chuggnutt.com

I'm not sure what this might say about me, but when I was reading this KTVZ story about the utterly ridiculous Measure 37 claim on the Newberry Volcanic Monument, I couldn't help but think the image filed with the story looks like a skull:

See the eyesockets? Yeah, that's messed up.

Oh and FYI, Measure 37? Only one of the most retarded ballot measures ever passed in the state of Oregon.

The Bulletin today has a piece on the DeWolf sexual harrassment case, with much more detail. It's rather appalling. Touching on some points:

• Apparently "Deschutes County policy requires employees to report sexual harassment.... Violating the policy can draw penalties that range from a warning to dismissal, according to the policy." While I think sexual harrassment is a pretty serious offense, this policy seems awfully harsh for the victim—I mean, not only could you be subjected to the harrassment to begin with, you could lose your job for being too embarrassed or scared to report it? Wow. Sounds like a great way to breed a culture of fear and avoidance.
  
  (The article does mention that none of the employees—there are at least three—who knew about it have been disciplined specifically under this policy, though one of them has been suspended pending the ongoing investigation of the juvenile department that pulled the trigger on this whole mess.)
  
  
• When he was first interviewed for the juvenile department investigation, "DeWolf said the investigation would have never been authorized had he not taken a month off over the summer to attend a public policy school at Harvard University." Hmmmm. Is he admitting that he would have hindered this investigation, given the chance? Sounds criminal.
• The article covers the incident in question in detail. It illustrates some pretty blatant behavior on DeWolf's part—this is the stuff in particular that I found appalling. In particular I have a hard time reconciling that with DeWolf's resignation statement where he declares: "I stand by my statement of August 9 that the incident from two years ago was resolved the day after it occurred. Valid county policy was followed in that resolution"—except for the county policy that requires sexual harrassment to be reported. Or, when he says this:
  

  People have asked what purpose was served by the Lane County Deputy District Attorney holding a press conference in the county office building. They've asked what purpose was served by bringing up an incident from twelve years ago. They've asked what purpose was served when he used such salacious and sensational language in declaring his intention not to file charges. They've asked what purpose was served by the media quoting that salacious and sensational language. I have no answer for these questions.

  Talk about avoidance—trying to lay the blame for all this coming out into the open on the Lane County DA(!). Seems to me the answer to those questions is pretty obvious; it prompted a much-needed housecleaning.

Following up to the post I made about the deputy arrested on sex abuse charges, there was this last bit from the Bend.com article about the arraignment that's been bothering me:

In the front row for the arraignment was a supporter of Malloy's, who had quite an unusual story to share.

"I know that he was a good police officer," said Bend-area resident Janet Wickersham. But she also said that five years ago, after the officer came to her Spring River home to take a domestic-violence complaint (involving one of her four children's fathers), Malloy, not in uniform asked if he could date her daughter—who was then 16 years old. (He would have been about 33 at the time.)

"I told him, 'Not until she's 18—then you can come and get her,'" Wickersham said. "He didn't do anything out of the ordinary. He never did anything with my daughter.... He lived down the road from us." She said the family moved to Newport for a couple years, and that her daughter, now 21, still lives there.

Acknowledging she was "a little drunk" at the time, Wickersham said she responded to Malloy's request by putting her own arm around him and lifting her leg to do the same. "I said, 'What do you want with a near-virgin with no experience, when you can have a mature woman like me?' But guys like younger women."

At one point during the court proceeding, as the judge set the new bail amount, Wickersham exclaimed: "He's in deep!"

Holy shit, there is just so much wrong with that, that I don't even know where to start. I've gotta give props to Barney for (I'm assuming) not just sitting there in slack-jawed horror after hearing that story.

It's just like the embodiment of every cliché about white trash you could imagine, rolled up into that segment. Wow.

Disturbing local news: Deputy arrested on 180 child abuse, drug counts (from Bend.com) and the follow-up article: Deputy arraigned on 143 sex abuse, drug charges. This is way too creepy. The guy was a deputy for 10 years. So wrong.

The articles state that the "charge of using a child in a sexually explicit conduct is a Measure 11 offense and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 70 months in prison"—I hope they apply the 70-month minimum to each and every charge he's arraigned for (143 counts). That would put him at 10,010 months, or over 834 years. Otherwise, 70 months just doesn't seem anywhere near long enough.

Sick freak.

The Deschutes County Sheriff just can't catch a break. Not only are they dealing with some eyebrow-raising issues dealing with their budget and money, which I blogged about here, but now they're awash in controversy over the establishment of quotas ("don't call them quotas").

Jake has already written about this twice, here and here. And of course, since the story broke on Bend.com—and continues to unfold—here's the links to the relevant articles:

• Stiles: New 'performance standards' aren't quotas
• Standard, or quota? Sheriff, Daly disagree
• Gordon backs sheriff, blasts Daly on 'standards'

I'm not as bothered by this as I was by the "found money" deal, but some people are. (You know who you are! *heh*) Hey, it's what passes for drama here in the High Desert.

Isn't it interesting that after the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office pushed so hard to get a levy passed for more money, with all the hand-wringing and guilt trips about people losing jobs and criminals being let out of jail, now all of a sudden they have extra cash?

Aware of the likely criticism, Stiles insisted the rosier situation wasn't clear before May's vote to approve a 3-year levy, and that the funds come from non-levy sources.

Stiles and Jim Ross, the department's business manager, explained that the agency's 2003-04 ending fund balance, which they had conservatively estimated at $200,000, has turned out to be $874,000 instead.

And not small change, either. No, to the tune of two-thirds of a million dollars. And it might even be more:

And some said Stiles still may be under-shooting the amount of revenues he'll have for the new budget year. "It's going to get to $1.2 million," said Commissioner Tom DeWolf; Maier said at least $1 million beginning balance is likely.

The best part? They insist it's not levy money, and there will still be jail releases. Hello? Shouldn't keeping criminals in jail be a priority here? Or is it just me?