I feel it is very important for the voters and citizens of Stark County to be informed and educated on the quality of their local government. Too often does today's government fail to keep its citizens informed through transparency, often leading to suspicion of corruption and incompetence. It is important for you to know how things work inside government, and even more important to know when things don't.
This page is designed to keep you, the citizens and voters of Stark County, informed about how the current sheriff is performing his duties. I want to stress that my intentions during this campaign are not to go "negative" or "mud sling"; rather, I feel it is urgently important to inform you of some of the things the current sheriff has done- or failed to do- during his term as sheriff.
My record can stand on its own. As sheriff, I will strive to correct the years of strife and indecision that has clouded the department's effort to provide the quality and excellence in service you deserve as a tax paying citizen.
CANINE ISSUE
As a deputy with the Stark County Sheriff's Department for many years, I saw first hand the lack of true leadership exhibited by Mr. Tuhy. His temper and lack of reasoning are not commonly seen by the public, but is very common within the hallways of the Law Enforcement Center. An example of this comes within the reason I decided to resign from the Sheriff's Department.
As you may recall in my Becker Canines page, I began training a narcotics dog around 2004. I offered Mr. Tuhy my services (free use of the dog), but he did not have faith in the dog or my ability as a trainer/handler. Instead, the department began using an older German Shepherd dog. That particular dog had health conditions and died shortly after. I again offered my drug dog services to the community, but was denied by Mr. Tuhy.
Around this time, the South Sakakawea Narcotics Task Force (who knew I had a trained and certified drug dog) approached Mr. Tuhy and requested a drug dog search. Arrangements were made to conduct a search with the task force. The dog performed very well and received many compliments. A few weeks later, Mr. Tuhy was asked by the jail to conduct a drug dog sniff. Arrangements were made and I arrived at the jail to conduct the search. At the same time on the same day, Mr. Tuhy had his administrative secretary draft a letter terminating our agreement and the use of the drug dog. Furthermore, he cancelled the agreement for the use of my bloodhounds, all for unknown reasons.
Several months passed, and I realized I needed to sell my drug dogs as they could not get (free) use by the county. Mr. Tuhy, in another flip-flop in logic, asked how much I was asking for the dogs. They were not costing the county anything. Mr. Tuhy did not make a decision to proceed. At the same time, the Task Force inquired about a purchase and a deal was struck. The dog was sold to them.
A few weeks later at a "crime confe
rence" meeting (a meeting where area law enforcement meet to discuss local crime trends), the Task Force announced they were purchasing a drug dog from me. Mr. Tuhy turned around and called me a "traitor" twice, believing he never had a chance to purchase the dog.
rence" meeting (a meeting where area law enforcement meet to discuss local crime trends), the Task Force announced they were purchasing a drug dog from me. Mr. Tuhy turned around and called me a "traitor" twice, believing he never had a chance to purchase the dog.I realized my desire to work with canines at the department was not going to happen, and therefore, I resigned. The ultimate issue with this story emphasizes Mr. Tuhy's lack of reasoning and vision-setting. I was offering free use of a drug dog to the taxpayers, but Mr. Tuhy refused to participate. Instead, the department has spent tens of thousands of tax payer dollars on two different drug dogs. The old adage "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" certainly applies.
DICKINSON COVERAGE
Since Dickinson is the largest city in the county, logic seems to be that the largest portion of tax revenue for the county comes from Dickinson residents. Therefore, shouldn't Dickinson residents expect the county deputies to perform law enforcement activities within the community? However, Mr. Tuhy instructs his deputies not to take enforcement action if they happen to see something occur within city limits unless expressly requested by a city police officer. An exception to this rule seems to come during efforts put forth during federal grants (drunk driving, seat belt, etc.).
Deputies should not be constrained to enforcing laws in one city, but not another. All residents in Stark County deserve equal protection, no matter what your zip code may be.
