RSS
Home › 2008 Elections › S.C. Local Government Elections
Skipper still wins sheriff nomination
By Heidi Cenac
Members of the Anderson County Election Commission oversee the recounting of votes in the Anderson County Sheriff's Office race on Tuesday.
Election Central
Check out the latest local election news!
Go to our exclusive Voter Guide »
View precinct results maps and voter turnout for Upstate races »
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
More S.C. Local Government Elections
- Sales tax fails in Anderson County, now what?
- Crout elected mayor of Williamston
- Nowell keeps Oconee treasurer's post
Rate this Article
By Heidi Cenac
Anderson County Sheriff David Crenshaw watches as elections workers recount the votes from Tuesday's Republican primary. Crenshaw was defeated by challenger John Skipper, 10,909 votes to 11,090 votes.
ANDERSON — Two hours after election workers started recounting Tuesday’s primary ballots, the results were still the same: Republican challenger John Skipper has defeated incumbent Sheriff David Crenshaw.
State law requires a recount when the difference between two candidates is less than 1 percent.
Tuesday’s vote tally included 79 of 81 precincts. In that unofficial total, Skipper beat Crenshaw by 11,081 votes to 10,905, a difference of 176 votes (0.8 percent).
Following the recount and the addition of provisional ballots, Skipper had received 11,090 votes (50.41 percent) and Crenshaw received 10,909 votes (49.59 percent). The process only turned up one paper ballot for Skipper that the counting machine didn’t recognize the first time.
The election commission unanimously approved the recount results and officially called for a runoff for the Republican nomination in Anderson County Council Districts 1 and 5. Three candidates in the District 5 runoff, including incumbent Michael Thompson, have conceded to Tommy Dunn, the top vote-getter in Tuesday’s primary.
The sheriff’s candidates said they didn’t expect the results to change and chatted in the hallway while the counting was underway. Crenshaw said he would have liked to have stayed in office another four years, but he held no hard feelings about the election’s outcome.
“Very few people get to realize their ambitions in life, and I have,” he said. “I can’t complain.”
With the primary election behind him and no Democratic opposition in November, Skipper said he plans to spend the next several months meeting with Crenshaw and existing sheriff’s office employees to ensure a smooth transition. But first he’s looking forward to some quality time with his family.
“For four months, me, my wife and my son have been in (different) vehicles going in (different) directions,” he said. “This weekend we’ll be in one vehicle going in one direction.”
Comments
There are 34 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
Congratulations to Skipper! I hope he continues with the progress being made in Anderson. Skipper ran a tough campaign and worked very hard. Even though I support Crenshaw, I think everyone should give Skipper a fair chance to do what he has worked so hard for.
Sheriff Crenshaw has nothing to feel bad about. He served the county well and been very respectful in his defeat. I don't remember either one being rude or making personal attacks on each other during the campaign. I wish him the best. I hope Skipper can continue to improve the department and keep the county safe as well as Sheriff Crenshaw made us feel. Congratulations Mr. Skipper, and I wish you the best. Keep one step ahead of the county council and hold your ground with them. Good Luck to both.
Good comments. Yes, it was a clean campaign. It will be interesting to see what changes he will make and what will be his priorities if elected in November.
in response to Niblits
They just said channel 4 news that the no one that was qualified would be running against Skipper in November, and he and Crenshaw were cordial and chatted in the hall. Crenshaw invited him to come next week and start the transition so that he would be ready for office in January.
That is what the news said.
There is another candidate running but Im not sure that he is getting any press at all. His name is Dennis Gough.(Correct me on the name if I am worng) I dont know anythingabout this guys qualifications.
As far as Skipper and Crenshaw, I hope the transition goes smoothly. They both seem to have alot of respect for each other.I wish both of them the best of luck!
in response to kassidyrose1
kassidyrose1 you spelled his name right. Dennis Gough is running on the Independence Party ticket and those who don't want to apose him are trying very hard to get him disqualified but its not going to happen. More on this to come after June 18. In the meantime check out his web site www.sheriffforthepeople.com. use your main search engine for some reason Yahoo or Google won't bring it up.
in response to sotrue43
Dennis Gough is not qualified to run for sheriff in the State of South Carolina. If you were to research state law, in particular the requirements for a Sheriff, he is not qualified to run. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Sheriff Crenshaw for all of his hard work and dedication for the past 3 1/2 years, and to congradulate Sheriff-Elect Skipper on his victory.
hey everone go read the story about the baby in honea path and throw your support for him instead of this candidates like softballgirl and i have done
in response to tomtom
keep your money in your pocket
in response to tomtom
Let me first say this; I've looked at his website, and wouldn't vote for him.
