Thank you, Almanac editors.

"supervisors Don Horsley, Adrienne Tissier and Warren Slocum displayed stunning arrogance in acting to appoint last week."

There's absolutely nothing "stunning" about it. Welcome to San Mateo County.

Don Horsley, Adrienne Tissier & Warren Slocum Intentional Deceit.
This is reason enough to change the Charter and remove the ability to appoint from the Supervisors, what a shame.
I did ask Supervisors Carole Groom and Don Horsley to recuse themselves from July 12, 2016 agenda item 7
They both refused, Don was on a mission.

Don Horsley got off track before and collected about $28,000 of salary he promised the residents he would not accept if he was elected to Supervisor. It took a little effort but I got Don back on track.

This time there are just to many false statements by Don Horsley and there was no venue to address them.

Here are just a couple of questions that Don thinks he saved Carlos from answering.

Were you ever inside the single family residence at 3474 Eldon St. Las Vegas, Nevada on 4/21/07 ?

What did you do when you found out about about porn and rape videos on SMC Sheriff Computer servers 2009?

Why do you allow a Sgt, who is clearly a Brady Officer to conduct I.A. Investigations and be a member of the Gang Task Force?

Why do you allow the Gang Task force to not fill out Incident Reports after making physical contact with citizens 10/18/2015 Half Moon Bay.

Why have you refused to Secure the 400 County Center Building, since the Supervisors were contacted March 25, 2016?

These are just some questions, Don Horsley made the decision for all of us.

The Daily Post also published an editorial Monday decrying the process the supervisors used to select the sheriff. The editorial pointed out the sheriff's department is not as well run as Horsley says it is. Seven sheriff deputies have been arrested the past few years in charges related to child molestation to assault.

Nothing wrong with CarlosB. He just going along with the boys. This dudes as good as anyone. He a person of color so good change there. Why these Congress people messing with our County? Who cares what this fool newspaper thinks?

By the way Stoger, what happened to your fantastic petition to recall the sheriff. Remember saying it was just about complete? What happened? You were so sure it was about to happen. Well, I am still waiting....

The sheriff is an elected official. Where in the charter does it say the county manager can fire the sheriff???

I'm all for transparency. If Eshoo and Speier and Dave Pine have raised questions about this, that is sufficient for me. I might add, I did not enjoy reading that 7 Sherriff's Deputies over the past several years have been accused of child molestation and assault! Their job is to uphold the law. Not break it.

@Stogner, @ MenloVoter et. al.,

I'm new to this topic but have read most of these Town Square comments. I must be missing something. Please help educate me - what were the crimes that Sheriff Munks and Undersheriff Bolanos were charged with while on their charity run in Las Vegas?

To: I didn't know that:

Web Link

"I believed I was going to a legitimate business — it was not," Munks told reporters...

Munks and Bolanos ended up that night at 3474 Eldon St., a ranch home fitted with barred windows and furnished sparsely with a couch and TV in the front room and nothing but mattresses on the floors of the bedrooms, according to police. There was no business sign on the outside of the building, which sits two miles off the Strip in a gritty residential neighborhood. Inside, there were large boxes of condoms and great quantities of lubricant, said Lauren Hermosillo, a social worker with the Salvation Army who assisted the women inside once police arrested the people accused of selling their bodies. Describing the house, Hermosillo said, "It smelled like urine, it smelled like feces, it smelled like cigarette smoke. It didn't look like a massage parlor. It was very obviously not a massage parlor." -- Oakland Tribune, April 18, 2008

I didn't know that asks

"I'm new to this topic but have read most of these Town Square comments. I must be missing something."

This is very simple, LVMPD Officer Bill Cassell 4/25/2007 "They were both inside the brothel."

SMC Sheriff Greg Munks tells the public Carlos Bolanos was outside waiting in the limo.

Carlos Bolanos refuses to comment on the subject. for 9 years.

The FBI is very sensitive to the subject, Why did they close a 2 year Human Trafficking of Sex Slaves Investigation called Operation Dollhouse on the same night they detained our top two Sheriffs. Also where did the 25 women and children end up that night?

One of the political advantages of appointing Bolanos quickly is that it can be done without a public hearing nor a press conference. His backers want to avoid anyone asking the tough questions.

