Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Berg defends spending on uniforms

Berg defends spending on uniforms

Nov 03, 2006 - 04:06:06 CST

By GORDON WEIXEL
Bismarck Tribune

Burleigh County Sheriff Steve Berg attempted to respond to questions regarding an investigation of his department's spending for uniforms.

The Burleigh County Commission announced Wednesday that the Bureau of Criminal Investigation was looking into the possibility that in 2004 Berg overspent what is allowed by law on uniforms.

Berg said that the commission had approved the expenditures in 2004, and it wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that questions arose regarding the spending. The sheriff said he believes the charges are politically motivated, coming just days before election.

Berg displayed the clothing and equipment that his office provides for a deputy in their first year. All totaled, it is valued at $5,816, and includes shirts, pants, coats, bullet-proof vest, gun, holster, flashlights, mace, badges, handcuffs and much more.

The state Century Code on uniform expenditure, first enacted in 1967 and last revised in 1981, allows $500 for uniforms the first year of a deputy's employment and $350 each year after. Berg said that if the department would only purchase one shirt, one pair of pants, one coat, a flashlight, badge, collar brass and name tag, it would cost $563.88.

Berg called the law outdated and in need of change. He said he would not send out the officers in his employ in anything less than what was now provided.

"I have to provide the officers the equipment to perform their job and duties. I want to make sure they go home safe at night, and I want to provide as much as I can to ensure that happens," Berg said.

Berg said that the previous sheriff, Bob Harvey, gave out the same equipment. He also said he was unaware of the state law until it was recently brought to his attention.

"The law was never presented to me as something to look at as far as a uniform budget. I looked at it as if it's a clothing allowance for a plain clothes officer," Berg said. "There is no definition in law that I know of for what a uniform is."

- Gordon Weixel

News > Local

Printer friendly version Berg defends spending on uniforms

Comments

cop dude wrote on Nov 12, 2006 3:15 AM:

" I guess we will see how good of a job Heinert does four years from now if the FOP endorses him again!!!! "

Not what ND needs wrote on Nov 11, 2006 6:46 PM:

" Things like this give ND a black eye. Shame on the county commissioners. I don't believe they'll be hounding the new sheriff, like they were the old one. It also really looks bad to come up with a publicized "investigation" right at election time. How convenient. Why didn't they go after Bob Harvey if he did the same thing as buying uniforms over budget? Why wasn't it publicized then? Good old boy politics are alive and well in Burleigh County. "

LETS MOVE ON wrote on Nov 9, 2006 10:21 PM:

" The election is over. Let's move on. "

To past BSCD wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:37 PM:

" If you worked at BSCD and new every employee, then you knew Berg since he worked there for 10 or more years as a deputy. So, how can you make such a ignorant statement that employees were asking, "Who's Berg?" And I would could name the employees who wanted Berg in and Heinert out 4 years ago, but the online editor wouldn't print the names. They know who they are. "

Let it go already! wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:00 PM:

" I am tired of Berg supporters stating that Pat Heinert is Bob Harvey's puppet. I know Bob & know that he has better things to do with his retirement than to meddle in the day to day operations of the BCSD. The reason he became vocal in this election is because the now former Sheriff continued to drag his name through the mud and discredit the accomplishments of his time serving the residents of Burleigh County. I know that Pat will do an EXCELLENT job and will serve the residents of Burligh County with the same level of integrity and professionalism that Bob did. "

To Disturbed wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:33 PM:

" A friend was at the press release regarding the uniforms and he said the packets of info that Berg gave to each reporter contained the receipt for the dress uniforms, a letter from the state's attorney regarding the uniform, and Berg's letter to the commission. Also, Berg spent the first part of the interview explaining the dress uniform. But, obviously the press found it not as interesting as reporting on the cost of a deputy's uniform. So, NO, Berg did not shy away from explaining the cost of the dress uniform as some insist he did. And that's how rumors start. "

To Sadly Ironic wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:22 PM:

" Let it go, and I am pretty sure you will keep calling law enforcement to bail you out of jams your poor judgment puts you in, i.e.- supporting Berg in the first place. Who would want to attach themselves to that trainwreck??? Go away Berg supporters, nothing you can do or cry about will wipe the grins off of our faces!!!! "

To Time Will Tell wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:20 PM:

" I worked at the BCSD and knew every employee, yes everyone, and I somehow don't remember ANY OF THEM "begging" Steve Berg to run...I remember all of us asking "Who is he?" Anyway, we are all proud to have a Sheriff that is respected again and we are excited about the future. Now stay off the blogs and help your friend Steve find a new job. I heard he packed up his office today..."Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last!!!!! "

Sadly Ironic wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:37 PM:

" Its sadly ironic how some of the deputies so loudly accused Berg of lieing as they attempted to act so self-righteous. Yet, they used lies and rumors themselves to get Berg out of office. These employees do not deserve the title of law enforcement. They go against the very core of law enforcement values. It makes me view law enforcement officers in a whole new light. And its not at all impressive. "

Time Will Tell wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:31 PM:

" Remember, Heinert, that only 4 years ago in your first race against Berg that the employees were complaining very loudly, "Heinert can't get in here!" And they urged Berg to run for sheriff. Once Berg was elected, they eventually turned on him. Give the employees a year or so, and they will stab you in the back too. "

God is Watching You wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:28 PM:

" Harvey got what he wanted; his office back. Now once again Heinert will be Harvey's puppet just as Heinert was during the first 27 years. Shame on you, Harvey. Your revenge and hatred may not be readily visible to the public, but it is to God. Someday you'll answer to Him for your devious actions. "

Look out now: wrote on Nov 8, 2006 12:36 PM:

" Yeah, I'm talking about those well trained experienced law enforcement officers who I think were the yes-men who couldn't work under another administration. Those are the ones. I suspect part of the good ol' boys network we just may see start to develop as time goes on. I would advise the employees to keep an eye over their shoulders. Mark my words. "

To Disturbed: wrote on Nov 8, 2006 12:18 PM:

" I think it would work!! It worked for Heinert. In my opinion, the commissioners were doing a slow and steady campaign against Berg all along, then hit it harder toward the end so he would be good and set up for the election. Remember when Berg was interviewed over this uniform thing for TV? Find out who the reporters/interviewers were and see if they received any documents from Berg at the beginning of that interview that were not mentioned during the TV time. Anything that may have shed some light or answered some questions. I'm inclined to believe they did, but must have run out of TV time, huh? The public saw only a small portion of what went on. Yeah, I think Berg could start his campaign, right out in the open, even. "

Former BCSD wrote on Nov 8, 2006 12:11 PM:

" If Heinert keeps his promise and changes policy to state that no one will be fired without cause, there will be no more yes men. If you have two way communication without fear of getting fired it will only help the Sheriff's Department and the citizens of Buleigh County. "

To Disturbed wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:09 AM:

" That approach is what cost your side dearly. Keep it up and there will no chance Steve to do anything. "

disturbed wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:34 AM:

" too late now, but time for a change when the previous and now current people were in for nearly thirty years and Sheriff Berg had less than four years.... yes its time for a change and we should start campaigning now for four years from now "

get real wrote on Nov 8, 2006 2:53 AM:

" to look out now: It will only get better with Heinert as Sheriff! "

To Look Out Now wrote on Nov 8, 2006 12:50 AM:

" If your talking about a couple of well trained experienced Law Enforcement officers that were let go or forced out because of personal vendettas you may be right but nothing can be as evil as what is leaving. maybe the county can get back some of the thousands of dollars that were wasted by poor management and leadership. Good luck lame duck sheriff, please don't spread to much hate before you leave. Who knows Pat Heinert Sheriff Elect may even offer you a job. "

Look out now: wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:33 PM:

" My predictions are that the people of Burleigh are going back to the future. My fear is here comes the good ol' boys network again. Let's just watch and see now who is brought in for the big wig positions, and how many oldies but goodies trickle back, too. The ex-yes men should start appearing anytime. Then these current employees who have had their fun doing the nit-picking will become the nit-picked, with their every move being "reported" back. Yes, I foresee the tables turning and, believe me, these employees aren't going to like this any better. I can't wait to see if my predictions are correct. One good thing, the two new commissioners will bring some sense and professionalism to the commission to even the field a bit. Thank goodness. "

Now what? wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:20 PM:

" Since this article was about uniforms to start with, I wonder if Berg's fancy one will fit one of the patrol officers? I know it will be too small for Heinert... "

mlm wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:35 PM:

" Bye Bye Bergie "

To Carlos wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:34 PM:

" Boo Hoo Carlos "

Haas wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:14 PM:

" Done Deal... Heinert wins by a little over 3500 votes! Have fun looking for a new job Berg. You life in politics and law enforcement is pretty well over. "

No Fan of Berg wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:48 PM:

" I voted today. watching berg going down with the ship at 8:45. polls don't lie, he needs to win the remaining precents by 80% if he wants to keep the shirt on his back. Har Har "

carlos wrote on Nov 7, 2006 4:13 PM:

" To just wondering. You can sure post anything you want. You just have to understand that all the burleigh county sheriff department employees are posting comments from their new computers that stevie bought them. "

Just Wondering?? wrote on Nov 7, 2006 2:43 PM:

" I was wondering if it would be okay to post a few thoughts here? Or is this only for Burleigh County Sheriff's Department employees? "

Betcha wrote on Nov 7, 2006 2:32 PM:

" The bottom line is, these people who are miserable in their work environment possess the power to do something about it. Yes, they will vote today and in the end some will be unhappy with the outcome. It is what they do with their unhappiness that matters. Either shut up and do the best job you can, or if you can't then move on! "

To Betcha: wrote on Nov 7, 2006 1:16 PM:

" I think you're right on. Regardless who is elected sheriff today, there will be rumblings. I imagine there are those that have hung in there for "yes men" positions, but not all will be able to covet that spot. Oh-oh. They're going to be mad. And here we go again. And if Berg is re-elected, those same mad people will either move on, as they should, or pull in their horns for a few years. With any luck, the commission will slowly be totally ousted, and that will certainly make a big difference. No more part of the pack for those sheriff's employees, no sir. No one to tattle to, no encouragement to disregard authority - what WILL they do? "

to Disappointed in Nodak wrote on Nov 7, 2006 1:13 PM:

" Right on about the commission and not even close on Berg. VOTE HEINERT!!! "

Betcha wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:08 PM:

" I will bet you that in four more years, all this negative blogging will still be going on no matter who the sheriff is. I can not believe we entrust our saftey to a group of individuals that are sworn officers of the law and they are so unhappy with their job. If you can't enjoy your work environment, then get out and get a new job. This is America and you have that right. Go to work for a different law enforcement agency in the area. It is to my knowledge that they are all hiring. "

ck wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:13 AM:

" As far as the climate assessment, you people need to get your facts straight. The reason approx. 40% of the sheriff’s department was interviewed was is because that is what actually showed up and was officially counted and documented. The Village requested 50% of the employees to be interviewed, two did not show up out of fear of retaliation and one refused to sign any paperwork at the end of the interview thus bringing the count down to what was reported. The Village stated that they only need 25% of an employee pool to gauge an accurate reading of the working climate within an agency or business but they chose to go above and beyond and poll 50%. You cannot discredit the assessment, this is the voice of the people who work with Mr. Berg on a daily basis and know what goes on behind closed doors. These employees took a risk, stuck their necks out and spoke the truth despite their fears. They are not “disgruntle” employees which some people keep referring to them as, in fact I know many of them first hand and they are all law enforcement professionals. If Mr. Berg would have listened to these people and took responsibility and was a true leader we would not even be talking about the assessment anymore. "

To Puh Leeze wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:45 AM:

" Your comments are right on. The employess wish the commission would have asked the Village to speak with the rest of the department. Then there would be no dispute. The sheriff keeps mentioning the few who are not "On Board". I don't want to break your heart Stevie but there is only a select few that are "On Board" and they are the ones you handpicked. You keep refering to the good old boy club, but you keep from saying you actually took this comment to a new level. Today is Judgement Day and next week is BCI Day. The excitement is only beginning!!! "

To Luck wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:39 AM:

" As a citizen of Bismarck and Burleigh County I would much rather see the luck card come out than the UNETHICAL APPROACH your candidate took with the mudslinging and twisted statements. This seems to be the norm for him. (Attorney General Report) "

To Puh-leeze!: wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:20 AM:

" Your line "What would you expect the public to know about that?" That is exactly my point!! What, really, does the public know about anything in that SD except what some whinny employees have liberally spread? As stated somewhere here, they broke confidentiality, leaked info and broke security, all because of a few who spread the negativity to a lot. And the public now took up the cause - but what do they know? How can they know? "

Disappointed in Nodaks wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:23 AM:

" I have seen smear campaigns before, but this one takes the cake. I am disappointed in the way the "good old boy" system never seems to die in the Bismarck area, even when voted out. In surveying all of the comments on this site, one can't help but see who has the largest amount of inuendo and mudslinging emails and it isn't Steve Berg. Do you people all get together at weekly meetings to "plan" this trash or does it just "come" to mind along with the burning desire to immediately write to the Trib? I imagine the first suggestion is correct. If there is any house cleaning to be done, let's start with the County Commission. Vote for Steve Berg, but his time give him a team of commissioners who will allow him to do his job. The BCC "Negative dog and pony show" has grown so old.......ENOUGH, VOTE FOR BERG AND NEW COMMISSIONERS "

Luck? wrote on Nov 7, 2006 5:05 AM:

" I see the Heinert camp is pulling out the luck card now! Their going to need it!! "

Puh-leeze! wrote on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 PM:

" To Few questions: "some assessment which was based on comments by disgruntled employees, not the public." Of course there were no comments from the public. That assessment was a review of employee morale and the work environment. What would you expect the public to know about that? Those "disgruntled employees" were a random sampling of approximately 40% of the Sheriff's Dept. employees!! It's unfortunate that the general public thinks that Berg is being picked on by a few disgruntled employees. I'm sure those who don't have personal problems with the current sherrif want to see him go as well. It was very telling that everyone present at the FOP meeting voted to support Heinert. You know that if Berg had any supporters they would have made a point of being at that meeting. "

D-DAY wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:45 PM:

" Judgment day is tomorrow and I want to wish Mr. Heinert the best of luck. Pat you have run a professional campaign and have been a true gentleman despite the negativity your opponent has brought forth. I commend you on this and look forward to a refreshing change come January 2007. "

Go Pat Heinert wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:16 PM:

" I know that tonight, the majority of BCSD will either lay there heads down on their pillow or take a moment as their pulling their night shift and speak to their God about what is going to take place in Burleigh County tomorrow. Some will pray for you, some will pray for your victory, and some will just say a prayer for God's guidance. No matter what happens you should be proud of the campaign you have run. You have kept it positive and the majority of the employees commend you for that. Rest easy knowing that you have a strong showing of support from our department and the men and women of local law enforcement. This election has nothing to do with a good old boys club or resistance to change and frankly we resent that the current administration is trying to blame us. It is all about respect and integrity!!!! Good luck and God speed Pat Heinert!!!! "

To To Voter wrote on Nov 6, 2006 8:42 PM:

" It is way to late to try and explain this budget thing away. That $500,000 dollar reimbursement is not how things work. The budgeting process does not work that way. Any grant money is not figured as a line item because the money is reimbursed as it is spent, Face it the budget is a mess along with everthing else. INEXPERIENCED LEADER + POOR MANAGEMENT + HUGE EGO + ARROGANCE + IGNORANCE OF THE LAW = NEW SHERIFF. "

To Carlos wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:39 PM:

" My friend Richard was at the press release and said that Berg supplied each reporter with a packet of info. In that packet was the receipt for the dress uniforms, the state's attorney's letter regarding the dress uniforms and a letter to the commissioner about the dress uniforms. And, Berg spent the first part of his press release explaining the cost of the dress uniforms and why they were purchased. It was NOT Berg who avoided the mention of the dress uniform. Obviously the press simply found the deputies outfits more interesting and didn't bother printing anything about the dress uniform. "

To Voter wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:34 PM:

" What today's ad neglected to point out is that $500,000 of that money was REIMBURSED by Federal grants which the sheriff's dept. applied for. "

IntegrityNow wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:39 PM:

" To Decision Made SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY BUT IT WON'T RAISE MY IRE IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT SHERIFF PINOCCHIO IS A LIAR. ELECT HEINERT! "

To Picture This wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:48 PM:

" That would be awesome. Berg makes great reading. Hope the BCI investigation turns out well. "

Picture this wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:09 PM:

" Heinert winning the election, and Berg running for Co. Commission in '08. How classic would that be. You think there's fireworks now think of how that would go over. "

carlos wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:34 PM:

" Why is it steve berg continues to try and fool the public? On Tv he tries to act like the uniform expense is for burliegh county deputies and today in the paper I see it is for his uniforms! Vote Heinert for honesty. "

To voter: wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:16 PM:

" Those commissioners were right there! I was at a meeting where they went over the edge over a few hundred dollars to have some sheriff dept. cars painted black and white. So this uniform thing was no surprise to them. They have to approve spending and monitor budgets for setting taxes. Apparently they didn't do a very good job! Or else they are selective in what spending they monitor - until they need it. If spending increased that much - THEY let it, they are supposed to be watching that!! They approve the budgets.What have they been doing as commissioners, anyway? Few other comments: Another blogger says Wilcox' daughter paid for an ad? How lame is that. And I read Johnson's little list of accomplishments, and although he is interested in senior care in the home or whatever, he wanted to pull funding from the city transit. Go figure. "

IT'S TIME wrote on Nov 6, 2006 2:36 PM:

" Plain and simple, there is to much turmoil and negativity within Burleigh County. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE, NEW SHERIFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS!!!!!!!!! A FRESH NEW START IS NEEDED FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Few questions: wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:58 PM:

" People don't like the Sheriff because of what others say and some assessment which was based on comments by disgruntled employees, not the public. Remember that this assessment was paid for by county taxes through the hands of the commissioners. Whoever wanted to get paid had to produce what they wanted to see. Since assessments and interpretation of... are all in a gray area - those results can be manipulated many ways. Who's definition of ineffective leadership is absolute? Commissioners, who aren't suppose to run that office? Employees who don't like to be told what to do? You think Sheriff Harvey didn't lose people? Employee turnover is law enforcement is as sure as the sun rising. Under any sheriff. Why didn't the commission recognize the laws the sheriff must follow? What exactly is the job of the one who holds the portfolio? They can shut the sheriff down at every turn, certainly they knew the laws that allowed them to do that, repeatedly!! What is an across the table definition of bullying? I see a lot of it here in these blogs. Who defines a lie from a non-lie - the commissioners? I don't think they have that capability or mentality or believability. Why no assessment of Harvey's reign? Because he was buddies with the commissioners, and no one rocked the boat. The FOP? Have you read some of the interpretations of this "unit"? They aren't impressive or professional. Yep, it's all in the definitions you want to believe, the interpretations you want to believe, and the way things can get twisted. I don't see whinny sappy employees complaints as painting the picture of how well the county is protected. Sorry. If the county isn't protected well, it may be those deputies that spend their time leaking information, breaking confidentiality and causing trouble. They get paid to do better things than that. I don’t think those employees can be trusted, and I don’t believe they were so terribly treated. I think they embellish a lot of things. Just my interpretation. "

voter wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:53 PM:

" In the 11/06/06 tribune there is a ad that was paid by ND citizens for better government. In it,it stated Berg's budget went over $1,000,000. I would like to see those facts. That seem outrages. I would have to ask them, where were the commissioners when all this so called money was being spent. I couldn't believe this even if i had a preference on the Sheriffs race. If this is true I would like to see it posted. "

Sheldon wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:36 PM:

" Nice ad in the Trib today re: Steve Berg's tailored uniforms. It ended with a comment about how it's no wonder that the Burleigh county commissioners are concerned. I noticed it was written by Jerry Woodcox's daughter. Hmmmmm. "

To Decision wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:15 PM:

" You mention your satisfaction w/local law enforcement. I agree...the Bismarck Police Department and their leadership are doing a great job. Now only if the leadership of the Sheriffs Dept. could follow suit. "

To Decision wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:06 PM:

" Wake up!! This is not just his employees who dislike him as you say. He has not shown the leadership that ALL Law Enforcment and the community wants. If Pat Heinert is elected and shows the same leadership abilities then there should be a new Sheriff again in four years. We can blame whoever we want but the common theme is his ineffective leadership, poor management and all the other turmoil that is an embarassment to Law Enforcement. You ask why was there not any climate assessments done under Bob Harvey? Its easy there wasn't one needed. Was everybody happy with everything that the previous administration did? NO! You seem to want to answer questions please answer the following. Why has so many people left in the last 4 years. Why was Berg dishonest to the commission when questioned? Why did ne not know about the laws governing the position of sheriff? Why did his campaign resort to mudslinging with newspaper adds? Why does he manage by bullying and intimidation? Why did the FOP not endorse him? Why is there no local support in his newspaper add from local Law Enforcment? Why did he totally disregard the Village assessment? The anonymous excuse he gave was unacceptable. Cases are investigated all the time when information is received. What do you think the crimsestoppers line is all about. Decision you can vote for whoever you wish and that is a right we have but you should look at hard facts that are available to you and not a pretty face. By the way everything mentioned in this post is factual and has been released for the public to see. "

