Should the County Sheriff be appointed or elected?  That question was effectively tabled Tuesday when county legislators chose not to schedule a public hearing on the issue.  The question isn't so much which approach is better, because many communities do it one way, and many the other.  The question is which is best for Tompkins County.  Should our sheriff be a politician who may or may not have a background in professional policing, or an experienced police officer appointed by politicians?

When Ken Lansing ran against Peter Meskill in 2010 he phrased it in exactly those terms, saying that Meskill was a manager, while Lansing had 37 years of experience in law enforcement including as Cayuga Heights police Chief.  But he also had to get down and dirty in the politics, because that was the only way to become sheriff.

Appointing a sheriff would certainly take the politics out of the sheriff, but would it take politics out of choosing one?  It certainly wouldn't, because 14 politicians would be doing the choosing.  On Wednesday the Town of Lansing's representative, Mike Sigler said  he doesn't think the sheriff should be chosen by the legislative branch of county government because he thinks the sheriff should be answerable directly to the voters.  He said he thinks the legislature is ill suited to have the kind of oversight it would need to have if it appointed a sheriff.

Would an appointed sheriff bring more stability and professionalism to the Sheriff's Department?  It's hard to say.  I have often been abashed by some of the things our county legislature has legislated.  I also have an impression that the Sheriff's office generally does a good job, and has done so as far back as I can remember.

So it comes down to the old saw, 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'.  It just isn't clear that the way we choose our sheriff is broken.  The Legislature was right to table the issue until the question of whether or not it is 'broke' can be answered.

v12i32