One of the rare times you have a public official who hides from the public.

The next sheriff's election will be interesting, especially if Eshoo and Speier back an another candidate.

Missing from the article and the comments: Last few elections, not one qualified person stepped forward to run for sheriff. Now that an appointment is made, apparently there are all kinds of qualified Police Chiefs and Captains....yet none has identified themselves now or prior. The press and elected officials have mentioned names, but the individuals have remained quiet and most likely will. Best guess, come 2 years from now, once again no qualified applicant will come forward. Qualified is the key word.
Again, all the complaints and none of the solution.
Stogner, what if they find him fully guilty of everything you alleged, still not one qualified candidate to replace. I might see your side 'if' a qualified candidate in the past or even now came forward.
Apple: Maybe you should reveal your name and run for Sheriff in 2 years - solve the problem, be part of the solution. I'll wait...

Roberto, how many Democrats ran against Obama in the 2012 primary?

How many Republicans ran against Bush in the 2004 primary?

As we all know, an upcoming vacancy in an office attracts far more candidates to throw their hats into the ring because there is not an established incumbent.

This explains why there were a dearth of candidates in the last few elections.It also explains why the supervisors did what they did.

Michael S: Still waiting for your answers to the above questions. Are the answers you failed to produce???

@Roberto

To add what @Duh said, there's not only the power of incumbency, but also the power of county machine politics. Politicians appoint or hire each other to government positions as a source of personal enrichment and to protect each other. The Daily Post editorial also covers many instances of in which county politicians that hit their term limits in one position get themselves appointed to another government position, even if they are not well-qualified for the new position.

When the machine picks a preferred candidate, qualified candidates with any political sense know its' extremely hard to win. In politics, it's nearly impossible to win without political backing from power brokers and/or money.

To: Pearl

I read that article 9 years ago and I just re-read it. I ask again my original question - what were the crimes that Sheriff Munks and Undersheriff Bolanos were charged with while on their charity run in Las Vegas?

To: I didn't know that

Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, they were questioned and let go without being charged with anything.

To: Michael G. Stogner

Again, I must be missing something. Neither men were charged with a crime.

Are you claiming that there was a conspiracy between the San Mateo Count Sheriff's department, the Las Vegas Police, AND the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A stretch to say the least.

Here is a link to the story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal after the four main players in the case were indicted 7 months after the raid.

Web Link

In the article the FBI spokesman said "We don't have force, fraud or coercion. That's why we're not charging them with human trafficking."

Neither Munks nor Bolanos were charged with a crime. None of us were with them that night so none of us know what they were 'thinking' at the time. Now Munks is retired and Bolanos will be the Sheriff for 2 years. The people that are angry about this 7 year old event should nominate and support an opposing candidate for Sheriff in 2018 instead of wasting time on conspiracy theories.

I didn't know that:

No, they weren't charged with a crime. They were a Sheriff and Under-sheriff at the time. You think that might be a reason? As ex-law enforcement I can tell you that it makes a difference. Yes, cops get a break.

They were in a whore house in Las Vegas where prostitution is illegal. They either weren't smart enough to figure that out when the limo was taking them there or they asked to be taken there. In my opinion, had the feds raided the house a little later both of them would probably have been caught "en flagrante delecto."

The fact of the matter is, two law enforcement "professionals" were caught in a whore house. They didn't have the "professional" judgement to know what was going on? Then they didn't have the personal integrity or HONOR to even apologize to the citizens that employ them? AND the county supes did't even condemn them for their behavior. Hello? Do you not see what's going on here?

To: Menlo Voter

I see what's going on. The Sheriff and the Undersheriff we're found in an embarrassing situation. Neither was charged with a crime because neither committed a crime.

You write "Then they didn't have the personal integrity or HONOR to even apologize to the citizens that employ them?"
That is 100% false.

Here is the link to the story where Sheriff Munks apologized saying "I want to apologize to my family, the Sheriff’s Office and its fine men and women, and to the people of San Mateo County for my lack of judgment and the undue attention and embarrassment this incident has caused."

Web Link

Go ahead and be upset but don't make stuff up to further your case. I do see what's going on here...

@I didn't know that:

"Neither was charged with a crime because neither committed a crime."

