The Current Deschutes County Sheriff Has Created a Culture of Retaliation That's Cost Taxpayers Plenty

If there’s a prevailing sentiment that’s overcome us as we’ve gone through the details of the election for Deschutes County Sheriff, it’s this: Sheriffs, inside and outside Deschutes County, possess an enormous amount of unchecked power, and there’s very little that can presently be done about it. When the November election is over, outgoing Sheriff Shane Nelson will have the distinct “honor” of costing the taxpayers of Deschutes County hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements and/or lawsuits that are directly related to allegations of retaliation by Nelson against former employees. A judge can rule that Nelson was indeed culpable in the claims against him, but it’s the local taxpayers who will have to pay the piper.

The Sheriffs’ Code of Ethics, according to the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, includes the words, “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill intentions.”

Nelson, by all accounts, will ride off into the sunset and enjoy retirement, while taxpayers pick up the cost. Shouldn’t there be some measure of atonement, or even retribution, that emerges from this legacy of retaliation? We won’t hold our breath. The irony of wanting more justice around the person tasked with upholding justice in our county is not lost on any of us.

The only measure of justice that seems to come into play here is the one that the voters mete out — by voting a sheriff out, or, in the case of the current sheriff’s election, by voting for the furthest thing from the status quo.

It’s from that perspective that our editorial board, earlier in this election cycle, endorsed candidate Kent Vander Kamp as the next Deschutes County Sheriff. Subsequent to that, some questions emerged about Vander Kamp’s employment history. Other claims emerged around candidate William Bailey’s background. We investigated both.

While the claims about Vander Kamp’s activities while volunteering as a reserve officer in Southern California in the 1990s certainly pointed to a young person who appeared overly eager about playing cop, the biggest issue seemed to be Vander Kamp, bizarrely, not just coming out and telling the truth in the first place.

On Bailey’s part, our reporting — found inside this issue — on his background found nothing that would signal nefarious dealings. Still, as we asserted in our original endorsement in this race, it’s troubling that Bailey has not done enough to distance himself from one very problematic sheriff. It’s strange to hear him downplay the issues in the sheriff’s department as trumped-up election-year wrangling. It signals to us a person who has not yet grasped the huge responsibilities of the job of sheriff, where the top dog can often work with impunity, and where public perception and a sense of moral correctness seem to be the only things keeping sheriffs in line.

It’s been a long, arduous and often annoying process, trying to investigate the various claims that have come out during this sheriff’s election. At times, it’s seemed like voters have no good choices at all. That may be true. And yet someone is ultimately going to win this race and serve in this role with the same level of impunity that Nelson currently does. With all things considered, we think change — in the form of a vote for Vander Kamp — is still the least-worst choice.

This article appears in Source Weekly October 24, 2024.