did mike thompson get played?
It seems the Napa Valley Register appears to have fallen for a well played diversion tactic in the form of a fake email sent from someone claiming they were going to recall District 5 Supervisor Belia Ramos. This happened on the heels of Pedroza's recall announcement. Coincidence? And why would the Register print they are both under recall threat when only Pedroza's notice of intention was served? We know Congressman Mike Thompson has been instrumental in Belia's career and is supportive of her endeavors. We also know Thompson was running cold on Alfredo Pedroza- his team donated to Alfredo Pedroza's opponent, Amber Manfree, in 2020. On the flip side, it appears State Senator Bill Dodd, (the Republican turned Democrat who also served on the Board of Supervisors and was supported to climb higher), will do anything to pull Alfredo up to his seat at the state senate. A lot of wealthy people have invested in Pedroza- he is supposed to stay in the game, but for what end? (Keep an eye on Walt Ranch- we have some ideas of where that is going). We know the day that Pedroza's land deal was brought to light that Dodd called upon all of the supervisors to support Pedroza. The Board never discusses it. They all use the FPPC as a talking point, ignoring the evidence of the violation of their very own Code of Ethics. So. Did Bill Dodd instigate the email? Was it public affairs spin master Muelrath? Chuck Wagner? The Halls? The Farm Bureau? We don't know. But the seemingly fake threat of also recalling Belia Ramos sure was successful in getting both Thompson and CA State Representative Cecilia Aguiar Curry to sign a joint letter in support of Ramos, but also, sadly, Pedroza. Why would they sign a letter that shows they support corruption? This is a question worth asking and if they answer, we will certainly share what they say.
MINH TRAN LET GO WITH SEVERANCE
WHAT ARE WE BUYING?
eye opening letter to the editor by elaine de man on the subject. we witnessed her process with NVR editor Dan evans and the hoops she had to jump throug to get this letter published, however, it appears it was only published in the St. Helena star and not the NVR main paper:
Commentary: Supervisors fooled by Tran's departure
by Elaine de Man, Aug 17, 2022
Former Napa County CEO Minh Tran has been in the news a lot lately. Among other things, last May the Napa County Farm Bureau inexplicably chose to honor him with an award for “Distinguished Leadership.”
Given the Farm Bureau’s vigorous campaign against Supervisor Belia Ramos during the 2020 election, one wonders if this was a reward for Tran’s seemingly relentless attempts to tarnish Ramos’ reputation, starting with the external investigation into the out-of-turn shot in the arm she accepted early in the pandemic. This was ordered after an internal investigation conducted by the staff on Tran’s behalf revealed no misconduct or wrongdoing.
The independent investigation also turned out to be a big nothing burger. Nevertheless, it cost the county $110,000 in legal fees and many exhausting staff hours. (Item F14 in the Grand Jury Report) Was it really necessary to put an already over-burdened public health staff under such intense and unnecessary scrutiny?
But what’s especially puzzling is that Tran was recognized by the Farm Bureau specifically for “his superior and quality leadership as Napa County CEO,” even though the turnover rate among department heads and top staff in Napa County reached astronomical levels during Tran’s tenure as CEO!
Our county supervisors were once again caught with their collective pants down. During a special meeting on July 22, James Hinton, a private citizen, informed the board that Tran had accepted employment with Riverside County, which was, apparently news to them. (You may recall it was two private citizens, Kellie Anderson and Beth Nelsen, who first brought allegations of Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza’s conflict of interest with Walt Ranch to their attention earlier this year.)
The following Tuesday, after the supervisors knew Tran was close to taking another job, they held a closed session, presumably to fire him. It concluded with “no reportable action.” On Thursday, the Board met in closed session, again, this time voting unanimously to “separate” Tran from employment with “no cause.”
Perhaps the point was to give Tran time to talk to Riverside officials — delaying the announcement of his accepting that county's top counsel job — so Napa could terminate him with “no cause” on Thursday, thus entitling him to an additional 18 months severance pay. Whatever and however it happened, Tran has accepted the job in Riverside, and will start working there on Aug. 30 according to The Press-Enterprise.
During Tran’s tenure in Napa County at least eighteen high-level officials chose to take early retirement or demotions that included relocating rather than continue working under him! Even so, board chairperson Ryan Gregory chose to endorse Tran by saying, “Any employer would be lucky to have such a dedicated public servant as Tran.” (Napa Valley Register)
What a slap in the face to all the county employees who left because of him!