TACTICAL TEAM
Certainly these last few years have taught us all that serious crimes can and do occur here. Thankfully, the dedication and quick thinking of the deputies and other local law enforcement officials resulted in no harm to the citizens or officers. As sheriff, one must place the safety of his deputies at the highest level. He must ensure that they are trained to the highest level and equipped properly. Mr. Tuhy has again failed the community by failing to meet this vitally important objective.
Shortly after September 11th, 2001, the Dickinson Police Department began organizing a tactical team. Mr. Tuhy was initially on-board with this idea and placed a deputy on the team. The idea was to create a regional tactical team with members of the DPD, SCSO, and other area law enforcement. However, soon into the joint effort, Mr. Tuhy's temper and micromanaging style of leadership engulfed the progress. Due to a minor disagreement with the DPD command staff in regards to an operating policy, Mr. Tuhy removed his deputy from the team and refused to participate in the regional tactical team. He has been encouraged numerous times since then to re-join the team, but refuses to do so.
What does this mean for you, the citizens of Stark County? I will explain. The deputies currently working for the Sheriff's Department are true professionals and are competent in their abilities to carry out their duty. By not allowing them to participate on a regional tactical team, Mr. Tuhy is denying the deputies an opportunity to learn safer tactics, work with specialized equipment, and bond with fellow officers from surrounding agencies. Deputies on a regional tactical team have the ability to respond to serious incidents with more safety and better training. This results in a safer outcome for subjects and citizens involved in a serious incident.
Though Mr. Tuhy does not believe in participating in a regional tactical team, he has requested the use of such many times in the past. Recent examples include the Gladstone fugitive standoff and the Belfield shooting incident.
As an example of the disdain Mr. Tuhy has for the tactical team, I will provide you with the following documents. They stem from an incident in March of 2009. The Dickinson SWAT team was planning an early morning training exercise at the County Courthouse before business hours. The intent was to familiarize officers with the layout of the building and simulate an emergency. They were being proactive to a situation, something I agree with. Days before the event, all personnel in the building were notified via email of the training in an effort to avoid any confusion or panic. Mr. Tuhy claims he had no knowledge of the event, but according to SWAT commanders, he was notified. As the event started, Mr. Tuhy "happened" to be driving past the Courthouse and noticed the SWAT truck and a patrol car in the parking lot. He became angry, claiming he didn't know what was going on. Even after dispatch told him what was happening, he stormed into the courthouse and made a very unprofessional dialogue with the SWAT team. He ordered them to leave. If you have ever served on a jury, researched land plats, or conducted any other business in the Courthouse, don't you want to feel safe in the building when you do so? The reality is, the Sheriff is responsible for security at the Courthouse. Since this incident and even before, Mr. Tuhy has never held a training for his deputies on how to respond to emergencies at the Courthouse. Since he was failing to do so, the Dickinson SWAT team was not going to stand by and be reactive. I applaud them for their effort and as Sheriff, I will participate with their efforts to keep you safe when at the Courthouse and around the county.As sheriff, I would understand the necessity to cooperate with other agencies to achieve the same goal; to provide the absolute best service to the public and resolve critical incidents with great success.
DSU INCIDENT
This next topic I truly had difficulty wanting to make public. It involves one of the biggest tragedies our area has experienced. The last thing I want is to make this a political issue. At the same time, I feel it is of great importance for you to know exactly what happened. My heart continues to go out to the families and friends of all those affected.
On November 1st 2009, the Stark County Sheriff's Department responded to a frantic female caller stating something about water and a lake. The line then went dead. Calls back to the phone number were unsuccessful. Deputies began searching area waterways and lakes, but did not locate anything.
By the beginning of the next day, Dickinson was at the center of national media attention. The story of the three missing DSU students captivated the nation. As the day progressed and nothing further was found, Mr. Tuhy was at a loss for words. He felt his department had exhausted all of its resources and officially handed the case over to the Dickinson Police Department.