That being said, what makes you say he is not qualified to run for Sheriff in SC? Is there something we need to know?
Congrats to Skipper. I'm with you 100%.
Since you seem to have done the research for me, in what way is Dennis Gough not qualified?
in response to BigBullyDawg
The story you heard on channel 4 was bogus, I talked to the county election commissioner Katie Smith this morning she flatly denies that that information came from her office, and if it did, she wants the name of the person who said it, because it is totally UNTRUE. She assured me that Dennis Gough IS on the November Ballot. And as far as your vote goes?? it's a free country.
in response to tomtom
Hay tomtom why don’t you tell marlenelee where you got your information from, I’d like to know that one myself because I researched the law.
in response to sotrue43
Seems like Katie Smith is always denying things.......You never know when she is telling the truth or not.......
in response to CLEM1981
clem1981 I don’t know Katie Smith’s personality but I do know this, the County Election Commission stated it does not get into politics their goal is to take the candidates paperwork and file it. If one candidate believes another candidate doesn’t qualify it is up to that candidate to step forward and challenge it. In this case rumors are being spread instead. That way a person can deny the rumor and possibility escape retribution. Well see.
in response to sotrue43
Katie has many personalaties. Be glad you dont know them!!!
if you are interested in the eligibility requirements for sheriff, here you go.
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t23c...
in addition, Act 317 of 2006 changed some eligibility requirements in Section 6.
Act 317
SECTION 6. Section 23-23-70 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 317 of 2006, is amended to read:
"Section 23-23-70. (A) A retired law enforcement officer with twenty years or more law enforcement experience who subsequently serves as a magistrate or municipal judge of this State and is or has been appointed chief of a municipal department by the governing body thereof must be issued a certificate as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 23-6-440 23-23-60 if that person completes the legal course for Class I certified officers taught by the Criminal Justice Academy. This provision applies to a retired law enforcement officer of this State with twenty years or more law enforcement experience whose certificate has lapsed due to a three-year break in service who subsequently is appointed chief of a municipal department by the governing body thereof.
(B) A retired South Carolina law enforcement officer must be issued a certificate pursuant to Section 23-6-440 23-23-60, authorizing him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer, if the officer meets the following qualifications at the time of application:
(1) the officer must have been retired pursuant to Section 9-11-60 or 9-11-70 for not more than ten years, except that the department may certify an officer who has been retired for more than ten years if the officer provides evidence satisfactory to the director that he has received law enforcement training and experience sufficient to qualify him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer;
(2) within the previous three years, the officer must have completed a legal course and all other training programs for certified officers mandated by law and taught by the Criminal Justice Academy; and
(3) the officer must have maintained a constable commission during his retirement, without interruption.
(C) A retired federal law enforcement officer must be issued a certificate pursuant to Section 23-6-440 23-23-60, authorizing him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer, if the officer provides evidence satisfactory to the director that he has received law enforcement training and experience sufficient to qualify him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer."
NOTE: as you can see it addresses a retired South Carolina LEO not a retired Indiana LEO. whether all of this applies to a retired Indiana LEO i don't know. possibly Dennis' claim of being a "a multi-state Law Enforcement Officer" and "undercover work with the F.B.I the A.T.F., I.N.S. and Customs" gives him an exception??
Does anyone know if any of this guys law enforcement experience is in South Carolina?
alot of blanks in trying to look into Dennis Gough. not sure what a C.R.P.D. officer is. whatever it is, he claims to have been one for "over 20" years of his 23 year career and that it gave him "multi-state" jurisdiction. the only people i know with "multi-state" jurisdiction are federal law enforcement officers, which he has not claimed to be. working "with" FBI, ATF, INS, etc. does not make you one of them. otherwise we would have alot of confidential informants who would be eligible as they work "with" these federal agents all the time.