Now that Tran is gone, the one patently clear thing is that we need an entirely new board of supervisors, one that won’t be so easily manipulated and one composed of individuals who will actually live up to their oath to serve the people of Napa County and its employees.
The Farm Bureau may have been right about one thing when honoring Tran last May. According to Farm Bureau CEO Ryan Klobas, Tran was singled out “namely [for] his ability to successfully lead the county through periods of both adversity and success.” Indeed, it does appear that Tran has led the Board of Supervisors to an extremely successful outcome for himself during this particular period of adversity — his own tenure as Napa County CEO.
by Elaine de Man, Aug 17, 2022
Former Napa County CEO Minh Tran has been in the news a lot lately. Among other things, last May the Napa County Farm Bureau inexplicably chose to honor him with an award for “Distinguished Leadership.”
Given the Farm Bureau’s vigorous campaign against Supervisor Belia Ramos during the 2020 election, one wonders if this was a reward for Tran’s seemingly relentless attempts to tarnish Ramos’ reputation, starting with the external investigation into the out-of-turn shot in the arm she accepted early in the pandemic. This was ordered after an internal investigation conducted by the staff on Tran’s behalf revealed no misconduct or wrongdoing.
The independent investigation also turned out to be a big nothing burger. Nevertheless, it cost the county $110,000 in legal fees and many exhausting staff hours. (Item F14 in the Grand Jury Report) Was it really necessary to put an already over-burdened public health staff under such intense and unnecessary scrutiny?
But what’s especially puzzling is that Tran was recognized by the Farm Bureau specifically for “his superior and quality leadership as Napa County CEO,” even though the turnover rate among department heads and top staff in Napa County reached astronomical levels during Tran’s tenure as CEO!
Our county supervisors were once again caught with their collective pants down. During a special meeting on July 22, James Hinton, a private citizen, informed the board that Tran had accepted employment with Riverside County, which was, apparently news to them. (You may recall it was two private citizens, Kellie Anderson and Beth Nelsen, who first brought allegations of Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza’s conflict of interest with Walt Ranch to their attention earlier this year.)
The following Tuesday, after the supervisors knew Tran was close to taking another job, they held a closed session, presumably to fire him. It concluded with “no reportable action.” On Thursday, the Board met in closed session, again, this time voting unanimously to “separate” Tran from employment with “no cause.”
Perhaps the point was to give Tran time to talk to Riverside officials — delaying the announcement of his accepting that county's top counsel job — so Napa could terminate him with “no cause” on Thursday, thus entitling him to an additional 18 months severance pay. Whatever and however it happened, Tran has accepted the job in Riverside, and will start working there on Aug. 30 according to The Press-Enterprise.
During Tran’s tenure in Napa County at least eighteen high-level officials chose to take early retirement or demotions that included relocating rather than continue working under him! Even so, board chairperson Ryan Gregory chose to endorse Tran by saying, “Any employer would be lucky to have such a dedicated public servant as Tran.” (Napa Valley Register)
What a slap in the face to all the county employees who left because of him!
Now that Tran is gone, the one patently clear thing is that we need an entirely new board of supervisors, one that won’t be so easily manipulated and one composed of individuals who will actually live up to their oath to serve the people of Napa County and its employees.
The Farm Bureau may have been right about one thing when honoring Tran last May. According to Farm Bureau CEO Ryan Klobas, Tran was singled out “namely [for] his ability to successfully lead the county through periods of both adversity and success.” Indeed, it does appear that Tran has led the Board of Supervisors to an extremely successful outcome for himself during this particular period of adversity — his own tenure as Napa County CEO.
The Napa Register article has too many holes. Published July 28, 2022, hours after the closed session ended, there are far more questions than answers. Earlier the same day, during public comment, Beth Nelsen read excerpts from a transcript of an audio tape that was passed around, recorded July 27, 2022:
MT: And obviously if the board decides something differently, there would be a time schedule in announcing…(inaudible)..it would not be proper. Ok, so I just want to put that out there, I am sorry it has been a little bit chaotic but, uh, that’s how it should, it is and that’s how we go. And obviously you can continue doing the great work you are doing so whether or not I am here or not, it should not matter because you guys are the ones doing the actual work. Um, yeah, so any questions?