Decision made wrote on Nov 6, 2006 10:38 AM:

" I give credit to the people who have made intelligent, thought-provoking statements based on facts. So far all I can derive from this and other blogs regarding the sheriff's race is that people should not vote for Steve Berg because some of his employees don't like him. If employees are living in a state of fear I'd expect there would be alot of grievances and discrimination lawsuits, employees on extended medical leave due to health issues etc...I haven't heard of any? I know lots of people who don't like their bosses for a variety of reasons...some of them are justified and some of them just can't accept change/new rules/new ideas and some just plain have a personality conflict. There is usually a degree of fault on both sides. I've been in a situation where I had many years of employment with a company in a job I loved; corporate brought in a new manager. Most of us couldn't stand her - she wanted to change everything and we lost our comfort zone. Many people quit...I stuck it out 6 months and said enough. Was I happy about it? No. Was it fair? No. Life isn't fair. Life does go on... As an average citizen in the community I am extremely satisfied with local law enforcement. "

TAG wrote on Nov 6, 2006 10:13 AM:

" One more day and this is finished. Thank GOD!! "

I Am Voting for Heinert wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:31 AM:

" The fact that people have a reason to call our current sheriff Pinochio is why I am voting for Heinert. "

To Recall wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:16 AM:

" I read the assessment that was done on the BCSD. I'm wondering if an assessment was ever done when Sheriff Harvey was in office so there is something to compare to. If the answer is no, why not? Also I believe Sheriff Berg knew there was alot of undermining going on in the office, therefore he held meetings only with his upper support staff. Can't blame him for that. I also believe there are some evil people working at the Sheriff's department by reading the blogs printed on this site. Possibly Sheriff Berg has been setup by the commissioners or whomever. "

To Decision wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:14 AM:

" You wonder why we have the problems we have in this country! People that vote a certain way because they like a face or dislike a comment. They vote for a person because they put up more signs or paid for more advertising. I am not a resident of North Dakota now but I grew up there. This kind of comment is embarassing to read. A vote should be cast based on credentials and qualifications of the candidate and not for the reason you have stated. These blogs are an avenue for free speech and should be looked at from that perspective. If these were being published and shown on the evening news it would be a different story. I have read several of these and what I see is people trying to get a reaction from certain people and you have fallen into that trap. To all of North Dakota good luck with your elections and please get out and vote for qualified candidates and people that will do the job. Mr. Editor thanks for allowing a forum where people can write in. "

Decision made wrote on Nov 6, 2006 8:36 AM:

" After reading some of these crazy postings I've decided I should vote for Steve Berg...I don't want to be associated in any way with loonies who write bizarre poems about "Sheriff Pinochio" and the such and actually post them on line. Thanks for helping me make up my mind. "

To Ever Consider: wrote on Nov 6, 2006 2:36 AM:

" Oh, please...I live in Morton County and we sure don't want him!! "

Ever Consider? wrote on Nov 5, 2006 9:01 PM:

" Have all of the devout Heinert supports that are posting here ever considered the damage you are doing. Most of your comments (not all) are whining ramblings and it is transparent that most are made by disgrunteled employees or ex-employees! Please do yourselves all some good and post about all of the good things Pat has done and is as a leader. He is an honest person and I would bet he is ashamed of what is written here. As for the initial posts about the "Investigation" what a lame article by the Tribune. I can't figure out who they are trying to support, Pat or the "other guy." It sure doesn't fall under the heading of "Real Up to Date Reporting", or even necessary for that matter. One other note, for Pat's sake, Scott needs to go on the 7th..... Let him run in Morton County where he lives. "

to "To- To Recall": wrote on Nov 5, 2006 8:40 PM:

" Maybe he doesn't think anything is wrong. Maybe it isn't. Who is judging that there is? Who has such knowledge about running an SD and isn't doing it? Have you ever run a law enforcement unit? What would make you an expert as to just what all is wrong if you don't know much about the responsibilities of heading up such an office? If you do have all the answers and can definitely see all the things in error, your name should be on the ballot. It's so easy to follow the naysayers and grumble and nit-pick, but I bet it's a lot harder to run such a department, especially with employees who didn't like the way the last election turned out, and who banned together to refuse to try to cooperate. From what I have read the employees are digging in their heels and won't cooperate or try to be of any service at all. Too bad their positions aren't up for election. They have taken up the challenge given by the current commission and turned ugly because it made them feel powerful. But it didn't work. Their image is anything but power. Unless you can run that dept. better and your name is on the ballot, try to remember that there is much that the public doesn't know, and I think the negative undercurrent fed by the commission is no way fully exposed. If we can see through their latest bag of tricks during election, imagine all the brick walls they have put up the last four years. I hope no one treats you at work like that. But I suppose you know everything there, too. And who heard him say anything to his chief deputy about ohter politics? Who heard it, and how did you hear about it? Was it "apparent" or was it definite? Follow that back to the exact source and then give the facts. "

To-"To Recall" wrote on Nov 5, 2006 8:10 AM:

" One of the main reasons Berg is losing (just ask his envelope stuffers) and will lose this election is due to him refusing to admit anything is wrong at the BCSD. This slapped his employees in the face and made them aware he could care less about them. Berg only cares about his political career, apparently he told his chief deputy that he will let him take over during this next term so Berg can move on to other politics. By not "wasting your time" going to the assessment website you too seal the fate of your friend. Throughout the course of history, those who ascend by doing harm unto others do not stay at the top for long...four years was long enough and it will soon be over! "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!!! "

Recall wrote on Nov 5, 2006 8:02 AM:

" I was once nervous about this election, scared that Berg would buy himself another four years. This was until I started going door to door for the FOP and saw just how the public feels about him. Two things were repeated over and over by the voting public...1)If Berg can't get the support of his own peers in law enforcement, then he is not getting outs & 2)there is a reason controversy follows Berg around like a cloud---Himself!! Vote Heinert...everyone's doing it!!! "

To Recall wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:28 PM:

" That's Comm. Scott Johnson's site you posted. NO THANK YOU! Wouldn't waste my time going into his site. He's been trying to bury the sheriff from day one. And that will cost Johnson his seat on the commission come Nov. 7th. Go Seminary! "

To Recall wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:24 PM:

" Heinert was voted out 4 years ago due to Lack of Integrity. Ask the many employees who didn't want him in there. Also, you talk about the sheriff having a lack of respect for his employees. Some of you with your terribly disrespectful comments have turned people off, and I know for a fact (from a friend who walked door to door today for Berg)that you, along with the commissioners, have lost votes for your candidate and gained votes for Berg. Keep it up. Berg will win. "

Recall wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:36 PM:

" :"I am posting this message asking for you to please get out and vote on November 7th. I know we may have differing opinions on certain "hotbed" issues such as Measure 3 or partisan politics. The one thing I believe we all have in common is decency. We all expect to be treated with dignity and respect as that is what we give in return. I can tell you firsthand that the employees of the Burleigh County Sheriff's Department want just that...to be treated with dignity and respect. They are not getting anything near that, instead they are being managed through fear and intimidation and it must stop now. No matter how you vote on anything else I am asking that you vote Pat Heinert for Sheriff and tell all of your friends and loved ones to do the same. For your reading enjoyment I will leave you the link to read the Climate Assessment conducted on Sheriff Berg that is just one of many things that proves he needs to go!! Thank you for your time and please, please pass this information on to everyone you can. Take care. You can view the Assessment at http://webhost.btinet.net/~scooter/Burleigh.pdf You will need Adobe Acrobat to view it. " "

TAG to TO wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:27 PM:

" I'm telling you what i know for a fact. I said a coworker TESTED for the job not interviewed. He was told to do so because of his exp. and the fact that he lives in the Driscol area. If you know someting different so be it. And by the way Berg is not my "boy" as you stated. He happens to be someone i paln on voting for. "

To: Tag wrote on Nov 4, 2006 5:42 PM:

" If anyone needs to get their facts straight it is YOU. At this time there is no position for a satellite deputy and if you knew someone who interviewed recently then they interviewed for a Bismarck position. As far as INTREGRITY, your boy has NONE and there is proof! "

To Vote Responsibly wrote on Nov 4, 2006 4:23 PM:

" Well, you said correct me if I'm wrong, so I will do that. Berg did NOT throw the assessment in the garbage. He said that if he was asked to do an investigation and there were no names on it, just like the anonymous assessment, he'd throw the request for the investigation in the garbage. Can't do an investigation without names. It was Comm. Haakenson who then went on tv and lied by saying, "Berg said he'll throw the assessment in the garbage!" Then Hawk demonstratively threw it in the garbage! Now those who don't like Berg are trying to say Berg did. Wrong. "

TAG wrote on Nov 4, 2006 2:22 PM:

" Another point. People have brought up INTEGRITY, how much integrity does the board have. They knew about the uniform issue for some time now. And all of a sudden 4 days before the big elction they decide to bring it out. They kept it under the rug until the perfect time came to use their dirty tricks. If they had any INTEGRITY they would have brought this to BCI's attention as soon as they found out about it. Not when they thought it would help get Berg out of office. "

Vote responsibly wrote on Nov 4, 2006 2:19 PM:

" Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a press conference Sheriff Berg held after the Village's report came out and he threw the report in a garbage can, saying that's what he does with anonymous reports. "

TAG wrote on Nov 4, 2006 2:14 PM:

" To let everyone know, two guys that i currently work with tested for the Wing/Sterling position last week. I don't know how long its been empty but he is trying to fill it. People need to remember change can be a good thing, but its plain to see nobody in the department was ready for the changes Berg put in place and they've been fighting him since day one. Everyone says start clean,,,your right!! Elect Berg And for those deputies and jailers and whoever else don't like his plan you have the choice to leave and find a job elsewhere. A few weeks ago EVERYONE was saying that to the bobcat boys. What makes this any different? If your job at BCSD is SO bad you should go work at another agency. "

to 4823 wrote on Nov 4, 2006 1:15 PM:

" So the 30 plus people that have come and gone were none of the so called Harvey's boys. You need to get your facts from somebody else than berg(See Attorney Generals Report). He has fed you the line everybody else has heard. Being your on the outside you have not had to live this administration and all the conflict. The one he hacked on the first day was probably the one that would have made his job the easiest. Hindsight is 20/20. It is time to say bye bye politician and welcome in Law Enforcement. My vote is for Heinert. "

IntegrityNow wrote on Nov 4, 2006 1:08 PM:

" To Offended I'M SORRY IF I OFFENDED THEE WITH MY RHYME BUT YOU KNOW IT'S POLITICAL TIME. SHERIFF PINOCCHIO LOST HIS COMPOSURE AND NOW HIS BLOGGERS ARE SEEKING SYMPAHTY EXPOSURE. WE NEED A SHERIFF WHO DOES NOT LIE SO SHERIFF PINOCCHIO - GOODBYE! ELECT HEINERT "

To Rural Deputies wrote on Nov 4, 2006 11:42 AM:

" You are right he cannont force a deputy to live out there but he can advertise the position so that whoever applies they will know the job is out there. besides I have no problem if we don't have a deputy living in Wing or Sterling. We are only asking that somebody patrols the area. We see nobody except for Highway 14 just north of I-94. from what we have read and heard they are only there to pick up "points for statistical data" as the sheriff states it. We don't feel the rural area should be only for the patrol to fill their QUOTA. Call you what you want to sheriff it is this and nothing else. Vote Heinert on November 7th. "

To Info wrote on Nov 4, 2006 11:35 AM:

" Why didn't the sheriff station another deputy in Wing? Most places replace people when they retire. He has bragged about all the people he has added to his staff and we have seen nothing outside ten miles of Bismarck. "

4823 wrote on Nov 4, 2006 11:23 AM:

" I had a conversation with Sheriff Berg shortly after he took office. My main concern for him at that time was that he had alot of Harvey's boys still at the department and I was concerned that they would sabotage Berg in his new position. I then observed over the years the "leaks" to the commisioners, to the newspapers and others all pointing fingers at Berg. It was obvious to me that the Harvey/Heinert clan was already at work. I feel very strongly that had Berg made more personnel changes the out come would be different. I remember the last election, Burleigh County needed a change; Heinert, the brother in law, needed to go, now we want him back? I support Sheriff Berg and his long range thinking. Vote Berg "

IntegrityNow wrote on Nov 4, 2006 11:13 AM:

" To Online Editors Thanks for taking your time to allow the citizens to express their opinions. Keep up the good work! "

Not enough Voters in Wing wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:53 AM:

" Rural Deputies wrote that the Sheriff can't force a deputy to live in the rural area. I BEG TO DIFFER. I would believe that the Wing deputy position was a slot just like everything else. BCSD has hired deputies just for the rural slots and when they want to move to Bismarck they have to wait for an opening and then the replacement is hired to fill their vacancy in the rural areas. Berg's lack of leadership has allowed this to fail like everything else at BCSD. If your boss can't force you to live in a certain location, someone better tell the rest of law enforcement because the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Highway Patrol, and most other agencies with multiple jurisdictions do it. Don't write when you don't know what you are talking about because it really doens't make you look informed. As far as having a boss that's a buddy, how about a boss you can trust and respect. I think that is what these employees are asking for. I think they are asking for a Sheriff not a politician. "

You Are Wrong Info wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:40 AM:

" The blogger named Info is saying everybody else is lying about the reason Wing no longer has a deputy, but I know better. Seems like integrity is a big issue with the Berg administration. Since he doen't know the definition of UNIFORM, maybe he doesn't know the definition of INTEGRITY either. Wing no longer has a deputy because when the other deputy moved, Berg and his sidekick Sevart never replaced him. Bob Harvey and Pat Heinert believed that it is important to have deputies living and working in the far reaches of Burleigh County. They believe everybody deserves the same level of protection regardless of where they live. Steve wants a higher level of service in the Bismarck area because that is where there is a higher level of voters. For the last couple of years the rural areas have suffered because Berg has not sustained satellite deputy positions. That didn't happen under Harvey's watch and it won't happen under Heinert's from 2007 until ?. Just because someone moves doesn't mean you don't replace them and how can they move if they aren't filling another vacancy. Then he tries to smooth it all over by taking a marked squad car out to visit the rural schools. How tranparent. There is a reason that the rural areas don't have your signs Steve. Three more days and a new era will begin again for BCSD. Come on November 7th!!! "

To Integrity Now wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:28 AM:

" Your sad little ditty just disproved your name. You have NO intergrity. How very childish are your little rhymes and name calling. It's hard to believe you are an adult. Keep it up, though; you Heinert supporters are earning Berg more notes every time you place one of your nasty blogs which discredit that you have any integrity whatsoever. "

Online Editor wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:26 AM:

" If readers don't see their comments immediately it's because it is the weekend. On the weekend the Editor and I read the comments from home. Since these are our "days off" we don't sit in front of the computer all day as we would at work. The same process is used in the evening. Please be patient. "

Outlook wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:07 AM:

" There are two points that most everybody seems to agree on about this whole situation and that is the county commission and their timely release. This should encourage everybody to get out and vote. We have an opportunity to seat new commissioners and see where that takes us. The other point is that our sheriff should know and follow the laws set or work on making positive change if something is outdated. Get out and vote November 7th, it is our right. "

House Keeping wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:02 AM:

" It's time for a house cleaing on Tuesady!! New sheriff and new commissioners!!!! Let's start the new year off right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

I Agree with TAG wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:58 AM:

" After reading all this crap, I'm defintiely voting for Berg. The man had the nerve to come into a department that was ruled for 27 years by Harvey and Heinert. And now some deputies are all upset because they don't have a boss who's their "buddy." Well, sorry, but a sheriff's first concern is "us" the people of this county. Not buddying up to the deputies. I found it humorous when Heinert mentioned on tv news last night that he needs to get in as sheriff so the deputies won't leave. Chuckle! Many sworn deputies left under Harvey & Heinert's administration! I know people employed there and some who have left. Employees were NOT happy with Heinert & Harvey. The deputies weren't happy with them then, and they aren't happy with Berg now. No one is good enough for these deputies, in their eyes. "

IntegrityNow wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:50 AM:

" To Online Editor...What's up? I posted twice. Please respond. Thank you. "

To Another Thought wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:45 AM:

" The question should be did Steve Berg take the time and become familiar with laws that govern the office of county sheriff. It seems the other 50 plus sheriffs have adpated to this. "

Rural Deputies wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:39 AM:

" The sheriff can't FORCE deputies to live out in the rural if they don't want to, or they just don't like it. The Wing officer's name, I know, is Lonny and he chose to move to Bismarck. The sheriff can't say, "No, you can't!" "

FOP?? wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:37 AM:

" Not as many people are as impressed by FOP as you think. I went to a social the other night and people were talking about FOP and it being more like a union and more concerned about officers rights than citizens. And wondering why is it they voted against both sheriffs. Is it because they do not support law enforcement in authoritive positions since they are more concerned about their own rights? "

IntegrityNow wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:20 AM:

" SHERIFF PINOCCHIO, SHERIFF PINOCCHIO THOSE NEW DUDS SET YOU AGLOW; THEY REALLY SEPARATE YOU FROM DEPUTY "AVERAGE JOE"...BUT WAIT THERE IS A LAW?....BUT I DIDN'T KNOW! LET'S CALL THE REPORTERS AND PUT ON A SHOW. WHEN THE QUESTIONS CAME SHERIFF PINOCCHIO AROSE FROM HIS DESK ALL IN A LATHER CRYING WOE..WOE BUT I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO. SOON WILL BE THE TIME..YES-SHERIFF PINOCCHIO IT'S TIME YOU MUST GO! ELECT HEINERT. "

Everybody Look wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:18 AM:

" Take a close look at the last two paragraphs. Berg states he was unaware of the state law "Berg said that the previous sheriff, Bob Harvey, gave out the same equipment. He also said he was unaware of the state law until it was recently brought to his attention." The last paragraph which is a quote states and I quote "The law was never presented to me as something to look at as far as a uniform budget. I looked at it as if it's a clothing allowance for a plain clothes officer," Berg said. "There is no definition in law that I know of for what a uniform is." Which one is it Sheriff Berg. Either you did not know there was a law or you did not understand the law that you knew about. If you don't understand a law you see the states attorney, that is one of his responsibilities. Here you are again trying to defend your actions. You bought yorself a job four years ago and now evrybody knows what you stand for. Thanks for setting back law enforcment in this county. When BCI comes knocking remember you are under oath. Please call a press conference then and show us the official report not what you said. VOTE HEINERT!!!!! "

To Another thought wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:17 AM:

" Heinert never did and never will have to overspend on pretty white uniforms so people will notice him. Berg thinks he gets respect with a white uniform...respect is earned and he hasn't earned it from ANYONE!!! Heinert is respected by all in the law enforcement community, wouldn't that make you proud to have a Sheriff that is respected????? What a novel concept!!! "

Recall wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:14 AM:

" I am posting this message asking for you to please get out and vote on November 7th. I know we may have differing opinions on certain "hotbed" issues such as Measure 3 or partisan politics. The one thing I believe we all have in common is decency. We all expect to be treated with dignity and respect as that is what we give in return. I can tell you firsthand that the employees of the Burleigh County Sheriff's Department want just that...to be treated with dignity and respect. They are not getting anything near that, instead they are being managed through fear and intimidation and it must stop now. No matter how you vote on anything else I am asking that you vote Pat Heinert for Sheriff and tell all of your friends and loved ones to do the same. For your reading enjoyment I will leave you the link to read the Climate Assessment conducted on Sheriff Berg that is just one of many things that proves he needs to go!! Thank you for your time and please, please pass this information on to everyone you can. Take care. You can view the Assessment at http://webhost.btinet.net/~scooter/Burleigh.pdf You will need Adobe Acrobat to view it. "

Info wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:14 AM:

" The reason there is no longer a deputy in Wing is because the deputy who lived there decided to move to Bismarck since he'll be retiring in a few years. It's not because Berg pulled him out of the rural. Its amazing what some of you pull out of your hat just to try to slam the sheriff. "

A true politician wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:12 AM:

" Don't let Berg fool you, he knew all about this uniform thing. This is all part of his plan to try to sway some votes from people who don't know any better to feel sorry for him. He can stick out his bottom lip for the cameras and act like an innocent little man. He wants your votes people and then it will be four more years of hell for everyone who works for him and with him in any capacity...ask any of them!!! Vote Heinert!!! "

Another thought: wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:34 AM:

" IF Pat Heinert was the Sheriff and expended the same amount on uniforms, would Hawkenson and Comm. Johnson bring this issue up????? The large part of this "problem" is the Burliegh County Commissioners. Johnson needs to be voted out on Tuesday. Hawkenson's time will come in 2 years. "

LIVING OUT OF THE COUNTY wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:33 AM:

" I do not live in Burliegh county,but its easy to figure out who needs to be in and who needs to be out!!!! get real and just a thought are on to something. HAVE A GREAT ELECTION "

JUST A THOUGHT wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:16 AM:

" Just a quick thouhgt, If Berg knew that $500.00 was not enough then why did'nt he go tho the commision and ask for an increase. Being the smart man that he is I would think that he could figure this one out. It just goes to show he will do what he wants. I think that if people want to know who to vote for, ask the people he works with. Most of them are afraid to voice an opion due to the fact that they might get fired. If you think he is such a good Sheriff ask your self would you want to go through the same things that these people have went through. I dont know to many people that get an allowance for uniforms these days (nurses,waitress,cleaning people,mechanics, carpenters) so $500.00 is better than nothing. So many things have been questioned since he has become sheriff. I would like to know what his next dog and pony show will be. Maybe if Sheriff Berg would show up at a few more commission meetings he would know a little more info, after all this is where they discuss business and I do believe that it is all taped and recorded. My next question is who is Perry voting for? Heinert!!!!! maybe he's spoke to and knows the true story behind the sheriffs office. By the way did he get paid to campaign during work hours from our taxes? BE SMART THINK HEINERT VOTE HEINERT YOU WILL BE GLAD THAT YOU DID! "

Get Real wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:46 PM:

" The timing of this investigation and news release are pretty poor. But to all the poeple that are considering supporting Heinert in the upcoming election, please don't let bad time and a I'm feeling sorry attitude for Berg change your minds on the issues in the department. The low moral, fear and intimidation of losing a career. Remember that Breg has been untruthful in the past and has lost the respect of the deputies and his peers in the Bismarck area. Which is evident by the backing of the local FOP. Heinert has the experience and will do a better job of running the department. "

Makes you wonder (2) wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:45 PM:

" I don't think the commissioners put in to much overtime. Steve Berg has dug himself in this hole by his actions. Part of being the sheriff and being an elected official is the ability to work with people who may not see eye to eye with you. The commissioners and the sheriff have not shown this. Berg could have handled each of the situations better. It was Steve Berg's decision on how to answer the questions and respond to inquiries, not anyone elses. He handled public difficulty with the same song & dance of "everyone is out to get me." I have a hard time believing everyone on the commission, the HR department, the individuals he supervises, the former sheriff, the guy behind the counter at the convenience store, the paper delivery person, etc. are driven to undermine his every move. We have better things to do and want an elected offical that can handle the job that the current sheriff & commissioners have shown that they cannot handle. "

consolidation plans? wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:33 PM:

" Maybe he is keeping the deputies in the rural area of Bismarck to get the city used to the feel of having them around in the attempts to consolidate the Bismarck Police Department with the Burleigh County Department. "

to Mouth wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:21 PM:

" Berg has increased the patrols around the rural subdivisions of Bismarck. The rest of the county is left high and dry. Berg doesn't actually want his deputies to DO anything in those rural subdivisions, he just wants them to be visible so it LOOKS like he's stepped up patrol. Meanwhile, those of us in the outlying areas see NO ONE! "

think wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:41 PM:

" Bergs problem is not with just the commissioners.That is just the tip of the iceberg.Have you forgotten.Are all the other people picking on poor Stevie to.Wake up people he is a grown man.If he had integrity.consideration.acountability.etc.would there be this much hupla. "

Edward wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:04 PM:

" To mouth of south, the answer is yes. I have heard of a case where a deputy pulled over two 16 year old girls in bikinis, cuffed them, calling two backup cars, searched the vehicle, and wrote the driver a ticket for no rear license plate light. If it is true, and I believe it is, that is outstanding police work. I feel safe. "

To mouth of the south wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:57 PM:

" Berg has claimed expanded patrol. I live in rural burleigh county. We use to have a patrol deputy in Wing and Sterling. We now have neither. All the new positions he has required and we have received less and less. "

Makes you wonder wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:09 PM:

" Maybe our sheriff could focus on his job if we had competent commissioners. After following this campaign, I am surprised Berg could even do his job the right way with all the overtime our commissioners have put in trying to undermine our confidence in Berg's ability to do his job. Burleigh County does not need a better sheriff, we need a better commission. If they would focus on their jobs as much as they have in trying to destroy Berg, they might actually get things accomplished. Seems to me they are the ones that need to go so Berg (or whomever the new sheriff may be) can do their job. I don't know who I am going to vote for yet in the sheriff's race, but I do know that I am definitely not going to re-elect any of our current commissioners! "

TAG wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:08 PM:

" Afte hearing all this crap there's no doubt i'll vote for Berg. All you people sit here and dog him and what he has done for the department. And remember this has been under the overbearing hands of the county commission. Everything Berg does is never good enough for them. It's plan as day he could never make the board happy. It's also plan to see the board knows nothing about law enforcment and should let Berg run the department. Then people question his character when he gets upset and shows some emotions. Hes human isn't he? I think most of us would react in the same way if someone was dragging our character and name in the dirt. I can't wait til this election is over so everyone can quit telling Berg how to do his job and worry about their job. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Nov 3, 2006 6:47 PM:

" I do not vote in Burleigh County but have been following these posts closely over the last couple of weeks. A couple of things that I would like to know. Are all of the complaints against Berg coming from the populace of the rural area or are they coming from the people of Bismarck and the office staff? Do Berg and his staff respond to rural needs? All of these posts against this man seem to be about his handling his office staff and his equipment. What I want to know, as a rural resident, is Berg doing his job protecting the rural areas? "

To: Who knows the laws wrote on Nov 3, 2006 5:58 PM:

" If the commission knew the law like you are claiming then I assure you so did Mr. Berg. Whose job revolves around ND law and should know the ND Century Code that surrounds his very own position? Berg knew and the commission probably did to, which proves once again, THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS AND NEED TO GO! "

To: who knows the laws wrote on Nov 3, 2006 5:50 PM:

" Think about what you just said, "I will never believe the county commissioners did not know the laws concerning uniform spending, or any others". "

Who knows the laws? wrote on Nov 3, 2006 5:29 PM:

" I will never believe the county commissioners did not know the laws concerning uniform spending, or any others. The way they watched Bergs every move just looking for something to find wrong, no way would thay have missed that! If they are to keep watch over the county and approve budgets and all their other duties, you bet they know the law. If they don't, other Sheriff's in past years could have gotten away with lots of things, too. Has the commission been so uninformed all this time, or just the last two years? I think they knew exactly what Berg was doing, and let it happen to set him up now. I also believe that Heinert is aware of what his supporters and the commissioners are up to. The rest of us are! "

Puh-leeze! wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:48 PM:

" Again, I would like to know exactly what was approved. Was it a budget line item "Uniforms: $X" or was it "2 Uniforms: $2,000" or whatever the numbers are. Was it obvious that the Sheriff was requesting an amount in excess of the limit or would it have been easy to assume that the requested amount was for more than 2 people? Because if the request was for $2000 with no indication that it was for 2 people, the commission could have assumed it was the yearly budget for 6 deputies. Anyone have an answer? And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not for the Sheriff and not for the commission. "

Wondering wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:45 PM:

" I just listened to the news story on the radio. Sheriff Berg was interviewed by Jeff Alexander about the uniforms. That part I agree with is that the amount needs to be adjusted to current times. The problem I have is our Sheriff the highest ranking Law Enforcment in Burleigh County stated he knew nothing about the law. He has been in office for almost 4 years and he has never taken the time to review the laws pertaining to the position of Sheriff. This may be a minor thing for most but who is going to pay when he says "I didn't know" in a lawsuit for a civil matter that could cost the county thousands of dollars. I.m sorry sheriff but you have set Law Enforcement backwards with your ignorance of he law excuse. "

backwards wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:31 PM:

" This is just another law on the books to show how behing the times ND is. $500??? We might just as well take away the squad cars as well, because back in the day they rode horses. Wake up Burleigh County Commission. Can't you find anything else to waste your time on? The BCI might as well invstigate allof the counties, because I would bet that every one of them is spending over $500 "

just asking to Legalize wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:12 PM:

" thank you for responding. i appreciate your time and effort. i guess i was assuming way too much. i assumed that the commmission must have known what the limit and law was since they feel that the sheriff was suppose to know. and i've read posts that said they had ok'd the purchase so i assumed they would know what they were ok-ing. guess we all know what assuming can do to you, huh? thanks so much. "

TAM wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:12 PM:

" Heinert has run a positive campaign from day one. He doesn't need to rely on the dirty tricks of the commission to help him win votes. Berg is the one who resorted to the negative ad in the paper (I know it was run by Fred Jordan of some citizens for responsible county govt or something to that effect, but we all know Fred Jordan is a strong Berg supporter-see letter to editor, his appearance at the last commission meeting in Oct, etc. You can't tell me Berg didn't know about or provide information for that negative ad). I also know that a few of those commissioners supported Berg in the last election, so they weren't out to get him from day one as people would have us believe. It was only after Berg proved to be an ineffective leader and unwilling to compromise that things began to fall apart. Again, we just need a change in the commission and sheriff's office. Thanks to Heinert and some of those other people running for county commission, we can make a positive change and start earning back the respect we have lost in the last four years. Vote Heinert. "

Investigate Away wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:59 PM:

" Be informed says "Be informed voters" as he blogs for Heinert. He also says when Berg was investigated by BCI it turns out "he lied to the County Commission". Be informed must be buying into misinformation being peddled by Commissioner Haakenson (I don't know if Hawk is lying or just not up to speed). Be informed should follow his own advice and contact BCI and pick up a copy of the September 2005 report regarding Sheriff Berg. Then he should contact the auditor and ask for the tapes of the June 6, 2005 Commission meeting. The so called lies are on the back side of tape #6 and the beginning of tape #7. I say so called because I found no conflict with Berg's answers and the BCI report. If Be Informed is honest, he will conclude the June 6 meeting was a carefully planned ambush of the Sheriff. Somehow, I suspect Be Informed won't check it out and rely instead on Commissioners Johnson and Haakenson, two reliable sources who allowed their terribly flawed policy to languish a full year in order to bring it up now. I should add that the report released on Oct 21, 2005, did conflict with one of Berg's answers to the Commissioner's, however the report was modifed in May of this year to remove that conflict. "

To Beesh wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:52 PM:

" Once again you think you know something you don't...the question isn't what his deputies are wearing or even about equipment. BCI is investigating the amount your buddy spent on his pretty white uniforms he and his sidekick wear everywhere to get noticed!!! Apparently it was money well spent since you seem to have such a "crush" on him. Get a job and stay off the blogs for a few hours. "

To TAM: wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:46 PM:

" Heinert may not be visible in the commission/Berg situation, but my guess is that he is aware of the garbage, both what has come out and what may still be lurking in the commissioners bag of tricks. I picture him sitting back with his arms crossed, while the commission does all the work. I don't know why I picture that, I just do. As I said, just my guess. "

to Beesh wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:39 PM:

" I think you've mixed up your chief deputies. Heinert actually WORKED while he was at the department. It's Sevart who gets paid the big bucks to fetch Berg's coffee and sleep on the job. "

New Blood wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:30 PM:

" I would have to agree with others, it's time for a change all around. It seems that all the elected officials cannot come together for the greater cause and conduct what they were elected to do. I for one will be voting for big change, new sheriff and new commissioners!! Maybe that will send a message to future canidates that elected officials need to do their job. "

we deserve better wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:28 PM:

" From day one, Sheriff Berg has displayed a cocky, "I know it all" attitude with anything and everything he has done. He is quick to take credit for the good things, and just as quick to place blame if it is not good for him. I do not know Mr. Heinert personally, but I am voting for him on Tuesday. Sheriff Berg has had his chance and, in my opinion, failed miserably. If he loses on Tuesday, I am sure he will be just as quick to place the blame for his loss on everyone else - mark my words. Burleigh County deserves better. "

missing the boat wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:25 PM:

" You people, who compare Berg to his deputies and bring up this inflated dollar amount to outfit a deputy, need wake up. This is not the issue that has been brought up. This dollar amount that Beesh and others brings up has NOHTING TO DO WITH UNIFORMS. This dollar amount deals with equipment issued to deputies not a uniform. There is a big difference between a shirt and pants vs. a gun, flashlight or radio. When a Bismarck City Fireman is issued a uniform, do you think they add in the amount of all the equipment he uses as well? You people need to quit twisting the issue around. The issue is Berg spent over 2000.00 on two UNIFORMS for himself and Sevart and them alone. They are the only two individuals at the Burleigh County Sheriff’s Dept. with such uniforms. Berg wants to cloud the issue and bring up all this other EQUIPMENT, then why did he stop with what he did. Why didn’t Berg add in the assigned a squad car full of law enforcement equipment to use? Here’s a twenty plus thousand dollar car outfitted with probably another ten thousand dollars worth of equipment. It’s time to fix this problem and get rid of the sheriff and the commissioners; quite frankly I’m sick of all of them. "

TAM wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:14 PM:

" We just need new blood all around-county commission and sheriff. This uniform thing is petty, but I think it just points to an long-standing underlying issue. They just can't work together and this non-stop arguing makes our county look bad and makes for ineffective leadership. Since Berg essentially threw thousands of dollars of taxpayer money in the trash with his unwillingness to learn from the climate assessment, the relationship with the sheriff and county commissioners has deteriorated into what we see today. It's just time for an overall change in the county government. I again want to commend Heinert for taking the high road and staying out of the negativity between Berg and the commission. Tuesday can't come soon enough for me. Vote Heinert. "

to "duh" wrote on Nov 3, 2006 3:03 PM:

" No kidding..your a smart guy...he's an elected official, but that doesn't mean he is untouchable during that tenure. If he's so bad why hasn't he been recalled???? There is that a better term for you "duh" "

To Vote Responsibly wrote on Nov 3, 2006 2:58 PM:

" You say Berg threw the assessment in the garbage. I beg to differ. Berg said that if he received a criminal report that was anonymous with no name attached, then he would throw it in the garbage. NOW THEN, it was Commissioner Haakenson who, on t.v. implied that Berg said, "I throw it in the garbage," and then Hawk himself DEMONSTRATIVELY threw a pile of papers IN THE GARBAGE! As for the newspaper ad comparing Heinert and Berg, it was a paid political ad by some group of citizens, some committee for better government, who placed it. And moneywise, Heinert must have by now outspent Berg in ads, especially on tv. I saw Heinert's (or should I say the retired sheriff's) first commerical 2-3 times as much as Berg's ads. There you have it! "

lm wrote on Nov 3, 2006 2:42 PM:

" The only thing that's crystal clear to me about the Berg dustup is that we need to elect some adults to the Burleigh County Commission! "

swg wrote on Nov 3, 2006 2:33 PM:

" Some of you say that the money spent on Berg's and the chief deputy's uniforms could have been better spent on deputies' equipment. Well, I'd say at the cost of $5,000 a piece, the deputies are more than adequately outfitted. Doesn't the head of a department deserve to be well-dressed, too, when attending special events and representing you? I've seen the chief of police in her uniform and the highway patrol chief in his. Why not the sheriff who is the chief law enforcement officer of his/her county. "

americus wrote on Nov 3, 2006 2:21 PM:

" The county commission has again shown that there are things much more important than managing their own business - like adequately funding and managing county parks and the fairgrounds. It's more important that they pawn off their responsibilities to other units of government and point out how they are reducing taxes while the units they pawn off their responsibilities on are not reducing taxes as much. Another tactic to divert attention from the county commission's dimal performance of its own job is now criticizing the elected county sheriff for not putting deputies out there on the cheap. The County Commission desparately needs new, more responsible blood among its members. "

Beesh wrote on Nov 3, 2006 1:53 PM:

" To vote responsibly, please vote responsibly, vote for Berg. Without Harvey to get coffee for, Heinert has no job. "

Vote responsibly wrote on Nov 3, 2006 12:39 PM:

" Others have said they're now voting for Steve Berg because the commissioners are picking on him. What? We all have a DUTY to cast our vote for the most qualified person for the job. Four years ago, I voted for Sheriff Berg. He campaigned much harder than Mr. Heinert did; I liked his platform and had no idea what Heinert's was. However, I will not be voting for Sheriff Berg in this election. Berg admitted to being ignorant about the laws governing the sheriff's department. He basically said since he didn't know about the law and that it was outdated, he shouldn't be held to follow the law. The taxpayers paid for a climate assessment of the sheriff's department due to concerns regarding low morale and poor working environment; Sheriff Berg didn't work to change things, he literally threw the assessment in the trash. He was investigated for misuse of a county property and it came out that he lied to the commissioners. His campaign ran a full page ad trashing the challenger, after he said he was going to run a clean campaign (say what you will about "comparing credentials" it was nothing but mud-slinging). Sheriff Berg took full credit for: creating a combined Burleigh-Bismarck SWAT team (the Chief of Police had nothing to do with it?); securing the domestic violence grant (no other agency was involved?); and the work of his deputies (see any Bismarck Tribune story involving the sheriff's department). Is that who we want for Sheriff? In my opinion, Sheriff Berg has shown that he is not qualified nor capable of being our sheriff. My vote is for Heinert. He can have a chance to prove himself worthy of the job. You may not agree with me, but at least I'm casting my vote based upon their qualifications and not who has the most ads, signs, billboards, or who I feel sorry for. I urge you all to do the same - be informed voters, not emotional voters. "

Beesh wrote on Nov 3, 2006 12:28 PM:

" To over $500???, You can't capture criminals with a shirt, a pair of pants, a coat a flaishlight, brass and name tag. You forgot the other items and actual inventory. 2 shirts @ $50 each - $100, two pair of pants @ $60 each - $120, two coat @ $150 - $300, flashlights at $50 each - $100, two badges @ $50 each - $100, 2 sets of brass and tags - $60. Include the bullet proof vest - $500, side arm - $800, extra clips and ammo - holster belt - $350, mace - $25, handcuffs - $75, helmets, hats and caps - $400, patches - $100, gloves - $75, radio - $300, vehicle supplies - $2000. Not including miscellaneous items that comes up to $5805. Pretty close to the sheriff's quote. Would you send your love one out as a police officer with anything less? "

a question wrote on Nov 3, 2006 12:14 PM:

" i have a question for For the post by Good Sheriff?? when has he been there for employees when it has not benefited him in some way or another? "

T wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:33 AM:

" I don't think anyone of us could do a good job at anything if we were as nit picked and scrutinized as Sheriff Berg these last few years. If someone came and evaluated every little thing I do at work, I'm sure I'd have some things I didn't do perfect either. Lay off people and commissioners! Get real. Look at the Big Picture. Crime is down in Burleigh, people feel safe, the Sheriff's department is making a positive name for themselves with adults and children. Drug crimes are down. The sheriffs dept is actually using technology and not doing things the "same old way" as they were before. I don't care who the sheriff is - it could be Joey Chitwood for all I care! Look at if you feel if things are safer now than they were four years ago. If you feel Yes - Then vote for Berg. If you don't then - vote for Heinert. That's the real issue. Not how much was spent on a stupid uniform! "

Legalize wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:32 AM:

" To "Just asking": I'll try to give you some answers. 1. "is it legal for the commission or commissioners to have been aware of a law being broken for two years, or however long since the uniforms were puchased and receipts received, to not have reported the crime until now". You are going under the assumption that the commission or commissioners knew about the breaking of the law at the time it was committed two years ago. Is it possbile that the breaking of the law was only brought to the attention of the commissioners just recently? Is it possible someone in the Sherriff's department who knew of the purchase of the Sherriff's uniform and knew that it was in excess did not bring it up until now? 2. "does their awareness of a crime being committed and not reporting it make them accomplices?" Here again, you are assuming they knew that a crime had been committed two years ago. To be an accomplice to the crime, one would have to know of the crime being committed AT the time the crime was being committed. Is it possible, (even if it was two years ago) that they were not made aware of the crime until AFTER the uniforms for the Sherriff and his right hand man were purchased? If they did not know of the crime until after the crime was committed, how could they be guilty of being an accomplice? You are making WAY to many assumptions. "

RG wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:27 AM:

" The commissioners who are raising cane about this uniform issue should take a week and go on patrol with the bare minimum that $500.00 will buy & see how safe they feel. Get real you guys. Take a few minutes & read law enforcement equipment catalogs & see just how expensive this equipment really is. The sheriff is doing exactly what any other sheriff is doing, which is, doing the best he can with what you gave him. "

HOLY COW wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:15 AM:

" I would like to ask where were the county commissioners. I believe this has to be approved by them. Let us remember this when the county commissioners terms have expired and they come up for election. Sound fishy for this to come up NOW! Since Berg took office it just seems like it has been a WITCH hunt to get Berg out of office. I just hope people see whats going on here. "

meno wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:02 AM:

" If the attorney general needs to investigate, then investigate the county commissioners that approved the payment. Voters, don't let the side issues (smoke) cloud the your thinking and don't let the county commissioners manupulate you. "

M wrote on Nov 3, 2006 11:01 AM:

" i'm not voting for Berg, but come on and use some common sense here. The law is outdated. inflation. if he didn't provide, then there would be an uproar he doesn't support his employees either. are the commissioners or whoever started this idiotic picking on uniform money trying to give Berg the election? all you are doing by this is pushing people towards Berg, not Heinert. If "hawk" is behind a candidate, people will vote for the other. "

Enough already wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:59 AM:

