will address a few of his attacks.  First would be concerning the previously approved and funded vital public safety project that was to have been the Harford County Sheriff’s Office’s Central Precinct and Training Academy that was defunded by County Executive Robert Cassilly.  Mr. Wallis calls this my “pet project.”  To be clear, this is a needed and necessary public safety building for our citizens, something that every elected official (aside from Mr. Cassilly) agreed was necessary based on the entire approval of the project and subsequent unanimous resolution passed by the County Council.

Although Mr. Cassilly said the Sheriff’s Office did not need additional training space in his remarks before the council and has spoken many times about his goal of wasting less money on leases, he has just recently approved new commercial lease space for the Sheriff’s Office for some of our training space needs.  Yes, you cannot make this stuff up.

Next, Mr. Wallis speculates on whether we met with the executive or took our issues right to the media and then answers his own questions with a flippant “doesn’t appear so.”  Well not only is his comment just wrong, it is 100% incorrect sarcasm.  The fact is that prior to and after the executive taking office, we (and I) had many meetings with Mr. Cassilly.  These meetings were regularly highlighted by Mr. Cassilly’s unprofessional behavior and at times unhinged and dishonest commentary and attacks.

I will now address Mr. Wallis’ claim that I am “most notably” upset over Councilman Aaron Penman’s service on the council.  To understand how incorrect this assessment is, one only needs to look at my recorded remarks to our County Council roughly one year ago.  During our annual budget session, I spoke at length about the challenges facing public safety and the Sheriff’s Office; this being the concerns over Mr. Cassilly and his questionable actions up to that point in time. Nowhere in my recorded comments, of nearly 20 minutes, was Councilman Penman even mentioned.

All that said, I am hopeful to use this letter as an opportunity to be clear on two issues: First would be to highlight the part of Mr. Wallis’ commentary that I do agree with, and that is that those of us elected officials should boldly represent their constituents in an unbiased, open manner. There should be no secret agreements with favor seekers, no back-alley handshakes to foment deals that smell of personal agendas, no hanky-panky, no name calling, no twisting of truths, and no bull.  As your elected sheriff, I will never fail to advocate for our citizens’ needs and the needs of our office as they relate to public safety.  I will do this with as much transparency as possible and with honesty, and I will not let anything, including party affiliation, serve as a protective shield for those not capable of such standards.

Second would be that Mr. Wallis is free to speak out as he wishes because the First Amendment to our Constitution does not have an honesty requirement.

Sheriff Jeff Gahler was first elected to the role of Harford County Sheriff in 2014. 

Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on the challenge to disqualify Councilman Jacob Bennett and said he was permitted to serve as both a Harford County public school teacher and a member of the Harford County Council.  The 34-page decision from the court was clear: Nothing precluded Councilman Bennett from continuing his employment as a public school teacher and serving as a member of the council representing District F.  The full written opinion made clear reference to other agencies in a similar situation, including a specific reference to the Harford County Sheriff’s Office.

Now, County Executive Bob Cassilly, apparently seeking political revenge, is using taxpayer dollars to defame the character of Sgt. Aaron Penman and the Harford County Sheriff’s Office by bringing up an issue that has already been decided by the courts.  Mr. Penman had retired from his position as a sergeant with the Harford County Sheriff’s Office when he was elected to the County Council, consistent with language in the County Charter, but before the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in the Bennett case. The court’s ruling made my decision to rehire Sgt. Penman a full six months ago, easy.  However, before rehiring him, I conducted a full review of the Maryland Supreme Court written opinion with the Harford County Sheriff’s Office of Legal Affairs and consulted with the Maryland assistant attorney general assigned to represent Maryland sheriffs.  Both entities thoroughly reviewed the court’s opinion and advised they saw no legal impediment to the rehiring.

Harford County executive, council member trade accusations on alleged ethics violations

Additionally, Mr. Penman, had the court’s decision reviewed by independent legal counsel and received the same opinion regarding the court’s findings and his potential rehiring by the sheriff’s office.  Mr. Penman also requested and received written guidance from the State Ethics Commission and its opinion is clear: He is able to serve as a member of the sheriff’s office. The commission also provided some guidance on how to best keep the two functions separate from one another.  This guidance is in no way an impediment to his employment with the sheriff’s office. Mr. Penman’s request to the State Ethics Commission came after the county ethics board had reviewed the Penman rehiring in response to a complaint. That review led the board chairman to acknowledge that the board had no jurisdiction in the matter.