VOICE: I’m just going to assume things were more favorable for you to stay rather than go to Riverside?
MT: Oh yeah. If you really think about it, and I’ll be candid- normally you don’t discuss salary, but our salary is very public and it’s in the newspaper. The job down there offered $255,000 per year, the job here pays 311 and we know we have a COLA (Cost Of Living Assessment) coming up, so just economic alone you know is a difference and the job here is the CEO job, the job down there is county counsel job. Those are different as well. More importantly is that the board, politically speaking, isn’t (?) the same everywhere- they are very divided everywhere, meaning that you know we have our issues here, they have their issues down there because if they don’t, they wouldn’t be needing you, right? So, it’s uh, yeah, make no difference. Let’s see what else? Um- and uh, frankly right now it’s a time in my life, particularly with my dad- it’s not the greatest time to take on a brand new job knowing all the family issue and stress. It’s hard. So because of all those reasons, sorry, to some of you, I’m speaking around a little bit. So, yeah. So economically, politically, emotionally it sort of makes sense. Cause, uh, my family, my daughter too- she’s a junior at Vintage and you don’t want to be leaving in middle of (inaudible)
SAME VOICE: Oh, just a junior, okay.
MT: So, just, I mean I went through a lot of ups and downs and frankly been thinking about this for quite some time and you know, you guys have been in this office know how many closed sessions the board has now- maybe tomorrow will be including the ninth day- the ninth time to read this. It’s not a surprise, it’s not a new thing. It’s been pulled through. But at least my part back in time with you guys, I’m staying. But like I said, the board have their authority and their discretion to say, “ok, Minh, you’re done,” I say, ok, that’s fine too (inaudible word). The good thing of it is I am glad that there are job offers, I didn’t like how it all played out in the newspaper and I have been very, I guess uh, what’s the word? Team player? Just silence. Not a word (laughs) in the newspaper or otherwise, so uh.
SAME VOICE: It’s just very surprising on Friday just how it all unfolded.
MT: I agree and how they should have put it down and then take it off the agenda from Riverside, that was just really weird, odd. Because of all this reason I said I (laughs). Maybe I will just pause and see what happens next.
NEW VOICE: I am sorry you had to go through that. I mean it sounds like it was very stressful, last few days for you.
MT: And it continues to be stressful. But that’s okay, it’s part of the job, that’s why I get paid the big bucks. (laughter) Like I said, if it’s too easy, they wouldn’t need me. Yeah. So that’s that. And in term of the office itself, Becky, anything to share with the group?
VOICE: I think we’re just humming along. I don’t know of anything that’s coming up that’s ? odd or different that- our agendas are moving along, our projects are moving along. I was going to ask Jesus what are the next tabling events or are those wrapping up now?
Discussion among employees discussing events, American Canyon. National night out.
MT: Well hopefully the weather, keep it this way.
VOICE: Yeah, it’s been really great the last couple weeks. (more discussion on national night out)
MT: Michael, anything to share with the group?
VOICE: (and others, speaking about logistics)
MT: Neha?
VOICE: I don’t have anything.
MT: Anything else to add issues?
VOICE: (back to events discussion) Great Wine Capitals comes up, discussion about Argentina and their political disarray. Ryan may or may not go. Someone asked if Alfredo is going- they say they haven’t heard a word from him about this, other voice said they would be very surprised if he didn’t go because he is very involved in Great Wine Capitals...Recruitment for Leah’s position, topic of PIO, overwhelm of position.
MT: ends meeting. Well thank you everyone, have a good Wednesday.
END TAPE 27:07
VOICE: I’m just going to assume things were more favorable for you to stay rather than go to Riverside?
MT: Oh yeah. If you really think about it, and I’ll be candid- normally you don’t discuss salary, but our salary is very public and it’s in the newspaper. The job down there offered $255,000 per year, the job here pays 311 and we know we have a COLA (Cost Of Living Assessment) coming up, so just economic alone you know is a difference and the job here is the CEO job, the job down there is county counsel job. Those are different as well. More importantly is that the board, politically speaking, isn’t (?) the same everywhere- they are very divided everywhere, meaning that you know we have our issues here, they have their issues down there because if they don’t, they wouldn’t be needing you, right? So, it’s uh, yeah, make no difference. Let’s see what else? Um- and uh, frankly right now it’s a time in my life, particularly with my dad- it’s not the greatest time to take on a brand new job knowing all the family issue and stress. It’s hard. So because of all those reasons, sorry, to some of you, I’m speaking around a little bit. So, yeah. So economically, politically, emotionally it sort of makes sense. Cause, uh, my family, my daughter too- she’s a junior at Vintage and you don’t want to be leaving in middle of (inaudible)
SAME VOICE: Oh, just a junior, okay.