On November 1st 2009, the Stark County Sheriff's Department responded to a frantic female caller stating something about water and a lake. The line then went dead. Calls back to the phone number were unsuccessful. Deputies began searching area waterways and lakes, but did not locate anything.
By the beginning of the next day, Dickinson was at the center of national media attention. The story of the three missing DSU students captivated the nation. As the day progressed and nothing further was found, Mr. Tuhy was at a loss for words. He felt his department had exhausted all of its resources and officially handed the case over to the Dickinson Police Department.
The City of Dickinson only has a small number of waterways accessible by vehicle, and were already searched by the DPD. The county has many more lakes, creeks, and other bodies of water and the chances of the students being in the county were very high. The Sheriff's Department should have maintained control over the case. In fact, Mr. Tuhy's only reasoning behind having the DPD take control of the case was because the DSU students were Dickinson residents. Does that makes sense to you? This defies any amount of logic. In reality, Mr. Tuhy had no faith in his deputies to conduct further investigation and began to panic as the limelight of a nation was shining upon him.
The DPD resumed the investigation into that Tuesday. By using techniques and cellphone-record technology equally available to the Sheriff's Department, a 13-mile search area was narrowed. By mid-afternoon, further analysis placed the location within a 1,000 square feet. Now that the work had been done, Mr. Tuhy demanded the DPD relinquish control back to the Sheriff's Department. By early evening, the vehicle and the students had been located by the Dickinson Rural Fire Department with the help of the coordinates provided by the DPD. Detectives with the DPD assisted in the search and when on scene, Mr. Tuhy asked "what are you doing here?".
This call exemplifies Mr. Tuhy's lack of reasoning and leadership abilities. At a time when families and citizens needed him the most, he felt that the burden was too great to bear and relinquished control of the situation. Once the situation was stabilized, he immediately wanted to be back in command.
If this happened to you or your family, do you want a sheriff who is more concerned with the way he "appears" to be in control and buckles under pressure, or do you want a sheriff who is not afraid to make a mistake, who is steadfast, and who will work the absolute hardest to resolve the situation?
As sheriff, I promise to be a figure you can trust and count on in your time of need. I will not shy from the most difficult of situations. The safety of you and your family is more important than the illusion of being in control.
The DPD resumed the investigation into that Tuesday. By using techniques and cellphone-record technology equally available to the Sheriff's Department, a 13-mile search area was narrowed. By mid-afternoon, further analysis placed the location within a 1,000 square feet. Now that the work had been done, Mr. Tuhy demanded the DPD relinquish control back to the Sheriff's Department. By early evening, the vehicle and the students had been located by the Dickinson Rural Fire Department with the help of the coordinates provided by the DPD. Detectives with the DPD assisted in the search and when on scene, Mr. Tuhy asked "what are you doing here?".
This call exemplifies Mr. Tuhy's lack of reasoning and leadership abilities. At a time when families and citizens needed him the most, he felt that the burden was too great to bear and relinquished control of the situation. Once the situation was stabilized, he immediately wanted to be back in command.
If this happened to you or your family, do you want a sheriff who is more concerned with the way he "appears" to be in control and buckles under pressure, or do you want a sheriff who is not afraid to make a mistake, who is steadfast, and who will work the absolute hardest to resolve the situation?
As sheriff, I promise to be a figure you can trust and count on in your time of need. I will not shy from the most difficult of situations. The safety of you and your family is more important than the illusion of being in control.
MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
As a taxpayer, these next set of facts should outright anger you. As a government official using taxpayer money and property, one must use such money and property for official business only. When they are used for private purposes outside of the scope of official business, that is called "misuse of government property." Mr. Tuhy has a track record of misusing YOUR property and costing YOU thousands of dollars. All of the incidents below truly happened and all documents were properly received through the Freedom of Information Act.
