Sheriff should handle security

Regarding the Nov. 19 article, “Courthouse safety: Who should take charge?”

I am a proponent of increased security at all county facilities to include the county campus/courthouse. Whether it is Osama bin Laden or a local citizen with a grudge and the means to wreak havoc, county facilities are a central figure in legal and governmental rule in our communities and they require adequate security. Continuity of government functions, from the courts to road maintenance, allows us to live our lives in the manner we have become accustomed. Interruptions in these services not only affect our personal sense of security, but can deeply impact our pocketbooks.

Either of these plans would work. One plan would cost more, requires an exhaustive and expensive search for qualified candidates, requires a whole new contract with a new bargaining group to sign that contract and would not guarantee filled positions every day. The other plan costs less, would guarantee filled personnel rosters (assuming the contract requires it) and doesn’t add a new bargaining group.

The article quotes, “There is a difference between security and law enforcement.” Yes, there is a difference. Law enforcement can fulfill the security role as well as enforce the rule of law within the courthouse and any other facility. Security can’t do that. Again quoting the article, “Bringing in someone with specific security experience was important.” There are people within the Sheriff’s Office who have “specific security experience” that they can bring to the table. In fact, they have years of experience in advising citizens and businesses on how to improve their security. Some personnel within the Sheriff’s Office are privy to information not available to private citizens. It makes no sense to me to pay more for less.

Steve Haley