MT: So, just, I mean I went through a lot of ups and downs and frankly been thinking about this for quite some time and you know, you guys have been in this office know how many closed sessions the board has now- maybe tomorrow will be including the ninth day- the ninth time to read this. It’s not a surprise, it’s not a new thing. It’s been pulled through. But at least my part back in time with you guys, I’m staying. But like I said, the board have their authority and their discretion to say, “ok, Minh, you’re done,” I say, ok, that’s fine too (inaudible word). The good thing of it is I am glad that there are job offers, I didn’t like how it all played out in the newspaper and I have been very, I guess uh, what’s the word? Team player? Just silence. Not a word (laughs) in the newspaper or otherwise, so uh.
SAME VOICE: It’s just very surprising on Friday just how it all unfolded.
MT: I agree and how they should have put it down and then take it off the agenda from Riverside, that was just really weird, odd. Because of all this reason I said I (laughs). Maybe I will just pause and see what happens next.
NEW VOICE: I am sorry you had to go through that. I mean it sounds like it was very stressful, last few days for you.
MT: And it continues to be stressful. But that’s okay, it’s part of the job, that’s why I get paid the big bucks. (laughter) Like I said, if it’s too easy, they wouldn’t need me. Yeah. So that’s that. And in term of the office itself, Becky, anything to share with the group?
VOICE: I think we’re just humming along. I don’t know of anything that’s coming up that’s ? odd or different that- our agendas are moving along, our projects are moving along. I was going to ask Jesus what are the next tabling events or are those wrapping up now?
Discussion among employees discussing events, American Canyon. National night out.
MT: Well hopefully the weather, keep it this way.
VOICE: Yeah, it’s been really great the last couple weeks. (more discussion on national night out)
MT: Michael, anything to share with the group?
VOICE: (and others, speaking about logistics)
MT: Neha?
VOICE: I don’t have anything.
MT: Anything else to add issues?
VOICE: (back to events discussion) Great Wine Capitals comes up, discussion about Argentina and their political disarray. Ryan may or may not go. Someone asked if Alfredo is going- they say they haven’t heard a word from him about this, other voice said they would be very surprised if he didn’t go because he is very involved in Great Wine Capitals...Recruitment for Leah’s position, topic of PIO, overwhelm of position.
MT: ends meeting. Well thank you everyone, have a good Wednesday.
END TAPE 27:07
|
|
|
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATES AIRPORT, NAPA REGISTER DOWNPLAYS
READ GRAND JURY REPORT from june 21, 2022:
| grandjury_airport.pdf |
"As described to the Grand Jury there was a great deal of politics underlying the process. Some Board members did not seem to want a thorough RFP process and appeared to have a predetermined view of the outcome....
Another interviewee described how even legal advice given by the County Counsel regarding FAA grant assurances was discounted by certain Board members based on information provided by prospective FBO’s...
More troubling, as set forth below, some interviewees alleged that confidential information was inappropriately leaked from closed sessions, ending up in the possession of the FBOs negotiating with the County, and sometimes undermining staff and other Board members." -
-Excerpts from the Grand Jury Report
WHO LEAKED THE INFORMATION?
WHAT WE KNOW:
We've lost millions of dollars in revenue. Atlantic Aviation announced its acquisition of Lynx FBO Network on December 1, 2021. Lynx FBO donated at least $6,000 to Alfredo Pedroza's 2020 campaign:
Another interviewee described how even legal advice given by the County Counsel regarding FAA grant assurances was discounted by certain Board members based on information provided by prospective FBO’s...
More troubling, as set forth below, some interviewees alleged that confidential information was inappropriately leaked from closed sessions, ending up in the possession of the FBOs negotiating with the County, and sometimes undermining staff and other Board members." -
-Excerpts from the Grand Jury Report
WHO LEAKED THE INFORMATION?