"has been re-certified consistently thereafter per the Statutes and Laws of the United States and the State of Indiana"
not sure if that has any bearing on certification in South Carolina. our laws for LEO certification are an integral part of eligibility to run for sheriff.
i don't find anywhere on Dennis's site where he has applied/displayed for certification as an LEO in South Carolina. that would be a basic requirement of running for office. obviously if you are not holding a certification it would not be wise to wait til after the election to find out. not as a slam, but i note he did not even have a GED for the first seven years of his LEO career. that suggests the requirements for LEO certification in Indiana were kind of...uh, limited.
on june 30, 1993 (two years before Dennis retired), indiana went through a complete makeover of their code of laws regarding LEO requirements. Dennis would have been grandfathered through those changes.
okay the picture is beginning to fill in. it is no wonder Dennis' website speaks so much in acronyms, the picture would not be so rosy in plain english.
AIM December 21, 2007
"Mr. Gough worked as a railroad police officer in Indiana for 20 years, he said. He also was a police officer in New Carlisle, Ind., for about two years..."
AIM March 5 2008
"Gough spent twenty years as a railroad detective, a job he emphasizes is more than adequate preparation for law enforcement work. “I have people tell me all the time that I was just a security guard. I carried a federal patch as a railroad detective, and handled cases from DUIs to murders to rape. I was commissioned by the state of Indiana, and also assisted two local town police forces when I was needed.”
so Dennis was a railroad "bull", or in the old days a "Pinkerton". humm, this is getting iffy! more to come.
TITLE 862 PRIVATE DETECTIVES LICENSING BOARD
ARTICLE 1. PRIVATE DETECTIVES
Rule 1. General Provisions
862 IAC 1-1-3 Experience requirement
Authority: IC 25-30-1-5.5
Affected: IC 25-30-1-8
Sec. 3. (a) This section establishes the experience requirements under IC 25-30-1-8(a)(3) for a private detective license. All
individual applicants, at least one (1) individual of a partnership applicant, and at least one (1) officer of a corporate applicant must
meet the requirements in this section.
(b) The experience requirements shall be two (2) years of experience as verified by four thousand (4,000) hours of
employment in any of the following areas or combination of areas:
(1) In private detective work having been issued an identification card as an employee under a licensee.
(2) As an investigator for the United States Department of Justice or for the United States Department of the Treasury.
(3) As a criminal investigator with the Armed Forces of the United States.
(4) As a sheriffs investigator.
(5) As a railroad detective.
(6) As a claims investigator for an insurance company.
(7) As a licensed and practicing attorney at law or as an investigator for a practicing attorney.
(8) As a police officer for any federal, state, or local unit of government.
(9) As a full-time manager or administrator for a licensed private security contractor agency or as a manager or administrator
of a proprietary security force of twenty (20) or a lesser number with equivalent experience as determined by the board.
(Private Detectives Licensing Board; Private Detective License Law Rule III; filed Feb 5, 1979, 2:45 p.m.: 2 IR 299; filed Nov 15,
1994, 10:40 a.m.: 18 IR 880; readopted filed May 22, 2001, 9:54 a.m.: 24 IR 3237; filed Jul 22, 2004, 10:00 a.m.: 27 IR 4020)
NOTE: Transferred from State Police Department (240 IAC 4.1-1-3) to Private Detectives Licensing Board (862 IAC 1-1-3) by
P.L.234-1989, SECTION 25, effective July 1, 1989.
NOTE: in this document except from
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T08...
you will note numbers (5) and (8) above are treated as mutually exclusive items. that would lead me to believe a railroad detective was more of a "security guard" or "private detective" than a LEO.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code...
this is the link to Indiana Code 8-3-17 "Railroad Police"
Title 58 - Public Utilities, Services and Carriers
CHAPTER 17.
THE GENERAL RAILROAD LAW
ARTICLE 1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 29.
POLICE POWERS OF AGENTS
SECTION 58-17-3610. Police powers of conductors and station agents.
Conductors of railroad trains and station or depot agents are hereby declared to be conservators of the peace and they shall have the common-law power of constables to make arrests, except that the conductors shall only have such power on board of their respective trains and the agents at their respective places of business. Such conductors and agents may cause any person so arrested by them to be detained and delivered to the proper authorities for trial as soon as practicable.
SECTION 58-17-3620. Ejection of disorderly passenger from train.
When any passenger shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, use any obscene or grossly profane language to the annoyance and vexation of passengers or play any game of cards or other game of chance for money or other valuable thing upon any railroad train, the conductor of such train may stop his train at any place where such offense has been committed and eject such passenger from the train, using only such force as may be necessary to accomplish such removal, and may command the assistance of the employees of the railroad company or any of the passengers to assist in such removal.
