Candidate Kent Vander Kamp slams Sheriff Shane Nelson following critical Facebook post, days before election
(Update: Adding video, comments by Nelson and Vander Kamp, statement from Bailey)
BEND, Ore. (KTVZ)-- One week before the ballots are counted in a hotly contested election for Deschutes County sheriff, incumbent Shane Nelson issued a public letter further questioning the qualifications and background of candidate Sgt. Kent Vander Kamp -- and that has some voters up in arms, some even calling for him to step down.
Posted to the sheriff's office's official Facebook page, Nelson highlighted key questions he says residents have asked about the ongoing investigation into Vander Kamp and his past with the La Mesa, California Police Department.
"In the last week, I have probably received about 14 emails and 6-7 phone calls, and then 6-7 contacts in person asking very similar questions," Nelson said Wednesday.
Vander Kamp, who is running against Nelson-endorsed candidate Capt. William Bailey, has been in legal battles with Nelson and the sheriff's office over claims Nelson has retaliated against employees who support Vander Kamp.
Recently, records from his past at the La Mesa Police Department were released, showing LMPD investigations into Vander Kamp's alleged misconduct.
Nelson said, "I am absolutely responsible to our citizens. They are my bosses, and when I get asked questions, I want to make sure they have accurate information from our office's standpoint before they make a decision,"
In the Facebook post, Nelson refers to a question asking if the sheriff's office would have hired Vander Kamp, if they knew of his past.
"In the context of the information that I released yesterday? No, we would not," Nelson said Wednesday.
In a response issued Wednesday, Vander Kamp slammed Nelson, calling the remarks inappropriate: "I think it'd be wildly inappropriate to say what somebody would have or wouldn't have done 22 years ago."
Vander Kamp says the post by Nelson is a last-ditch effort to sway voters still filling out their ballots.
"Just look at the facts: Common sense and timing will tell you that this is absolutely the definition of election interference," he said. "And to say that my opponent is not part of it - it would be foolish, as foolish as thinking this is not election interference."
According to state law, it's illegal for public employees to campaign on the job. However, for elected officials, it's not.
In a statement to NewsChannel 21, Bailey says the Vander Kamp investigation should be at the top of mind for voters, saying :"It's important for any investigation to come to a conclusion which is supported by facts and evidence. In this case, because we likely won't have a conclusion before Election Day, it is an incredibly important issue for voters to consider as they fill out their ballots."
Vander Kamp said, "I don't know what the sheriff's intentions are for those two months between November 6th and January 6th. But in the morning (after the election), we've got to get up and still go back to work and take care of the community that we live in. And I feel pretty confident Bill feels the same way."
Vander Kamp fired back in a response to Nelson's message Wednesday, saying it and a recent email "appear to be a desperate last-minute attempt to sow doubt in the minds of Deschutes County voters, directly influencing the election in a way that is both unprofessional, unlawful and, in my opinion, the definition of election interference."
Below is the letter written by Sheriff Shane Nelson and posted online and the statement issued Wednesday by Vander Kamp in response:
From the desk of Deschutes County Sheriff L. Shane Nelson
In the past week, I have received numerous emails and phone calls requesting our office make a statement on Mr. Vander Kamp’s current status.
The Source did a news article that contained the link to the La Mesa documents. The Court ordered candidate Vander Kamp to post a link to the La Mesa documents on his campaign website.
Here are the La Mesa Documents and Source story links as well.
La Mesa Documents link : https://www.dropbox.com/.../AMUNB6EwBAGj0AbuDJDq_Vc...
Article link: https://www.bendsource.com/.../internal-investigation...
These are the most asked questions to the Sheriff’s Office this week:
· Is Deschutes County’s Sheriff’s Office internal investigation of Sergeant Kent Vander Kamp complete? Answer: “No, this investigation is still ongoing. Mr. Vander Kamp has not been exonerated.”
o If so, have all personnel records been shared publicly from the La Mesa PD & Deschutes County Circuit Court? Answer: The Court ordered the candidate to post a link to the La Mesa documents on his campaign website.
o If not, will any additional information be shared prior to the Deschutes County Sheriff election on Tuesday, November 5th? Answer: "I am not aware of any further information that will be released prior to the election."
· Would the Deschutes County Sheriff Office (DCSO) consider employing an individual with these La Mesa PD allegations for a job at the DCSO today? Answer: "No, we would not."
· Could the allegations of misconduct and dishonesty against Sergeant Kent Vander Kamp from La Mesa PD’s internal investigation potentially lead to a loss of his law enforcement certifications in the State of Oregon, and/or disqualify him from being a Sheriff? Answer: "That is a possibility. The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) would make that decision. The Sheriff’s Office investigation is to determine whether there are violations of Sheriff’s Office policies and appropriate employment actions. The question of being disqualified from serving as Sheriff is not within the scope of the Sheriff’s Office investigation. The DPSST may review his certification but the Sheriff’s Office does not have the authority to review his certification.
