Pima County needs a sheriff who is a law-enforcement professional with wide experience in both the field and administrative posts. Our county is large and diverse. It requires a leader with a steady hand. A person who can build bridges across communities and political viewpoints.
Mark Napier is that person.
Napier, a Republican, is running against Chris Nanos, a Democrat who was appointed sheriff in 2015 when Clarence Dupnik retired after a 35-year career as sheriff.
Napier ran for sheriff in 2012 and came close to unseating Dupnik. The Star endorsed Napier then, for the same reasons we endorse him now: Heis a steady professional with an impressive range of education and experience.
In a recent joint interview with the Star, Napier said improving compensation for sheriff’s department personnel is his top priority. He has criticized Nanos for several high-level employees who had retired from the force, but have been hired back at generous salaries. Nanos responded that several had been hired by Dupnik, not him, and he appeared to take the criticism as an insult to those specific employees rather than seeing the big picture of how the practice affects the whole organization.
Nanos has served as sheriff for 17 months and it is clear he does not possess the patience or composure needed to be the county’s top elected law-enforcement official.
For example, Nanos lashed out at the FBI, offering to show them how to do real police work, after the agency opened an investigation into Nanos’ decision to give a no-bid contract for an in-house café to a relative of one of his staff members.
During a recent interview with the Star’s editorial board, Nanos criticized Napier for sending campaign mailers to Democrats and for meeting with tea party Republican groups, something Nanos said he wouldn’t do if invited.
Napier said he reached out to Democrats because they’re residents of Pima County. A sheriff shouldn’t be partisan when deciding which speaking invitations to accept, he said, because every county resident is a constituent to serve.
We agree and that’s one reason we endorse Mark Napier.