First, I have attached an injury accident report from 3/28/2009. That particular day was a Saturday. You will see that Mr. Tuhy was driving his Chevy patrol pickup on his day off. Mr. Tuhy was not logged "on duty" with dispatch at the time of the accident. Furthermore, Mr. Tuhy claims he was "checking county roads" and visiting a residence near the accident. That residence just happens to be Mr. Tuhy's family farm. The report stated Mr. Tuhy failed to yield to the right of way to a northbound vehicle driven by a female who was six months pregnant. The female driver was transported to the hospital as a result. Mr. Tuhy was issued a citation for Failure to Yield. A damage estimate of $19,450 was paid from the Insurance Reserve Fund.
Second, I will provide you with an invoice from a Hettinger, ND autobody shop. The date of the invoice is 12/31/07 in the amount of $11,862.34 for repairs to a 2007 Dodge Charger patrol car. Now why would $12,000 of your tax dollars be spent in another county? It came about after Mr. Tuhy drove to Adams county in the Charger for unofficial business. As he was returning to town, he ran over a trailer hitch that had been laying in the road. This caused extensive damage to the Charger. Even if Mr. Tuhy had been on official business, do you as a taxpayer support spending your dollars out of county instead of supporting local business?I have also found several other vehicle crashes/incidents Mr. Tuhy has been involved in that cost taxpayers more money. He backed into a dispatcher's vehicle, he damaged another Sheriff's Department vehicle, he also damaged the grill to his pickup when responding to the tornado on 7-8-09. In total, Mr. Tuhy's driving alone has cost the taxpayers nearly $40,000 in property damage. This is a year's salary for one deputy. Is that acceptable to you?
Many other accounts of Mr. Tuhy using vehicles for personal use are widely known. Many citizens have reported seeing Mr. Tuhy driving from Menard's in Bismarck with a trailer load of building supplies while using his patrol pickup. On one occasion, he was attending a training in Bismarck, but chose also to drive his family to Bismarck for medical appointments using the department's transport van.
As sheriff, I understand the importance of using your money wisely. YOUR property is not my personal use property. I respect you as a hard working tax payer and will ensure all property is used appropriately.
MONEY WI$E
This text will be replaced
As you may have learned by watching the video above, Mr. Tuhy has been on a spending spree with your hard earned tax dollars since he took office in 2002. Back then, his budget was a modest $527,600. His proposed budget for 2011 is $950,000; that is an 80% jump from when he became sheriff! But what does he have to show for it? Deputies continue to leave the department for better paying jobs. The department is still under-equipped and under-trained to handle high incident calls. Perhaps a closer look at the books and a closer examination of the internal workings of the department will provide us with an answer...
In respect to turnover, no government entity can be expected to compete with the oil industry. I understand that. With this being the case, why does the sheriff continue to place his financials exponentially ahead of his road deputies? Since taking office, his deputies only make about $10,000 more than they did a decade ago. Meanwhile, Mr. Tuhy has asked for 58% in raises for himself during that same time period; an increase of about $25,000. This great difference in salaries proves that this sheriff is concerned more of the well-being of himself rather than the well-being of his staff. This is not the way to lead by example and budget wisely.
In respect to turnover, no government entity can be expected to compete with the oil industry. I understand that. With this being the case, why does the sheriff continue to place his financials exponentially ahead of his road deputies? Since taking office, his deputies only make about $10,000 more than they did a decade ago. Meanwhile, Mr. Tuhy has asked for 58% in raises for himself during that same time period; an increase of about $25,000. This great difference in salaries proves that this sheriff is concerned more of the well-being of himself rather than the well-being of his staff. This is not the way to lead by example and budget wisely.
SOURCE : Stark County Auditors Office annual budget table 2002-2011. Figures represent the amount Tuhy requested for himself and the average request of salary for road deputies.
The "straw that breaks the camel's back" for this sheriff is not necessarily salary related; however, it is the work environment Mr. Tuhy creates. I have spoke with many former deputies that have recently left the department for other ventures. The main reason they left was not because of the low pay, but it was the low pay combined with the tremendous stress placed on them by Mr. Tuhy. I find that very upsetting, because these deputies did their jobs well and had a strong desire to be in law enforcement. The sheriff needs individuals like these to stay here, not chase them out.