WHAT WE KNOW:
We've lost millions of dollars in revenue. Atlantic Aviation announced its acquisition of Lynx FBO Network on December 1, 2021. Lynx FBO donated at least $6,000 to Alfredo Pedroza's 2020 campaign:
|
|
ARTICLE: "Napa County airport renovation efforts draws grand jury barbs" WAS THE TITLE OF THE NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE ON THIS ISSUE published july 8, 2022 - CLICK TO READ
Anonymous source to Napa County Cash:
"Minh (Tran) is notorious for abusing anything he can to make things less transparent and I'm thinking the leaks from closed sessions were from Alfredo (Pedroza), though I have no proof. It's how he (Alfredo Pedroza) operates- frantically texting for info all the time and on the fly to be first to the teacher's desk with the apple and look important/all knowing."
-We know we need to take these types of messages with a grain of salt, however, far too many people have made similar complaints regarding the duo that is Minh Tran and Alfredo Pedroza, who seem to "rule the roost" on the third floor. The county has experienced unprecedented turnover since Minh Tran became CEO of Napa County. As of July 22, 2022, there will be much more news (hopefully) publicized in the near future. In the mean time, why is there so much dissatisfaction under Minh Tran?
"Minh (Tran) is notorious for abusing anything he can to make things less transparent and I'm thinking the leaks from closed sessions were from Alfredo (Pedroza), though I have no proof. It's how he (Alfredo Pedroza) operates- frantically texting for info all the time and on the fly to be first to the teacher's desk with the apple and look important/all knowing."
-We know we need to take these types of messages with a grain of salt, however, far too many people have made similar complaints regarding the duo that is Minh Tran and Alfredo Pedroza, who seem to "rule the roost" on the third floor. The county has experienced unprecedented turnover since Minh Tran became CEO of Napa County. As of July 22, 2022, there will be much more news (hopefully) publicized in the near future. In the mean time, why is there so much dissatisfaction under Minh Tran?
ARTICLE: Riverside county might have a new top lawyer
july 22, 2022 by jeff horseman for the press enterprise - Click to read
WHAT DO we know ABOUT MINH TRAN?
|
Several people have come forward to highlight the issues employees experience under the rule of Minh Tran. We know there is a massive turnover at the county level. Others have raised concerns over possible sexism and harassment. Similar concerns were raised over the Farm Bureau CEO, Ryan Klobas. We know the Farm Bureau recently celebrated Minh Tran. We know Minh Tran has had it out for District 5 Supervisor Belia Ramos because she reported him to the state bar for withholding information regarding the throwaway vaccine she accepted. We know there was talk going around that Minh Tran was likely about to be fired, so it appears he is now looking to paint his exit like a change of career choice. Given all of these complaints coming to light, will Riverside take him? Other concerns about his lack of transparency in his pay have also been raised. We know Minh Tran's contract is for pay of $265,000 annually, as stated in 2017. He now makes $311,000. Below you can download pdf's that were obtained via a public records request. The Board of Supervisors have not approved ANY annual increases in open session as required by law. Additionally, his severance was also not approved in open session:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-54953.html |
From the Napa County Farm Bureau page.
|
|
|
| ||||||
For comparison, you may examine the contract of the former CEO, Leanne Link. Noteworthy is the section entitled, "Compensation and Performance Review," downloaded as a pdf:
| a-170048b-17_leanne_link_employment_agreement.pdf |
ARTICLE: napa ceo tran eyed for riverside county post - click to READ
napa register, july 22, 2022 by barry eberling
the sheriff kerfuffle
The firing of former Napa County undersheriff Jon Crawford and subsequent $500,000 settlement laid quiet for quite some time. Until election season in 2022. Quite a bit of information can be found on the web, but this particular letter to the editor begs several questions INCLUDING, WHAT PART DID ALFREDO PEDROZA PLAY IN THIS?
LETTER: JON CRAWFORD’S TERMINATION -- WHAT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
APRIL 29, 2022 NAPA VALLEY REGISTER
""This is in response to the Napa Valley Register article on Sunday, April 17, 2022, regarding Jon Crawford and his termination settlement. Let’s examine what may have actually happened. The Napa County supervisors may have wanted a different sheriff than Jon Crawford. Since they could only appoint a sheriff temporarily pending an election by the citizens of the Napa Valley, they may have wanted to have a clear path for their own selection. Perhaps they did not want to wait for mundane things like lawful, dutiful, democratic, honorable elections by the people of Napa Valley.