SECTION 58-17-3630. Badges shall be worn by employees.
Every conductor, baggagemaster, engineer, brakeman or other servant of any railroad corporation employed on a passenger train, or at stations for passengers, shall wear on his hat or cap a badge which shall indicate his office and the initial letters of the style of the corporation by which he is employed. No conductor or collector without such badge shall have any authority to meddle or interfere with any passenger, his baggage or his property. Each railroad corporation shall see that such badges are worn.
in_search_of_truth Judging by the way you came up with the information you have, tells me your not an attorney, you just have a propensity for the law, however what you came up with is good except for one thing, the laws you equate to are the governing rules to a municipality and one who is being hired by that municipality. For example; SECTION 6 Act 317 sub-paragraph (B) Last part of the sentence; if the officer meets the following qualifications at the time of his application; it does not say ELECTION. In order to read the law you have to understand what you are reading? Please don’t misunderstand me I am not putting you down, but if you read it carefully you will see in sub-paragraph (C) a federal law enforcement officer is not subject to those conditions. All he has to do is present evidence of past certification to serve in his HIRED “NOT ELECTED” post as a certified law enforcement officer. And as for the rest of the information you posted, it doesn’t apply. The correct information will be revealed, but at the proper time and forum.
in response to sotrue43
not sure "by the way you came up with the information you have" means. i have merely attempted to put forward any information i can find that is related to the discussion. most people either don't take the time or don't have the ability to research Indiana law or anything else related to this subject. i am looking for what i can find. working from a very sketchy and might i say misleading website, it has been somewhat of an uphill battle.
not sure how you think there is a difference between someone being hired or elected (as far as being certified as a LEO); but, please do tell. it is easy to tell someone else they don't have the info straight and then not offer the correct perspective. in putting the above information onto this blog i am trying to tie Dennis' website claims of having 20 odd years law enforcement experience. Indiana law clearly differentiates between a LEO and a railroad detective. that is all i am saying at this point.
why do we need to wait for this "proper time and place?" 12,000 people read this forum daily. is there some reason it needs to be kept a secret?
please, please add or correct anything i put forward. i will be the first to embrace it if it has credence. i am certainly not here to mislead in any way shape or fashion. i am
In_Search_Of_Truth
in response to In_Search_Of_Truth
in_search_of_truth For reasons that I can not divulge at this time, I won’t comment on the information I have. I appreciate the fact that you are not trying to mislead anyone. But I am going to give you a clue though. Pull up the actual statute 23-11-110 "Qualifications" scrutinize it and let me know what you find.
in response to sotrue43
after re-reading your post i have to disagree with you on your opinion as to what Section 6 of Act 317 is saying.
You said:
"SECTION 6 Act 317 sub-paragraph (B) Last part of the sentence; if the officer meets the following qualifications at the time of his application; it does not say ELECTION"
It is a common error in reading law, to take a blurb out of context in order to make a point. If you read the section in it’s entirety it is clearly not referring to “application” as in applying for a job (as you have contrasted it to being elected, I have to assume that is what you are trying to say, hired vs. elected), it is referring to an application to the director to “be issued a certificate pursuant to Section 23-6-440 23-23-60, authorizing him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer”, which has nothing to being hired or elected. You can be a certified LEO in South Carolina and be neither hired or elected.
Personally, I would prefer someone who is a certified law enforcement officer as Sheriff of Anderson County. If someone cannot certify as such, well, draw your own conclusion.
As to your second assertion,
“you read it carefully you will see in sub-paragraph (C) a federal law enforcement officer is not subject to those conditions. All he has to do is present evidence of past certification to serve in his HIRED “NOT ELECTED” post as a certified law enforcement officer. And as for the rest of the information you posted, it doesn’t apply.”
Let me put it back up for easy reference.
“(C) A retired federal law enforcement officer must be issued a certificate pursuant to Section 23-6-440 23-23-60, authorizing him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer, if the officer provides evidence satisfactory to the director that he has received law enforcement training and experience sufficient to qualify him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer."
I don’t see the word HIRED in the entire paragraph. Paraphrasing an exact quotation from the law to make a point is a little shoddy, however, giving you the benefit of the doubt for best intentions, the point being made for this section (C) to apply is:
1. the applicant must be a retired federal LEO.
