August 15, 2018 at 5:47 p.m.
By no means a mandate
By no means a mandate
The first is, the sheriff won the election handily over his opponents and deserves congratulations. He ran his campaign mostly on the high ground - even if the Republican Party and some of his supporters did not - and is positioned to use that platform to get off to a good start in his next term.
That said, the second takeaway is, despite his margin of victory over two opponents seeking change, this election is not a mandate for the sheriff to stay the department's current course.
For there is another way to look at this election besides beating medical examiner Larry Mathein by nearly 20 points, and deputy Greg Gardner by 37, and that is from an establishment versus anti-establishment perspective.
Looked at that way, the election was very close, with Hartman, the establishment candidate, squeaking by with just about 52 percent, and the anti-establishment forces represented by Mathein and Greg Gardner getting about 48 percent.
Remember, both those challengers campaigned on change and not being part of the establishment. As such, they split the anti-establishment vote, and spared Hartman a nail-biter.
Indeed, in a scenario where one candidate represented the anti-establishment challenge, Hartman still wins, but it is by no means a mandate and only a small vote of confidence in the sheriff. It shows the division of opinion in the county about the state of affairs in the sheriff's department and it indicates that the electorate is a far from satisfied one.
A 52-48 victory sends a different message than a 20-point landslide.
And so we hope Hartman takes his campaign messages to heart in the next four years. At the WXPR radio debate, he acknowledged that his department could be more open with the county's public safety committee, the agency's committee of jurisdiction. We hope he means it.
The sheriff also said he wanted to continue to improve on departmental transparency and improve his relationship with the media. We hope he means it.
And we hope he looks at these election results and understands the discontent rippling beneath the surface, engaging nearly half of the voters. If change doesn't happen, that discontent will only grow and the sheriff doesn't have much wiggle room between his total and the total of those wanting change.
And next time, there might be only one candidate facing him, not two.
The third takeaway is that partisan poison muddied the waters in this election, which is especially sad given that the sheriff's office should not really be a partisan position. Yes, the county's top cop can and should weigh in on important policy matters when it comes to such things as drugs and school safety.
But the sheriff's job is not to make that policy or law but to enforce the law and to protect the public's safety, and a partisan label isn't required to do either of those things.
This election should have been about whether the sheriff was doing that effectively and efficiently, and whether his management of the department is helping or hurting morale and thus helping or hurting public safety. It should have been about personnel issues, allegations of lawlessness and retaliation and favoritism inside the agency, and high rates of misconduct.
It should have been about whether Hartman is cleaning up the mess we all know exists, or whether he is part of the problem.
It was hardly about those issues or that question at all, except as the two other candidates tried to raise them. Instead, it was all about who was the best or the most authentic Republican.
That's a shame, for now the real issues that never got discussed will linger on.
Much of the reason for the partisan poison - though not all - can be laid at the feet of the Oneida County Republican Party. They were in the tank for Hartman, and they campaigned strictly on partisanship: Vote for him, as one email blast read, because he is "the only Republican for sure" in the race.
None of the department's issues were discussed, just that candidates in the Republican primary should run "on values consistent with a Republican primary."
Again, the sheriff needs to enforce the law and protect public safety. That's the job and that's the value system, and a person's ability to do that effectively and efficiently is the criteria, not allegiance to some party platform.
That said, Mathein and Gardner helped stir up the partisan nature of the race, too, and likely played into the hands of the Republican Party. Gardner exhorted Democrats and independents to cross over and vote for him, and Mathein kept talking about candidate, not party, in a way that actually made it all about party.
And his talk about his alignment with various Democratic positions likely only inflamed the party faithful.
Such tactics would only be smart if there was real hope that the messages would prompt Democrats to cross over and vote in the Republican primary. But, with a crowded Democratic race for governor, and a contested congressional Democratic primary, there was never any real hope for that.
So it was a foolish errand, and the whole attempt to encourage crossovers helped to obscure the very real issues that those candidates should have been talking about.
Unsolicited advice: Next time there's a campaign about the need for change, the candidates seeking change should talk about reform rather than how much they can't stand the party whose primary they are running in.
So, Sheriff Hartman has another four. We hope he accomplishes good things for the county, but, to do so, the first thing he needs to do is to realize that this week's primary was by no means a mandate.
It was a real expression of discontent, if in the end it fell short because of a partisan hijacking.
Comments:
You must login to comment.