Could Crawford’s candidacy have interfered with their plan and their selection? Could they have thought Jon Crawford might have a good chance of winning the election? And in that case, might they have thought that influencing Robertson to fire him would lessen the risk of their candidate losing? If the answer to those questions is ‘Yes,’ then the stinking way — and I mean like a large sturgeon caught four weeks ago left in the hot Napa sun type of stink — might have made you ponder their arrogance and disregard for the elective process. Several issues need airing.
The first is that former Sheriff Robertson misrepresented Crawford’s termination. Robertson is quoted as saying: “The decision was actually Jon Crawford’s to leave the sheriff’s office,” but Crawford did not leave on his own volition as Robertson indicates. Crawford was terminated, and he received a letter stating that which the Register published.
The second is that Robertson deliberately used a strawman argument to describe an analogy that does not apply to this situation. He mentioned that “You can’t have the undersheriff running against the sheriff … It's like the vice president running against the president; it doesn’t work.” The problem with this analogy is that the president is elected to begin with. The supervisors’ selection of Ortiz was a selection. Robertson erroneously conflates the issues as being the same. Of course, someone (anyone) can run against a temporarily-selected and appointed sheriff. In addition, the supervisors were actually the ones who created the two law officers running against each other by selecting Ortiz shortly after Crawford announced his candidacy.
The third issue is that Robertson indicates that “It comes down to his political ambition to be sheriff, which is troubling. And I’m glad I’ve made the decision that I made.” Why would it be “troubling“ to Robertson for the person who has been a successful undersheriff, running the day-to-day operations of the department for the past 3 years, to be running for sheriff? It would in fact be very reasonable and most likely that Crawford would be running for sheriff in this context. Moreover, the supervisors may not have been all “glad“ or happy or even satisfied with Robertson’s termination process, because just months later they gave Crawford a settlement of $500,000.
In conclusion, in reviewing what has happened to Jon Crawford over the past many months and given his three-year track record of actually running the Napa County Sheriff Department and seeing him stand up to some of the most powerful and influential people in the county and still keeping an unbowed, positive, professional, focused attitude and demeanor, voters should choose Jon Crawford, not just over Oscar Ortiz, but over anyone else."
-John Prescott
Benicia
Could Crawford’s candidacy have interfered with their plan and their selection? Could they have thought Jon Crawford might have a good chance of winning the election? And in that case, might they have thought that influencing Robertson to fire him would lessen the risk of their candidate losing? If the answer to those questions is ‘Yes,’ then the stinking way — and I mean like a large sturgeon caught four weeks ago left in the hot Napa sun type of stink — might have made you ponder their arrogance and disregard for the elective process. Several issues need airing.
The first is that former Sheriff Robertson misrepresented Crawford’s termination. Robertson is quoted as saying: “The decision was actually Jon Crawford’s to leave the sheriff’s office,” but Crawford did not leave on his own volition as Robertson indicates. Crawford was terminated, and he received a letter stating that which the Register published.
The second is that Robertson deliberately used a strawman argument to describe an analogy that does not apply to this situation. He mentioned that “You can’t have the undersheriff running against the sheriff … It's like the vice president running against the president; it doesn’t work.” The problem with this analogy is that the president is elected to begin with. The supervisors’ selection of Ortiz was a selection. Robertson erroneously conflates the issues as being the same. Of course, someone (anyone) can run against a temporarily-selected and appointed sheriff. In addition, the supervisors were actually the ones who created the two law officers running against each other by selecting Ortiz shortly after Crawford announced his candidacy.
The third issue is that Robertson indicates that “It comes down to his political ambition to be sheriff, which is troubling. And I’m glad I’ve made the decision that I made.” Why would it be “troubling“ to Robertson for the person who has been a successful undersheriff, running the day-to-day operations of the department for the past 3 years, to be running for sheriff? It would in fact be very reasonable and most likely that Crawford would be running for sheriff in this context. Moreover, the supervisors may not have been all “glad“ or happy or even satisfied with Robertson’s termination process, because just months later they gave Crawford a settlement of $500,000.
In conclusion, in reviewing what has happened to Jon Crawford over the past many months and given his three-year track record of actually running the Napa County Sheriff Department and seeing him stand up to some of the most powerful and influential people in the county and still keeping an unbowed, positive, professional, focused attitude and demeanor, voters should choose Jon Crawford, not just over Oscar Ortiz, but over anyone else."
-John Prescott
Benicia