Not true. Even ignoring the fact that there were underage women in the brothel – which no conscientious person can – prostitution (and being a customer of a prostitute) in Nevada is NOT legal within Las Vegas and Clark County, despite its legality in the state of Nevada outside these areas.

Neither was arrested nor charged because they quickly flaunted their law enforcement credentials and what I would call "unprofessional" courtesy.

@ Duh

You were there? You know that they were ' a customer of a prostitute'? And you saw them 'quickly flaunt their law enforcement credentials'?

No, you were not. But you quickly have them as 'customers' and say that they used their influence to get out of a crime. Further, you then have to believe that the Las Vegas police officers committed a crime by knowingly allowing two criminals to leave a crime scene.

It all looks fishy, we all agree, but to reiterate the fact again - neither were charged with a crime. You made your assumption as to why. I trust our men and women in uniform, even the ones that work in Las Vegas, and I believe that they weren't charged because they didn't commit a crime.

Prostitution customers are rarely charged because prosecutors need a witness or other clear evidence of monetary exchange for a sexual act. And generally, the only witness is the prostitute who is not going to admit to their own culpability. That's the likely reason Bolanos and Munks weren't charged. It certainly didn't hurt that they also worked in law enforcement.

The question I would like to ask them is why did they choose this particular establishment for a massage. It did not have any signage advertising massage services. It was located in a residential area. It was cash only. The establishment was not maintained to professional standards. As law enforcement officers, did they not see the telltale signs of a brothel?

They either knew this was a house of prostitution. Or despite their law enforcement experience, they could not recognize the telltale signs. Either they are law breakers or incompetent.

To this day, they won't face the press nor the public to answer these questions. Public officials that won't answer the public's questions. That by itself should make them ineligible to serve in any major county capacity.

@ Apple

I agree with most of your comment. As to the question of 'why they chose the particular establishment' they did we'll never know. Did they instruct their driver to take them to that exact place or did the local driver say "I know a spot"? How would they know it was cash only? When they entered the place, or when Munks entered as he says Bolanos never did go in, did he in fact recognize what it was and immediately leave? In his statement after the fact he said he thought he was entering a legitimate business.

Whatever the case it was an embarrassing situation. The assumption that most people make, that they were knowingly going to a brothel, is what frustrates me. That is a fact that only those two men know and they say they weren't. Everyone has the right to believe them or not. No one has the right to state as fact what their intent was that evening in Las Vegas.

"The assumption that most people make, that they were knowingly going to a brothel, is what frustrates me."

The assumption people make is that they are not fools. Putting the law aside, any sworn officer that knowingly goes to a brothel is a liability to the department, and is a dangerous, devious and disrespectful husband... at best.

"Munks entered as he says Bolanos never did go in"

Except that is a false statement. The report from Las Vegas PD clearly states Bolanos was found INSIDE. So, not only is Munks either dishonest or incompetent, he lied about what happened. What little he actually said.

Embarrassing situation or not, at a minimum the supes should have publicly censured them for their behavior. But, that didn't happen. Because as DA Wagstaffe put it, "those who matter" don't care.

Welcome to San Mateo County.

There is much self righteous expression here, including that from Eschoo and Speier. This is a county sheriff. Dig into the backgrounds of any pool of candidates and you will find many flawed people. That doesn't mean they can't do an excellent job. I truly hope any of you who don't support the appointment of Sheriff Bolanos because of some supposed character issue aren't supporting either Trump or Clinton. You want character issues, look no further than that of our next president.

@ These men are not fools

You write:

"Putting the law aside, any sworn officer that knowingly goes to a brothel is a liability to the department, and is a dangerous, devious and disrespectful husband... at best."

I couldn't agree more. Where is the evidence that these men did that?

@ Menlo Voter

Please post the link to the Las Vegas Police report of this incident supporting your claim that Sheriff Bolanos was INSIDE the brothel.

This article from the San Francisco Examiner says something different.

Web Link

I didn't know:

I don't have a link. Perhaps Mr. Stogner does. See his post above.

@ Menlo Voter

Thank you - maybe he will post it.

@didn't know

"The assumption that most people make, that they were knowingly going to a brothel, is what frustrates me."