, Mr. Cassilly cannot accept his loss before the Maryland Supreme Court in the Bennett case.  Mr. Cassilly has now made an improper and seemingly illegal request for advice from the Harford County Ethics Board concerning Mr. Penman’s simultaneous employment as a sworn member of the sheriff’s office and as a County Council member.

The County’s Ethics Code makes it clear that elected officials can only request opinions related to their own issues or conduct, not those of another elected official. In addition, the request by the executive was sent by the county law department, which is the same law department that provides legal guidance to the county ethics board. The clearly unethical quandary posed by this relationship between the executive, the law department and the county ethics board is likely the reason such matters are not within the board’s purview.

Quite simply, I view this farcical and improper request as yet another unnecessary attack on law enforcement and the sheriff’s office by Mr. Cassilly. That is something I will never allow to go unchallenged on my watch.  As a member of the sheriff’s office during his duty hours, Sgt. Penman continues to exemplify the core values of our office and performs these duties separate from his duties as an elected councilman, exactly the same as Mr. Bennett is expected to do in his employment as a teacher with the public school system and as an elected councilman.

Mr. Cassilly and Mr. Penman, in their elected roles, are free to operate in the political realm as each deem it in their constituents’ best interests.  As sheriff, public safety is in my constituents’ best interest, and unnecessary and repeated attacks against any member of the sheriff’s office will not go unanswered.

Jeffrey R. Gahler

Gahler, a Republican, has served as Harford County Sheriff since 2014

Editor:

I write today in response to the wholly comical and inaccurate cartoon printed in the [Wednesday, Feb. 8] editorial section [of The Aegis], as well as some of the comments offered by the editorial staff.

The cartoon, depicting my desire to gain a much overdue increase in the salary for the elected office of Sheriff and as a secondary matter of importance, “something for these guys,” was in poor taste and not reflective of the issue as a whole.

While running for office and since serving as Sheriff, I made a commitment that although I felt the Sheriff’s salary is in need of an adjustment, I would not pursue any increase until I was able to address salary increases for all Sheriff’s Office employees. This is a promise I kept as we were able to pursue increases for all employees in the first two years and, supported with information from an independent salary study, establish a course to correct years of neglect. As the Sheriff’s salary can only be changed at the start of a new term, I have worked with our employee groups, to set a path to correcting all the salary issues within the Office, while also addressing that of the Sheriff.

The proposed legislation to set the salary of the Sheriff to that of the elected State’s Attorney (which is set to the equivalent of a District Court Judge) is consistent with at least the past 20 years. Researching back to 1997, the Sheriff and the State’s Attorney’s salaries mirrored the other until last year’s change to the State’s Attorney’s salary plan. Not only is such a proposal not new, the concept of setting the rate to another pay scale that is similar in function, scope, duty and/or responsibility, it is also not unique. In Charles County, the Sheriff’s salary is set to that of a Lieutenant Colonel with the Maryland State Police, in Queen Anne’s County, the Sheriff’s salary is set to that of the State’s Attorney and in Baltimore City, the Sheriff’s salary is set to that of a Baltimore County Command Staff member. There is no lack of transparency in this type of legislative action as the legislature always possesses the ability to make changes to the salary should it find it necessary due to changes in functions of the position.

The salary for the Sheriff of Harford County is nearly $25,000 less than the only comparable Sheriff’s Office in State (Charles County) which serves a population approximately 80,000 residents less. The Frederick County Sheriff’s Office is approximately half the size of the HCSO, yet the Frederick Sheriff’s salary is nearly $10,000 more. Three other Maryland Sheriffs have higher salaries and yet no responsibility for patrol or corrections. Finally, of the “Big Seven” Counties, the Harford County Sheriff’s position is the paid less than all these police chiefs, yet in these counties there are three individuals separately employed for the functions of our Sheriff. As an example, in Anne Arundel County, the combined salaries for the Sheriff (courts and civil process), Police Chief (patrol) and Corrections Director (jail) is approximately $434,000 combined.

Internally, the salary of the Sheriff is below that of the Colonel, Warden, and law enforcement Majors, and is on par with that of a senior Captain in the Agency. Should we be successful in addressing the employee’s pay scale as desired and outlined by the salary study, the salary for the Sheriff will then be equivalent to a senior Lieutenant, falling further down the salary structure. The current market rate for the position of Sheriff based on the salary study is $151,000. That is where the position should be placed today based on the study and does not account for the next two years before any increase is permitted by law.

It is never the right time to introduce legislation to seek an increase for an elected position, but to wait until 2022 for any correction to a salary that is well behind a fair market value, is also not the right time. I have sought this action in the open and, again, after working diligently on my well known effort to address the needs of all of the employees of the Office.

Sheriff Jeffrey R. Gahler