2. provide evidence satisfactory to the director that he has received law enforcement training and experience sufficient to qualify him to serve as a certified law enforcement officer.
in response to sotrue43
my personal opinion is, Dennis would first have a hard time showing he qualifies as a retired federal LEO. Although a railroad detective has some of the attributes of a LEO, he was hired by a private corporation, not a law enforcement agency (for his 20 years). Indiana law does allow railroad detectives some police like powers (conductors and station managers as well), but only in the context of their duties with the railroad. Indiana law clearly treats them as separate entities and having a “federal patch” (whatever that is) doesn’t make you a federal LEO. Otherwise Dennis could have just come out of the box saying, I AM A RETIRED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER!
from my reading of his website and the articles done by AIM he has basically said (cumulatively), he was a railroad detective, which he felt well prepared him for “law enforcement work as he performed police like duties” and that he worked “with” the fed LEOs.
i do agree with your point "In order to read the law you have to understand what you are reading?"
i hope this has been illuminative in some respect.
in response to sotrue43
if anything jumps out at me, and admittedly i have only the facts put forward by Dennis’ website and articles by AIM as my reference, it would have to be:
Title 23 - Law Enforcement and Public Safety
CHAPTER 11.
SHERIFFS--ELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS AND VACANCIES IN OFFICE
SECTION 23-11-110. Qualifications.
(A) All sheriffs in this State must have the following qualifications:
(1) be a citizen of the United States;
(2) be a resident of the county in which he seeks the office of sheriff for at least one year immediately preceding the date of the election for sheriff;
(3) be a registered voter;
(4) have attained the age of at least twenty-one years prior to the date of his qualifying for election to the office;
(5) have:
(a) obtained a high school diploma, its recognized equivalent in educational training as established by the State Department of Education, and have at least five years' experience as a certified law enforcement officer; or
(b) obtained a two-year associate degree and three years' experience as a certified law enforcement officer; or
(c) obtained a four-year baccalaureate degree and one year's experience as a certified law enforcement officer; or
(d) served as a summary court judge for at least ten years.
For purposes of this section, a "certified law enforcement officer" is a person who has been issued a certificate as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 23-6-400(D)(1).
these excerpts from the above appear to have relevance!
(5)(a) …“and have at least five years' experience as a certified law enforcement officer”…” For purposes of this section, a "certified law enforcement officer" is a person who has been issued a certificate as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 23-6-400(D)(1)”
SECTIONS 23-6-400 to 23-6-495. Repealed by 2006 Act No. 317, Section 7, eff May 30, 2006.
that takes us back to the information supplied in previous posts as to who qualifies for LEO certification.
so unless some of the other requirements have not been met, which i have no way of knowing, i have to stick with my original position that he would not pass muster as having “five years as a certified law enforcement officer.” the railroad is a private corporation, not a law enforcement agency, therefore their employees would have police like powers, but would not be law enforcement officers within the meaning of SC law.
maybe I am splitting hairs, but that is my take on it. possibly if we had more information?
anyone else have any ideas?
in response to In_Search_Of_Truth
I gave you all the information I'm going to give. By all means stay on the path your on and good luck. I don't have the time to banter over statutes
in response to sotrue43
good out! it's called "folding your hand."
Nice pow wow you two. Let me break it down for you in layman's terms. According to the law, to be eligible for sheriff you must be a former, current, or retired "certified law enforcement officer" in the state of South Carolina. The law defines a "certified law enforcement officer" as one who has been trained and certified by the state of South Carolina. Unless he's changed the information on his website, Dennis is not eligible to be sheriff in this county or state.
in response to 8000milesfromhome
Well your still 8000milesfromhome. And I don't make bets
I am so proud for Skipper. I wish I would have supported him the first time he ran. I met him and had lunch with him and believe that he is a wonderful man. As for David I don't really have anything good to say. As a former employee I know how he is and how his administration is. One of his captains favorite quote is "you work here at the will of the sheriff and it is his will that you no longer work here." Well David, what goes around comes around. You are the sheriff at the will of Anderson county citizens and it is our will that you are no longer the sheriff. The only thing I wish I could change is that you and your staff wouldn't have 6 months to find a job so just for once you can see how you made my family feel. Surely you could have come up with a better reason...NOPE, your buddy needed a job so you had to kick somebody to the curb....You just can't treat people that way...
in response to sotrue43
It's after June 18 now so where is the more to come on this?
(Requires free registration.)