" Although I do not like, nor will I vote, for Berg I do agree that this uniform issue is conveniently placed 2+ years AFTER it occurred. I also agree that the commissioners now are trying to backpeddle out because there is NO WAY they didn't know about the price at the time. Wasn't Woodcox the Chairnman of the Commission at the time? Isn't there a strong disagreement between Berg and him? Isn't it true that Woodcox piped in at the last commission meeting wanting to know if/when the BCI was going to start the investigation? I just think this is politically motivated and that the commissioners have started it. I will not vote for Berg, Johnson or Schonert. And Woodcox nad Hawk can wait until next time for my NO vote. Good day! "

INVESTIGATE AWAY wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:38 AM:

" Grinner, in 24 hrs you can get the September 2005 Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) report on Bergs use of his vehicle from the BCI for $4.20. They are in the phone book. The analysis by the Asst States Attorney says no laws were broken and don't expect us to write or change your policies. Scott Johnson in Oct 2005 used words like "blatant misuse" while Doug Schonert said maybe the policy needs tweeking. Neither did anything for a year and then the issue was put on the agenda for October 16 and Nov 1 Count Commission meetings, probably initiated by Haakenson (portfolio holder). The issue was tabled both meetings thanks to the initiative of Commissioner Lembke, but not before Haakenson took a shot at Berg at the 16th meeting. As for Heinert, I don't think he has any direct involvement in the Commission's (not Lembke) vendetta "

PO3 wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:33 AM:

" As you well know sheriff Berg you have some very sneaky commissioners. We hope to get some new less sneaky blood in there after the 7th and in 2 years throw the rest out. Dirty politics usually doesn't work but this is what your opposition resorts to when their desperate. Kinda like when people name call in a debate, they don't have anything positive or a rebuttal so they name call, in this case they drag out something from 2 years ago, and hope it grabs a few votes their way. Good old boys clubs are hard to defeat Steve and you really tee'd them off last time when you won, you weren't supposed to do that. "

LEO STOMPER wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:33 AM:

" Berg & Sevart have been wasting tons of money on custom tailored uniforms for themselves. Little do they know it doesnt' improve their appearance (nothing could), but rather makes them out to be a couple nancy-boy sissies. "

OUT WITH THE OLD wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:23 AM:

" I agree there needs to be a change!!!!! Voters it's time to clean house, NEW COMMISIONSERS AND A NEW SHERIFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they cannot play nice together then they all need to go home!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Taxpayer wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:17 AM:

" There would be no monies wasted if everybody would follow the laws and the rules including the sheriff and the commissioners. "

JCP wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:14 AM:

" Scott Johnson needs to go. His anti-Berg campaign has reached new lows. It's gone far enough. I will not vote for any imcumbant on the county commission because that's where this turf battle started. LET THE SHERIFF DO HIS JOB. Get off his back! Hopefully we'll get some decent respectable citizens on the commission who aren't such control freaks like MORTON COUNTY resident SCOTT JOHNSON. "

Concerned wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:12 AM:

" I will also be voting for all new commissioners but I will also be voting for a new sheriff as well. They have all proven that they cannot handle the responsibilities of the jobs they were elected to do. "

INVESTIGATE AWAY wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:10 AM:

" Commissioner Scott Johnson,in Trib article, Oct22,2005,said of the Sheriff "its blatant misuse of County property...". This in response to the legal opinion of Asst. States Attorney Robert Bennett re the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) Report on Berg's use of his vehicle. Bennett said no laws were broken and don't expect us to determine County policy, that's your job. So now,Oct 2006, Johnson and Haakenson get around to addressing vehicle policy, allowing Haakenson to take a free shot at the Sheriff with a mostly false statement. Now its bring in the BCI to investigate uniforms--will they investigate Commissioner Schonert who holds the portfolio and signs off on expenditure? Folks, these petty, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, investigations cost taxpayer dollars. HOW ABOUT INVESTIGATING MISUSE OF FUNDS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION. "

The Truth wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:10 AM:

" The body armor comes from federal grant monay and has come from that fund for at least 7 years. It is not included in the Law. "

Don't you get it? wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:10 AM:

" This has nothing to do with over-spending on uniforms, it has everything to do with setting up Berg yet again. This kind of below-the-belt campaign move doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that they think people won't catch on. Whether the commission recruited the higher public officials, or put them in a position where they had to get involved, I don't know. I just know that it is a shame, and I am not convinced that there weren’t more appropriate times to address the uniform issue, such as when it actually happened. Did the commissioners or did the commissioners not approve this spending somewhere along the way? They had to know about it - they knew about every step Sheriff Berg took, and were always looking for the slightest thing to attack him about, which tells me this was quietly set aside to be used when needed. Isn't that wrong? Maybe even bending the law some? Shouldn’t the commission be held accountable for holding this information? Burleigh County needs a set of professional and rational commissioners without personal agendas. Do you think Heinert knew about this long before it hit the fan? I do. Do you think laws have been broken under other Sheriff’s? Quite possible. What other things has the commission kept hidden in the past? Somebody said recall - I say go for it. This commission thinks they are untouchable. "

Evaluation Time wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:09 AM:

" November 7th is around the corner and this is our chance as a community to make a change. I've been following this sheriff’s race since four years ago when I voted for Berg and believed change would be good. With all that has happened in the last four years, I believe we as voters may have made a mistake. This is our opportunity to see if we were wrong or if we were right all along. My vote this time will go to Mr. Heinert and I hope he is elected so we as the community can see first hand if things get better, stay the same or get worse. This is our chance to evaluate what kind of job Mr. Berg has truly done and to see what kind of job Mr. Heinert can do. Come 2010 election, the community will know for sure who the better sheriff is. This will be very easy to gage as to what has transpired since 2002 and we all can look back at both sheriff terms and make a fair judgment of the two individuals. We gave Mr. Berg a chance now I believe we should give Mr. Heinert a chance. As voters this is a great opportunity, we basically will get a sample of leadership from the two candidates with both having a chance to run the show. For you die hard Berg supporters, what so you have to loose? If you vote Heinert, a fair evaluation can be made between the two and we will see if you were right all along. So I urge all of you to vote Heinert this time, so we can make that fair comparison of the two. After this next sheriff term, you along with everyone else will know, 100% who the better sheriff actually is. What do we have to loose, nothing at all but potentially a great deal to gain? Vote Heinert and start the evaluation. "

just asking wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:04 AM:

" well i've tried for an answer in two other blogs and come up empty handed even tho i have explained my question is neither for sarcasm or being snide. i guess i'll go for three and out! is it legal for the commission or commissioners to know of a crime being committed for two years + and not report it? are they then considered an accomplice to the crime? surely they've had the receipts since the purchase was made. i'm just asking. thank you. "

grinner wrote on Nov 3, 2006 10:02 AM:

" The Bismarck Tribune is not serving the community well by leaving out information about who it is on the city commission or in the Sheriff's Department who has started this "uniform-gate" investigation. This information is especially important when the election is in 4 days. I think the Tribune owes its readers and the community a follow-up story. Who brought the information together? Does (Do) the individual(s) have any connection to the candidates running for sheriff or the former sheriff? There continue to be charges that at least some of our county commissioners are playing politics. I may be naive but I bet I am a lot like most people. I just don't know who is telling the truth and I would like to know before I vote. I happen to know both Pat Heinert and Sheriff Berg. As people, I like them both. It disturbs me that as candidates for the top law enforcement position in our county, that either one of them would be involved in dirty politics. I want a Sheriff that is professional and a person of integrity. Before this campaign, I thought both Pat and Steve fit that description. I want to know the truth. Are Pat Heinert and his supporters including some on the county commission trying to make Sheriff Berg look bad? If so who and what is the proof? On the other hand, is Sheriff Berg not conducting himself in a professional manner? What has he done that is not professional? Tell me more than some employees don't like him as much as the previous Sheriff. I want to see the Bismarck Tribune serve the community and its readers by getting to the bottom of this...before the election! "

sb wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:57 AM:

" This investigation was just another ploy the commissioners used to paint a bad picture of sheriff berg enough already i have lost all respect for the commissioners and the way they have acted the last 4 years not a one will get my vote i will be voting for all new people. "

For the Good Sheriff wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:35 AM:

" Steve Berg is a good Sheriff. Whenever I've needed something at the sheriff department he has been there. The last sheriff play alot of games while he was on duty. "

Dekes wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:34 AM:

" First of all, whoever wrote the law that was passed in 1967 should have had the intelligence to put an inflation clause in it. What did he or she think, the world was going to end in 1970? Second, this is not news, this is what they used to call "muck raking". The Tribune should be embarrassed that they printed this. "

x wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:29 AM:

" I watched the news like so many of you did about this uniform issue, but sheriff berg is really skating around the real issue again. the problem wasn't the deputies uniforms and equipment that caused the overture it was the sheriff's and major's class A dress uniforms. these were the uniforms that they were both wearing for the press. these uniforms cost a couple thousand dollars a piece. i know that the sheriff is a public figure and needs to look his best, but why does he need to spend that much on two uniforms? i know that some of the money he spent on the class A uniforms could have went towards other clothing, equipment, or other supplies that the sheriff's dept. needs. for example i know that some deputies have been wearing the same jacket they were issued years ago and they have rips and tears in some of them. it would be nice if the sheriff would answer a question directly and not side step it and place the blame on others, or state i didn't know. your the sheriff these are things you are suppose to know. "

Wake Up! wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:26 AM:

" People you are missing the boat here, we are NOT talking about the deputies and their UNIFORMS and EQUIPMENT. Plain and simple this is about Berg and Severt spending over 2000.00 on class A uniforms for themselves. Actually, it’s the uniform that the two of them were wearing during the news conference last night. I can assure you they are the only two in the department that have those uniforms and why, so they can look good. Berg is trying to cloud the issue with bringing up what the deputies are outfitted with and that is NOT what this is about. There is a big difference between CLOTHING and EQUIPMENT. This is just another example of how Berg has to stand out for the crowd. I also find it quite disturbing that the “sheriff” of our county does NOT know the specific chapter in the ND Century Code that revolves around HIS duties. As far as the commission not bringing this up until now, I guess I don’t exactly agree with it but does TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT? More negativity with the Burleigh County Sheriff’s Department, what else has to happen to make people see, it’s time for a change? "

From the inside wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:21 AM:

" The article says Mr. Berg did not know about the law. However, I have a Sheriff's department memo that is signed by Mr. Berg becoming effective February 15, 2005. It states "Procedure: North Dakota Century Code 11-15-29 establishes a uniform allowance standard for Deputy Sheriffs." Please understand the law applies to UNIFORMS not equipment and other safety Gear. Mr. Berg is the one that expanded the list in order to suggest you can not live within the law. "