HARASSMENT
One thing the public does not have the ability to see first hand is the harassment and hostile work environment Mr. Tuhy has created in his department and at the Law Enforcement Center. For those of you who have met Mr. Tuhy in public, he is a good conversationalist. I will give him credit for that. However, behind closed doors, he has a tendency to be vengeful and condescending. I have seen this first hand. Many former and current employees have approached me and told me their first hand accounts. The bottom line; almost every employee fears some form of retribution and further intimidation if they publicly come forward with their allegations. Many female employees have detailed sexual harassment incidents, but they resigned from their jobs rather than attempt to fight Mr. Tuhy in court and face further scrutiny. Yes, everyone, it is that bad and widely known within the law enforcement community. Even many members of the public have approached me and spoke of Mr. Tuhy's inappropriate sexual dialogue. This is not behavior to be expected of the highest law enforcement official in the county.
One public harassment incident I have been made aware of, for example, is the intimidation Mr. Tuhy placed on a member of the Richardton City Commission. During my last run against Mr. Tuhy in 2006, the city commissioner supported my run for office and even wore a "Ray Becker for Sheriff" t-shirt. Mr. Tuhy learned of this and went to the commissioner's place of work. He felt that the commissioner's wearing of the t-shirt violated some ethics of her position. Not only is he incorrect in such assumption, he broke the law by confronting this citizen/voter at her place of work and intimidate her. Again, due to fear of retribution, no charges were sought.
I have provided you with internal memos that prove these harassment incidents have occurred and continue to this day. I urge you to examine them. If you can reach out to a current or former employee to ask them about this, I encourage you to do so. Furthermore, I have included a link to an online forum that you can log on to and share any incidents that you are aware of in which this sheriff has violated the law, acted unethically, or set a poor example of his office. Simply click the bulletin board image below to enter.
One public harassment incident I have been made aware of, for example, is the intimidation Mr. Tuhy placed on a member of the Richardton City Commission. During my last run against Mr. Tuhy in 2006, the city commissioner supported my run for office and even wore a "Ray Becker for Sheriff" t-shirt. Mr. Tuhy learned of this and went to the commissioner's place of work. He felt that the commissioner's wearing of the t-shirt violated some ethics of her position. Not only is he incorrect in such assumption, he broke the law by confronting this citizen/voter at her place of work and intimidate her. Again, due to fear of retribution, no charges were sought.
I have provided you with internal memos that prove these harassment incidents have occurred and continue to this day. I urge you to examine them. If you can reach out to a current or former employee to ask them about this, I encourage you to do so. Furthermore, I have included a link to an online forum that you can log on to and share any incidents that you are aware of in which this sheriff has violated the law, acted unethically, or set a poor example of his office. Simply click the bulletin board image below to enter. 
As Sheriff, I cherish my co-workers and understand they have a difficult job to begin with. I will treat them with respect and create a work environment they can feel safe and productive at.
IGNORING LOCAL RESOURCES
Yet another example of how narrow-minded Mr. Tuhy is occurred just a short while ago. The Dickinson PD recently sent a detective to an intensive 10-week course to become a certified polygraph examiner (lie detector test). This instrument is very beneficial for investigations, as it helps to narrow/rule out suspects of a crime. The State of North Dakota also has a polygraph examiner, but he is always in high demand and may take several weeks to get to Stark County to administer the test.
A Stark County deputy was investigating a recent crime and the use of a polygraph would have greatly aided his ability to solve the crime and provide a fast conclusion for the victims/taxpayers. The deputy asked Mr. Tuhy if the Dickinson PD polygraph examiner could be used, but Mr. Tuhy (for whatever reason) said the Stark County Sheriff's Office will not be using the DPD's services, and instructed the deputy to wait until the state examiner was available. According to many people I talked to inside the DPD, the DPD examiner could have conducted the test immediately, within minutes of being asked. Instead, Mr. Tuhy's stubbornness to cooperate with other local resources caused this case to drag along, all while the victims/taxpayers wait for a conclusion. Does this sound like sound decision making? Does this sound like a sheriff who is willing to provide the citizen's of Stark County the best possible service?