· Please refer to the email I sent to OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) on September 30, 2024 regarding information on Brady and certification." (see below)
Our office’s emailed answer to OPB’s question on election allegations:
“This is not election interference. Our office is fulfilling its legal obligation and duty to investigate complaints. In the Spring of 2024, our office received a citizen complaint about Mr. Vander Kamp’s prior employment at La Mesa Police Department. Because, as it has been reported in local media stories Mr. Vander Kamp has denied any prior law enforcement experience, we have an obligation to determine if he was untruthful.
Oregon law requires that a law enforcement agency investigate allegations of serious misconduct or dishonesty, and depending on the investigation findings, it may require reporting to other agencies such as the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training or the District Attorney’s Office. ORS 181A.681(3)(c) requires an agency to conduct an investigation when the agency receives a report of misconduct or a violation of the minimum standards for moral fitness for public safety personnel established under ORS 181A.410. Moral fitness specifically includes allegations of dishonesty or untruthfulness. OAR 265-010-0025 (administrative rule defining moral character for officers). The rule also requires that if an agency determines that a public safety officer has engaged in conduct that demonstrates a lack of good moral character, the agency is required by Oregon law to impose a disciplinary sanction of termination. Investigations having sustained findings of serious misconduct or lack of moral character require our agency to notify the DPSST Academy so they can do their part in reviewing a law enforcement officer’s certification.
If a law enforcement agency were to ignore, or fail to investigate allegations that a law enforcement officer is untruthful, that would contradict the 2021 police reform bills enacted by the Oregon Legislature and the expectations of our community. I do not believe that the public nor our Legislature would endorse a policy of ignoring or failing to investigate allegations that a current law enforcement officer has been untruthful or dishonest.
Regarding notification to the District Attorney, for over fifty years, law enforcement agencies have been required to notify prosecutors of potentially exculpatory information, such as a finding that an officer was untruthful, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). Prosecutors have an obligation to provide this information to defendants in criminal cases involving that officer, and our office is required to notify our D. A.’s Office of investigation results with sustained findings of untruthfulness. A finding of untruthfulness by a law enforcement officer is potentially exculpatory information for purposes of the Brady v. Maryland case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that police officers who failed to notify the prosecutor of exculpatory information violated the suspect’s constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco, 570 F3d 1078 (9th Cir 2008).
“The law enforcement profession requires the highest integrity and ethics. It is a profession that can legally affect individual community members’ civil rights. The community permits police officers to wield the power to arrest and use deadly force, but with that incredible power comes responsibility. Only those law enforcement officers who have impeccable integrity should be allowed to wear the badge and utilize this power. When an officer is alleged to have engaged in serious misconduct, such as being untruthful, we owe our community a full investigation into the circumstances, as the Oregon Legislature has explicitly stated.” Sheriff L. Shane Nelson.
--
Statement from Kent Vander Kamp in Response to Sheriff Shane Nelson’s Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2024
Deschutes County, OR — Today, I am addressing recent comments from Sheriff Shane Nelson that raise serious questions about fairness and transparency as we approach the November 5th election. Sheriff Nelson’s social media post and recent email appear to be a desperate last-minute attempt to sow doubt in the minds of Deschutes County voters, directly influencing the election in a way that is both unprofessional, unlawful and, in my opinion, the definition of election interference.
The timing and manner of this release are deeply concerning, given that many of these issues cited were already addressed with the public and media since this investigation started nearly a year ago. In the end, finding no evidence, documents, or notices that I was made aware of these internal memos until recent, nor terminated from my volunteer position 30 years ago.
Sheriff Nelson’s selective commentary, innuendo, assumptions and publicizing incomplete information aim to create a narrative suggesting unresolved issues that could mislead the public. Such actions may be inconsistent with the principles of transparency and lawful conduct expected of a sheriff’s office during an election season.
I have already voluntarily provided links to the La Mesa documents, ensuring voters have full access to relevant information. My campaign has remained open and forthcoming regarding my record, including my successful career, recent commendations, and dedication to public service. This is the same reason, I am the only candidate with the support of the DCSO Employees, County Commissioners and other public safety leaders.
Sheriff Nelson’s office has repeatedly stated that this is not election interference; however, the facts, common sense and timing suggest otherwise. In an election season, Deschutes County residents deserve the right to choose their next sheriff without clouded commentary from an outgoing administration.
If elected, I will bring a standard of integrity and fairness to the Sheriff’s Office that is deserving of Deschutes County’s trust. I will work hard to ensure that our department remains a beacon of transparency, focused on serving the needs of the community over the demands of politics.