It frustrates me too, which is why Bolanos needs to have a press conference to take questions and make the case he was not aware nor involved in the illegal activity.

He's the sheriff now. He doesn't need to worry about upstaging his ex-boss with his own press outreach.

Anytime a major appointment is made in government, there is usually a press conference anyway to introduce the new leader. The public wants to know how this person is, get some more info about their background, and understand what direction he will take the department. Yet, Bolanos doesn't appear to have scheduled one.

Bolanos' political problems are self-induced because he won't undertake the public outreach necessary to instill public confidence in his leadership. This is very easy to clear up if there was no intended wrongdoing.

The mayor of Oakland is having a hard time finding a new chief because she has standards. In Oakland, lots of cops were having sex with a 16 year old prostitute.

I have asked Mr. Stogner the question(s) So far he hasn't answered and DEMANDS the Bolanos answers his questions. Interesting.

Steve C writes, "The sheriff is an elected official. Where in the charter does it say the county manager can fire the sheriff???"

The Sheriff Position is elected as you have pointed out, Carlos Bolanos has not been elected as I recommended to the BOS and I have confirmed with County Manager John Maltbie he is an Unclassified Employee aka At Will.

I recommended the BOS just place it on the November Ballot which would have been an easy solution to get Carlos Bolanos elected by the people but Don Horsley had another plan which excluded the people.

@ Apple

I understand what you're saying but I think it's a no win situation for him. There's no possible way he would say that it was his intent to find a brothel off the strip. And, if he says the opposite, everyone will just say he's lying.

@didn't know

If Bolanos is blameless, he has the truth on his side. He can provide a detailed account of what happened that night. He can ask Las Vegas PD and FBI to release his contemporaneous witness statements to corroborate. If he answers all questions without evasion, the public and the press will believe him.

He's in law enforcement. He should know that when someone lies, they are vague on the details. Liars are worried about being contradicted later on by other witnesses or evidence. People who tell the truth provide details freely. They do not worry about being contradicted. It's a no-brainer to have a press conference....if he's innocent.

If he's guilty, then his strategy to avoid the press conference makes sense.

@ Apple

No one can argue with your post. Completely sensible.

I can tell you that in 2007 if they had done this in NYC when Bloomberg was Mayor, they would have been out of a job so fast it would have made your head spin. Most places around the country would not tolerate this. San Mateo County is in a little cocoon. Bad behavior is either ignored, swept under the rug or tolerated by officials. . The DA of San Mateo wrote emails in support of Munks and Bolanos( thank you to Mercury News for obtaining the emails). This is not normal

both men:

In just about any other place in this country these two would have been fired. But, we live in the most corrupt county in California, so they weren't. Wagstaffe's email to Munks pretty much said it all. According to him it didn't matter to "those who matter." Those who matter AREN'T the citizens of SMC.

@ Both men would have been fired

"I can tell you that in 2007 if they had done this in NYC when Bloomberg was Mayor, they would have been out of a job so fast it would have made your head spin."

@ Menlo Voter

"In just about any other place in this country these two would have been fired."


Sorry - pure speculation by both of you.

Nope, not speculation. Having lived in NYC under Bloomberg's mayoral reign, I know that police officers have been fired for much much less. And had Munks/Bolanos worked for the NYPD , the NYC press would have hounded them -and the Mayor -until they resigned.

I didn't know:

Speculation yes. Based on my experience in law enforcement, I can assure you they would have been fired. My opinion based on my experience. I can tell you from experience the Santa Clara County DA certainly wouldn't have told Munks that "those that matter" don't care what he did. And the Santa Clara County supes would have censured him at a minimum, but more likely they would have demanded their resignations.

It's interesting to see the back and forth here. I think those defending the Sheriff and Supervisors - or at least claiming "there was no crime because the Vegas cops never charged them" - are missing the point. It's not about whether these guys committed crimes that might, it's about their integrity and personal conduct as law enforcement officers. And how they responded to it afterwards. It's also about the insiders club with some supervisors who seemed to have gone to great lengths to support and foster these guys over the years.

The Vegas incident shows a pattern of conduct - self-dealing, insider conversations, public silence - that just shouldn't be tolerated among public servants.

Appearances do matter, even in a tremendously prosperous county such as ours. And this situation appears as corrupt as they come.

