State Voters Will Settle The Showdown

On The Sheriffs

By Steve Bigham

Connecticut voters will be asked to vote on more than just political candidates on Election Day this year. They also must decide the fate of the state’s county sheriff system, which is the last vestige of county government in Connecticut.

A formal campaign to abolish the county sheriff system began earlier this year with a bill in the Connecticut General Assembly. Two state legislators and a handful of deputy sheriffs from across the state are urging voters to eliminate the patronage-based sheriff system and make the deputies state employees.

The question on the ballot will read, “Shall the constitution of the state be amended to eliminate county sheriffs?”

The county sheriff has come under fire in recent years due to its patronage-based system and recent alleged corruption problems. Two of the state’s eight county sheriffs have been arrested. In Windham County, Sheriff Thomas White was arrested on allegations he embezzled a client’s money. In New London County, Sheriff Edward Egan was charged with taking an assault rifle into a courthouse. And this week The Hartford Courant reported that Sheriff Egan also formed an armed “posse” consisting of two dentists during round-up of deadbeat dads over the past few years.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been investigating gun purchases by sheriffs and allegations of price gouging of out-of-state law firms.

But despite the bad publicity, Newtown resident Frank DeLucia, a deputy sheriff himself, believes the county sheriff system should be kept in place. He recognizes some of the recent problems, but believes turning the system over to the state may be a drastic measure that will only create further problems.

“I am not for the change. I’m not one that likes to tamper with the constitution, but it also takes the right from the voters to select someone by putting it under the state government’s authority. You’re replacing an elected person with an appointed person.”

The proposed legislation would change deputies to marshals and put the authority of the system under the control of state judges. Mr DeLucia wonders how a judge will be able to oversee the state’s 200-plus deputy sheriffs.

State marshals, as they would now be called, would be appointed by a 12-member commission instead of the sheriff in each county.

Mr DeLucia, a deputy sheriff for the past eight years, said improvements in the system are being addressed. They include improved training, better background checks, and clear guidelines as to what sheriffs and deputies can and can not do.

“We all knew that changes were necessary and we were addressing these issues,” he said this week. “I feel changes need to be made, but not abolishment of the high sheriffs.”

Mr DeLucia is concerned that the proposed amendment may pass, especially with the recent run of bad publicity.

“People only seem to be getting one side of the story,” he said.

The office of the high sheriff is responsible for courtroom security and deputies serve legal papers and transport prisoners. They do not have arrest powers, unlike some states, and most do not carry weapons.

“The system is in need of some overhauling. It has to be modernized. Things have to change, but that’s never really been addressed. To abolish the entire system is a drastic measure,” Mr DeLucia said.

State Representative Julia Wasserman (106th District) of Newtown led the movement in the General Assembly for sheriff system reform. She believes the system has run awry with nepotism and has become “outdated.”

“They’re running their own show. There are no clear lines of authority,” Mrs Wasserman said. “It’s got to be stopped.”

The eight sheriffs who stand to lose their jobs if this proposed change passes have also been drumming up support for their cause. The National Sheriffs Association recently ran an advertisement in its trade magazine urging sheriffs from across the country to donate money to help save the Connecticut sheriffs.

Charles Valentino serves as high sheriff for Fairfield County