Mr. Tuhy has a track record of going against the most basic logic. Shortly after the 2006 election, I received a call from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) stating they had received a complaint from Mr. Tuhy about my ability to possess small amounts of controlled substances for K9 training. Mr. Tuhy went as far as to send them an article from the Dickinson Press that highlighted my drug-dog donations. Sworn law enforcement officers who handle narcotic-sniffing K9s are allowed to possess small amounts of narcotics for training. The DEA understood this as well and knew I was doing nothing wrong, but simply had to inform me of the complaint as part of their process. Mr. Tuhy complained a second time and was told by the DEA that nothing illegal was occurring.
To put this into context, I was no longer employed by the Stark County Sheriff's Office, yet Mr. Tuhy had such a vengeance towards me that, for whatever reason, he went out of his way to contact the DEA and file a baseless complaint. Meanwhile, I continue to lawfully and legally train narcotic-sniffing dogs to help keep drugs off of the streets and out of the hands of our children. Under the authority of the Mercer County Sheriff (who was my employer, and also the head of the regional narcotics task force), I used my drug dogs for regional task force investigations. To make matters even more ironic, a few months before this, I was asked by Parole and Probation to conduct a K9 sniff in Dickinson, since no local drug dogs were available. That house happened to be directly kitty-corner from Mr. Tuhy's residence. Even after as much turmoil Mr. Tuhy had created, I still decided to assist Parole and Probation to help keep drugs out of Mr. Tuhy's neighborhood.
I am hoping everyone reading this can clearly see that Mr. Tuhy is more concerned with vengeance and stubbornness than he is in providing quality service to the citizens of Stark County. We are all on the same team. With limited resources, we must work together and use them wisely.
"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY..."
Public service can be one of the most fulfilling life experiences one can have. Ever since becoming a deputy over two-decades ago, my desire to help people and protect the public has been strong. I've learned over the years that our county is filled with wonderful and caring people. It is to no surprise that this area of the nation is envied. Our morals and ethics are deeply rooted and handed down from generation to generation. It is my determination to keep our quality of life secure for our children.
Let us all be clear; Stark County is on the cusp of great change and even greater challenge. The energy industry has provided us with many opportunities. Along with that, however, comes many challenges. I understand these challenges and as sheriff, will implement policies and draft common sense strategies that will help meet these challenges. I understand the importance of using your tax money wisely while at the same time, ensuring that the county is properly protected and properly staffed. I understand the need to reach out to our local agencies and build lasting partnerships with them. Finally, I understand the importance in being honest and straightforward with you. The sheriff is a figure who is to represent the best in humanity; treating everyone with dignity and respect, listening and encouraging involvement, and establishing unwavering trust with the public.
I want to thank you, the citizens and voters of Stark County, for taking your time out to learn a little about me, what I plan on doing, and why things need to change. I wanted to present this website as a case being presented to a grand jury. I gave you the evidence, the motives, and the means of why this sheriff has failed you as a taxpayer and why he failed us all as the chief law enforcement officer in the county. Time and time again, Mr. Tuhy has tarnished the badge and violated the oath he swore to uphold. He has misused your hard earned tax dollars, he failed to act to dire emergencies, he created a hostile work environment, and he has created years of strife and indecision.
It is now up to you, jurors, to determine if you want this to continue. On November 2nd, you have the ability to make a new and bright future for Stark County.
It's time to end the vengeful tactics.
It's time to stop the harassment and hostile work environment.
It's time to stop the misuse of your property.
It's time to start working with other agencies.
It's time to restore the trust and dignity in which the badge represents.
It's time for a new sheriff in town.
I would greatly appreciate your vote on November 2nd.
