It is currently Oct 17, 2018 3:49 am 




If you enter a post in this forum that violates the Pinecam Terms of Service,
you may get a suspension with no warning.

note: quotes must be 4 or fewer sentences/the source cited, by URL if online



Reply to topic  [ 683 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 57  Next

Previous topic | Next topic 

  Print view

Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 12:29 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
Joined: Oct 6, 2013 9:46 am
Posts: 198
I want to set some things straight. I will have an opportunity to vote my conscience for a Sheriff candidate. Beyond that, I will be okay with whatever candidate is selected by a majority of our citizens.
What I consider important is that this Sheriff election is conducted in as clean a manner as possible, without lies and clear misrepresentations playing a significant and substantial role.
Recent thread posts make me wonder whether we will have to revisit some rumors and concerns repeatedly until the Primary voting is completed. It appears that some having paid no attention previously are now asking questions about matters that have been well discussed and considered already.
Are Spodyak, Gore, and Rhoads to be expected to again defend themselves each time a newly involved potential voter learns of some rumor or allegation? But then, I am making an assumption that those again raising rumors and allegations are not doing so in attempt to wrongly influence voters close to the end of the campaign process.
Let me attempt to provide some needed history and context to the renewed interest in Rhoads’ separation from his CSP position. When the original rumors and associated allegations first surfaced, I posted that I took it upon myself to conduct my personal inquiry into the matter. Rhoads has stated that he is bound by the stipulations embodied within his separation agreement negotiated with CSP. However, I am not bound by any legal prohibition. Allow me to share what I learned.
After being fired by CSP, a fellow employee forwarded allegations that Rhoads had falsified the official record of hours worked related to his CSP duties. Specifically, the fellow employee alleged that Rhoads was involved in coaching at Platte Canyon when he was supposed to be conducting CSP duties.
This all is rather confusing in that Rhoads, serving in a supervisory position, was a salaried employee, being paid a fixed compensation, not claiming pay when engaged in coaching activities.
I learned that prior to the allegation raised, Rhoads had an unblemished record as a CSP employee, having received an evaluation rating of “Exceptional” two months before the allegation was made.
I likely don’t need to again address the history and criminal record of the fellow employee having made the allegation.
What does need to be addressed is the history of the relationship between the schools, our Sheriff Department, and CSP. This has a direct relationship to the functional climate at the time that the allegation against Rhoads surfaced.
Rhoads indicates that when the allegation was first made, his CSP superiors told him of their concern that he was “too involved in the Platte Canyon community”. I believe that CSP authorities had real reason to be concerned about Rhoads’ involvement. In better times, CSP would likely have been pleased with Rhoads’ involvement with a community he served as a CSP representative. But, that was not a better time. There was conflict between the Sheriff Department Command and CSP. That conflict was reasonable due to the situation relating to the nature of Sheriff Department relations with the schools. All of that particular history has been completely lost in the discussion relating to the SRO issue, and likely unknown to more recent residents.
It is even now difficult to think about the climate and environment then. A Sheriff Department Corporal was alleged to be having sexual relations with underage Platte Canyon students, even reportedly fathering a student’s child. There was talk about additional concern regarding Deputies having inappropriate interactions with local female teens.
I can completely understand the concerns of CSP authorities. In the situation indicated, I would have wanted my subordinate to maintain total noninvolvement. Yet, none of this was the fault of Rhoads who only wanted to stay involved with students through coaching.
I can’t honestly say whether Rhoads would be the best individual to be our Sheriff. That decision is up to a majority of voters. What I can say is that I believe that I have a moral and ethical obligation to disclose what I have learned through my own inquiries. If anyone has information that refutes this, I encourage them to share it. What is most important is that the actual relevant facts be made available for voters to make an informed judgment, hopefully based on actual fact.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 2:58 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Jan 30, 2012 10:28 am
Posts: 31
Craigc473--This has been posted on about every website, and addressed at every debate and meet & greet. You obviously are more interested in disparaging a candidate than the truth. If you can't find the details, including the letter from CSP exonerating Mr. Rhoads, let me give it to you in a nutshell. More details are posted on every valid website, including My Mountain Town, somewhere here on Pinecam, Park County Elections 2018 and several others.