Law enforcement officials should and must be held to higher standards. They are there to uphold and enforce the law and they have no right to do that unless they are above suspicion. In this case, it doesn't matter if the Las Vegas police or the FBI decided not to charge the men in the brothel. It doesn't matter if Muncks and Bolanos weren't formally charged with a crime. What matters is that they were in an unmarked house being used as a sex slave operation. Has that ever happen to you accidentally on your last trip to Las Vegas? Anyone you know? Law enforcement officials have a responsibility to behave in a way that was above reproach at all time. It's not a 9-5 thing; it's a way of life that they've chosen. And this is not an "Awww -- they work so hard they deserve to let their hair down, boys-will-be-boys" kind of thing. The people of San Mateo County deserve better than this. It's disgusting and makes the Sheriff's Office stink.

What Supervisors Don Horsley, Adrienne Tissier and Warren Slocum did on July 12, 2016 was NOT on the Agenda.

This is for I didn't know that.

Web Link

All you need is a qualified opponent for the November ballot and this guy is done. Who will step up?

From the link Mr Stogner posted: "said police spokesman Bill Cassell. "They were in one of the brothels that we raided." THEY. Yes THEY. They were BOTH in one of the brothels. Bolanos has never been held to answer for his poor judgement, let alone Munks. Oh yeah, "he was very embarrassed." And then refused to speak about it. I haven't been able to find any statement from Bolanos. And Bolanos is now our Sheriff. Unbelievable.

Welcome to SAn Mateo County.

"All you need is a qualified opponent for the November ballot and this guy is done. Who will step up?"

So they can have target on their back? [part removed.]

Donna says,

All you need is a qualified opponent for the November ballot and this guy is done. Who will step up?

There is no election for this November now, that is exactly what I recommended, so now the next Election for Sheriff is set for 2018.

I do not Recognize Carlos G. Bolanos as Sheriff of San Mateo County

What happened on July 12, 2016 was a Coup.

July 12, 2016

When the three Supervisors Don Horsley, Adrienne Tissier and Warren Slocum said "We know what we are getting with Carlos G. Bolanos." I thought to myself now that is a true statement.

On this video at the 5:18 mark I notify the Supervisors that Carlos Bolanos testified under oath and claimed that an I.A. Investigation conducted by Sgt. Jason E. Peardon determined that Deputy Juan Lopez was dishonest. I tell them Jason Peardon is dishonest and I question how he is even employed as a SMCSO Sgt. I also mentioned SMCC David Silberman loading up the 5 commissioners with a large amount of data that had nothing to do with the hearing.

So the Supervisors heard a report about several dishonest people in SMC. What did they do about it?

Web Link

E-mail from Greg Munks July 5, 2016 3:59 PM

"I'm hoping my Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos will be appointed at the BOS meeting next week."


That would have been nice for the Public to know.

E-mail from Greg Munks July 5, 2016 3:59 PM

"I'm hoping my Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos will be appointed at the BOS meeting next week."


And to who was that email addressed?

Menlo Voter,

That e-mail was to another Sheriff in Northern California.

Michelle Durand
Chief Communication Officer
County of San Mateo
NEWS for Immediate Release
July 1, 2016

Please note: The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will discuss next steps to fill the remaining two years of Munks' term at its regular July 12, 2016 meeting.

That was 11 days before the Coup

Welcome to San Mateo County, the most corrupt county in California.

@ Michael G Stogner


"What happened on July 12, 2016 was a Coup."

Coup

Noun

a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government

Pretty dramatic for the appointment of a sheriff at the County level.

I didn't know that:

it wasn't "violent" but it was surely illegal.

Welcome to San Mateo County.

July 12, 2016
I observed the Coup myself and at that moment, I was thinking about my friends who survived a Military Coup September 11, 1973 in Chile. That is how must of us including myself think of a Coup, violent, guns etc.

Sudden and Illegal and don't forget wasn't on the agenda 7

Coup

Fernando Flores his wife Gloria and their children is who I was speaking about surviving a military Coup.

Chile September 11, 1973

San Francisco has 60 applicants for the Chief of Police.

See what happens when you notify the public of your intentions to appoint a position.

San Mateo County Coup of July 12, 2016

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?