Another former CSP Trooper was charged with sex with a 13 year-old student in Fairplay. In retribution, he accused Mr Rhoads of coaching at PCHS while on duty for CSP. The letter from CSP exonerating him was posted and he was offered his job back, but CSP wanted him to agree to quit coaching, supposedly to keep things "cleaner". Mr. Rhoads refused to quit coaching, as he has been a coach at PCHS since 2001 or so. Rather than return to CSP, he took the position of death investigator for Adams & Broomfield counties, where he is still employed.

It is VERY irritating to have to keep reading inaccurate and accusatory statements about ANY of the candidates, because someone keeps repeating rumors and lies because they don't bother to research the truth. Mr. Rhoads has even posted his phone number for ANYONE to call him if they have questions. And the documentation confirming his statements has been posted numerous times...


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 4:21 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
User avatar
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
Location: The Wonderful USA
craigc473 wrote:
Right, "terms of settlement couldn't be disclosed". Why not? All Gary needs to do is tell us what the charge was, and why he was fired. Once again, the State Patrol did not ask him to give up coaching, there was a specific charge, what was it? If he was innocent of the charge than explain it. Not hide behind terms that can't be disclosed.


You seem so angry! You mad, Bro? Why all the rage? Is it because your tactics failed and there are documented facts proving your assertions are inaccurate? Chill homey! 8) You can't be right all the time. If you have any questions you need answered, just give Mr Rhoads a call. He will be more than willing to answer, discuss, any questions you have.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 4:45 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Jan 30, 2012 10:28 am
Posts: 31
This is just so tiresome.
Unless you live under a rock.....asked and answered.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 5:02 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Apr 15, 2010 6:23 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Western Hemisphere
So can you (GG) explain the timeline in your post?
"After being fired by CSP, a fellow employee forwarded allegations that Rhoads had falsified the official record of hours worked related to his CSP duties."

What was the original disciplinary termination for? The pedophile trooper's allegation aparently came later.

Additionally, the impregnated-by-a-deputy female was a graduated 18 year old former student, which is not exoneration, just accuracy. the story was covered in the Flume at the time.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 6:06 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
User avatar
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
Location: The Wonderful USA
keepthechange wrote:
So can you (GG) explain the timeline in your post?
"After being fired by CSP, a fellow employee forwarded allegations that Rhoads had falsified the official record of hours worked related to his CSP duties."

What was the original disciplinary termination for? The pedophile trooper's allegation aparently came later.

Additionally, the impregnated-by-a-deputy female was a graduated 18 year old former student, which is not exoneration, just accuracy. the story was covered in the Flume at the time.


KTC, why don’t you just skip the middle man and ask Mr Rhoads yourself. Avoid the back and forth and get your questions answered all in one sitting. I’ve found he’s more than willing to speak with anyone. So maybe in between report writing, give him a call.

*edited for ridiculous typo*


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 6:28 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
Joined: Oct 6, 2013 9:46 am
Posts: 198
The information I was provided in my inquiry was that the fellow employee had made the allegation against Rhoads after being informed that termination proceedings had been initiated. Having no access to CSP personnel records for that individual, I have no information regarding exactly where the termination action was in actual process. That brings up a point. How was the individual having posted the apparently factual settlement agreement excerpts able to gain access to that legal document?
I was careful to characterize the statements about the situation with the Sheriff Department Corporal as an allegation, not to in any way diminish his actions, but with knowledge that certain of the aspects in the original claims proved to be incorrect. My point was that during the time period in which Rhoads was confronted with the CSP investigation of the unrelated allegation against him, the community was grappling with the allegations involving serious impropriety involving Department personnel. It seems obvious that CSP authorities would have been concerned about having one of their officers anywhere near something involving allegations of law enforcement personnel having unlawful sexual contact with minors. For Rhoads, it was wrong place, wrong time.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 6:43 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
Joined: Oct 6, 2013 9:46 am
Posts: 198
keepthechange,
Maybe I need to be more clear. I'm not really sure where you and some others are trying to go with this, but from everything that I have learned about Rhoads' separation from CSP, my advice to you is that dog won't hunt.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 7:19 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
User avatar
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
Location: The Wonderful USA
Guyot guy wrote:
keepthechange,
Maybe I need to be more clear. I'm not really sure where you and some others are trying to go with this, but from everything that I have learned about Rhoads' separation from CSP, my advice to you is that dog won't hunt.



:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 7:40 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Jun 11, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 20
That dog does hunt, and it's hunting for the TRUTH!


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 7:53 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Apr 15, 2010 6:23 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Western Hemisphere
Well, the flaws in most of the other candidates are obvious and well recognized. Any questions about Rhoads is treated as sacrilege and an attack on the Chosen One.

The overly enthusiastic Rhoads supporters are drowning out any and all questions about his credibility. This opened my "suspicious mind". I'm concerned about the character of a candidate who has supporters who attack anyone who raises what they believe to be legitimate issues when integrity and transparency is part of the platform.

I'm not inclined to call him directly because if it's not on paper (or posted), it didn't happen.
From the start there has been too much smoke blown on his history that doesn't jibe with what's known.

I can't buy the coroner job as being his dream job. Now he wants to be the chief LEO in ParkCo when it's obvious no law enforcement agency would hire him in 2010.

He has gathered a rabid crowd of very vocal supporters, much similar to Michael Graves' supporters eight years ago. Not distancing himself from the tin foil hat crowd (election tampering; vague references to a "good old boy club" whatever is meant by that; "systemic dysfunction" and so on) is to his detriment. I don't believe the party line to be the whole truth, and that's all I'm trying to get.

Regarding the release of the CSP document-someone (not me) made a CORA request.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Park Sheriff election (Merged Topics)
Post Posted: Jun 13, 2018 9:58 pm 
Posts Semi-Regularly
Posts Semi-Regularly
User avatar
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
Location: The Wonderful USA
keepthechange wrote:
Well, the flaws in most of the other candidates are obvious and well recognized. Any questions about Rhoads is treated as sacrilege and an attack on the Chosen One.

The overly enthusiastic Rhoads supporters are drowning out any and all questions about his credibility. This opened my "suspicious mind". I'm concerned about the character of a candidate who has supporters who attack anyone who raises what they believe to be legitimate issues when integrity and transparency is part of the platform.

I'm not inclined to call him directly because if it's not on paper (or posted), it didn't happen.
From the start there has been too much smoke blown on his history that doesn't jibe with what's known.

I can't buy the coroner job as being his dream job. Now he wants to be the chief LEO in ParkCo when it's obvious no law enforcement agency would hire him in 2010.

He has gathered a rabid crowd of very vocal supporters, much similar to Michael Graves' supporters eight years ago. Not distancing himself from the tin foil hat crowd (election tampering; vague references to a "good old boy club" whatever is meant by that; "systemic dysfunction" and so on) is to his detriment. I don't believe the party line to be the whole truth, and that's all I'm trying to get.

Regarding the release of the CSP document-someone (not me) made a CORA request.
.

We all know who made the CORA request. (name removed by moderators) included the receipt on the documents she posted. The very same documents that contain the facts Mr Rhoads has been sharing all along. I haven’t noticed anyone acting rabid, just defensive because Gary has been attacked unmercifully. Attacks none of the other candidates have had to endure. False accusations and flamboyant lies. Some told by a woman that sadly suffers from some deep mental illness, whose only goal is to smear a campaign that she was asked to leave because of her hateful tactics and erratic behavior.

So instead of continuing to be a part of the rabid haters, why don’t you take the time to actually learn the truth and educate yourself. I would assume facts matter to you, not just slanderous bull that is being spread out of spite. Also, I doubt you are in any position to, with any authority, determine what may or may not be someone’s dream job. People choose their jobs for many different reasons. Let’s not make assumptions for which you have no basis.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 683 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 57  Next

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Who is online

In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 2823 on Mar 26, 2012 7:26 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests





Powered by phpBB © 2000-2012 phpBB Group

This website copyright © 1994-2018 by
Pinecam.com is a member of the Platte Canyon Area Chamber of Commerce