Kramer wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:17 AM:

" You are correct VOR! I felt the same way after that snipit. Also, last nights coverage of the Fong rampage was fishy. We got to hear Fong pound the podium about negative attack ads against him, but we got to hear no taped response from Edison. All we got was a comment from Preskey. Edison's ad only stated what was printed in the Fargo Forum about Fong and his credentials. How many ads to we hear that have newspaper editorial comments in them. Are they all negative? "

Disgusted wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:13 AM:

" Allegations like this are ridiculous. Mr. Berg you have my vote. Scott Johnson you just lost 2 votes 1 for you and 1 for Heinert. "

Way 2 Go wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:09 AM:

" Thank you sheriff Berg for protecting the employees in the sheriff department. What an obvious attempt to effect the outcome of the election at the last minute. I hope Burleigh County sees through the tactic of the Commission and when given a chance gets rid of the commissioners and their little games. "

To: WOW wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:07 AM:

" So let me get this right, you were going to vote for Heinert until you saw the news last nigtht???? What news were you watching anyway? The channel I was watching showed our current sheriff loose his cool and get angry with news media that he called for a press conference. If I remember correctly he got so frustrated the news actually cut him off. Need I remind everyone how Mr. Berg acted on the news during the whole climate assessement ordeal, yah the same way, he got angry with the media and lashed out. Are you not suppose to be on your best behavior in such cases? If he acts like this for the camera, what is he like behind closed doors? This is the person you will vote for? "

local person wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:01 AM:

" i'm glad the officers have good equipment. who started this investigation anyway? "

To: bigpapadog wrote on Nov 3, 2006 9:00 AM:

" Dude, wake up you can't fire a sheriff he is an elected official. DUH Also I'll let in in on something, next Tuesday, the 7th there is going to be what is called an "election" where you go and vote. This is how "elected officials" can loose their jobs. "

Come on wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:55 AM:

" If the commission approved it the comissioners that voted to allow this expenditure are as much if not more at fault than Mr. Berg. They hold the portfolios and are also suppose to know these things. If they allowed this how much more have they done like this that they are keeping form us? I will vote for Steve because I feel this comission has had a vendeta against him since he came was elected. Keep up the good work Steve. The other question I have is why are we not naming the comissioner or comissioners that are making these allegations? Could it be because they are up for re-election? Smells like a rat to me. "

Another Question wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:53 AM:

" Why the heck does the legislature try to control what a county/city spends? They should have enought to do without trying to dictate local politics to. "

RLC wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:48 AM:

" $500 for uniforms plus gear for a year, then only $350 each year after? Dang right that law needs to change! I would rather our officers be safe than worry about wether or not they spent a bit too much money. I'm sure it gets expensive, but it's worth it! I don't think the officers need 20 uniforms each, but I am positive they don't have that. They have what is needed, and they should! Thanks Sheriff Berg! It seems you have your head on straight, others are trying to knock your name in the ground. Stick to what you believe in, the safety of our officers! "

Seriously? wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:48 AM:

" This seems like a stupid little thing to bring up right before the election. 2004 and it is being brought up now? Give me a break... "

VOR wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:39 AM:

" Amazed, what are you talking about? Weixel gave readers the chance to read the facts about the bomb KX TV dropped a couple nights ago with no explanation. Its report was totally unprofessional and lacking of journalistic integrity. Days before an election, a commissioner drops a "so-called" bomb about a candidate he wants out of office. TV doesn't investigate, reports no facts, and says the sheriff is under investigation. Then leaves it. I didn't think a station could get any worse than KFYR and its 30-minute infomercials disguised as news, but KX did. As for you, Good job Weixel for letting us see the commissioners were as much at fault as the sheriff. KX, anybody under investigation there? "

lawnorder wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:38 AM:

" I suppose there are many laws on the books that are not enforced. Let's see if someone has broken them a couple of days before the election so we can slam them too. This is a good example of irresponsible government action. A witch hunt at its best...the commission should be recalled. "

WOW wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:33 AM:

" Well until last night when this story frist broke I was going to vote for Mr. Berg's opponnet. I can say now I will be voting for Mr. Berg. "

Edward wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:26 AM:

" If the law is $500 and more is spent it is a violation. Have the legislature inctrease the expenditure. As a cop would say; Ignorance of the law is no excuse! What is good for the goose is good for the gander. "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:24 AM:

" I commented on another article regarding steve berg and my belief that he was the target of people as soon as he was elected...if this man is so bad like so many people want to say..then he should have been fired...but it seems all the stuff that is said about him is petty stuff that when it comes down to it, isn't reason to fire a guy....don't know what to think other than the people that are complaining about him aren't giving people like me who doesn't live in this district, not a very good impression of whats going on there..and its not because of steve berg. "

Misunderstood wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:21 AM:

" If the BCI is investigating misappropriation of tax dollars, then Berg obviously went overboard. The investigation does NOT include bullet proof vests, handcuffs, and weapons as you suggest... but UNIFORMS. Uniforms are not that expensive and Burleigh CO is not that large (manpower-wise). Berg likes to play dress up. Do you really want to spend money on the Emperor's new clothes? Or would you rather invest that money into the deputies and get them better training, higher pay, better equipment? Remember, a well-paid, well-equipped cop is going to provide a better service to you than an under-paid, under-educated cop that looks "spiffy". THIS IS A BIG DEAL. It just proves where Berg's priorities stand. He is worrying more about looking good than protecting you. TAKE A CLOSER LOOK! VOTE HEINERT! "

Bismarck Resident wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:21 AM:

" I will be sure to use these excuses the next time I have a parking ticket. I'm sure that will make it right. The point I am trying to make is that he is the sheriff. The buck stop there. It is his responsibility to enforce the law no matter what his personal opinion of them are. There are means to change the laws so bring it up with the commission and legislators to get it changed. Until then, follow the letter of the law! That is what is expected of someone in this position! "

abc wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:16 AM:

" Pitiful for the County Commission to time this to coincide with the election. Sadly, shame or embarrassment is not something they are familiar with. "

To Amazed: wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:13 AM:

" It doesn't really matter to me which commissioner pushed this (but we can pretty much guess who it was since he is openly out to get Berg) because they are all in this together and support each other in their non-professional actions. This is what Berg has been up against all along - and I believe if there is a lot of upset in the county, it starts right with those five commissioners. Maybe Burleigh county voters need to just start phasing them all out as the opportunity presents itself! Make sure we get the "headhunter" out. You are so right on with your assessment of this. No one should have to take what Berg has, and this last one takes the cake. "

If only you knew wrote on Nov 3, 2006 8:02 AM:

" The whole issue here is not about the officers on the street but the Class A uniforms the Sheriff & Major purchased for themselves to look good at funerals and places they can shake hands and kiss babies. Why do they have different badges? collar brass, different handgun? different shoes, belt, shirts? or those burlap looking coats they wear. I don't think looking good is going to save your life!! Our sheriff did it again!! blamed his uniform actions on patrolmen and their uniforms!! "

Puh-leeze! wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:53 AM:

" And regarding the commission approving the expense, there was nothing in this article or anything I heard on the news last night that indicated just what the commission had approved. Was it a budget line item in the sheriff's department budget that requested $X for uniforms? Or was it a special budget request that said $X for Y deputies? Trib do you have the answers? "

over $500??? wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:47 AM:

" lets price this out... one really nice shirt, $50 (I know I don't have a $50 shirt!) one pair of pants, $60 one coat, $150 a flashlight, $50 badge, $50 collar brass and name tag, $30 That is on the REALLY, REALLY generous side, and I come up with under $400. "

Puh-leeze! wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:47 AM:

" Did I hear the news right? I heard Berg (the chief law enforcement officer of the county) on the evening news use ignorance of the law as an excuse! Then I heard him say that the law was outdated. Ok, criminals, you heard it from the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF BURLEIGH COUNTY - if you don't like the law and think it's old and outdated, you don't have to follow it. Give me a break! If you don't like the law, CHANGE IT!! I worked at a job where we had to wear a uniform and that uniform was not provided to us, we had to purchase our own uniforms. We then wrote off the expense as a required business expense on our taxes. Sucks for the deputies, I agree, but then your option is to CHANGE the law, NOT BREAK it!!! Sheriff, are you going to release everyone you arrest from now on who tells you they didn't know the law they broke existed? Or that it was outdated? What an example to set for the public!! "

GABELS3 wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:47 AM:

" SHAME SHAME SHAME COMMISSIONERS GROW UP AND GET OVER BOB LEAVING..... "

RRMC wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:37 AM:

" The Tribune should be ashamed for printing this article. Bismarck needs to get out and vote some commissioners out of office. "

Enough Already.... wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:29 AM:

" These uniforms were purchsed in 2004, and it just came to someone's attention? He is supposed to follow a uniform expenditure from 1981? Considering inflation, I'm surprised he only came in 63.88 cents over budget. This story is nothing more than a "witch hunt". It would be nice if we could read the real issues rather than stuff that someone is digging up from years age! If that is all you have at this point in the election process, then you don't have much. Move on already! I am a former resident of Bismarck ND, and follow your stories daily, some are good, some are just pathetic. They make me glad that I don't live under the reign of your petty city commissioners. Bismarck needs to take a good look at who they are electing-it is time for a complete overhaul. Change needs to happen and change is most effecitive when you start at the top! "

EM wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:28 AM:

" Wow! Gordon this is a no brainer, I wish you would write who the commisioner was that initiated this total non-sense, if not, both that are running for re-election will feel the brunt at the polls as this is the type of childish non-sense our current commission involves tax-payer time with. Simply unbelievable, and shame on you and the tribune! "

Pathetic wrote on Nov 3, 2006 7:26 AM:

" This is nothing but a pathetic tactic by our famous county commissioners. It is a real embarrassment to have such idiots running the show. Can we not find something better to do county commissioners? It is so painfully obvious that this is an election tactic. I think that our Sheriff's Department has better things to do -- like protecting our citizens then defending these never ending accusations from our county commissioners. Give it up already! People of Burleigh County - get rid of our worthless county commissioners. Vote in some new blood. And thank you Sheriff Berg for your devotion to protecting us and for always wanting something better for the citizens of Burleigh County. I can only urge the county commissioners to try employment with the circus when it comes to town...this is where these tactics belong. "

Amazed wrote on Nov 3, 2006 5:44 AM:

" Nice article Gordon...And people wonder why the media takes so many hits for putting out this kind of trash. Don't give me the free speech excuse, somebody here is head hunting. Too bad we don't know what commissioner is pushing this. They we would know who to vote out! I don't live in Burleigh or Bismarck, Thank, Goodness. "

REDNECK wrote on Nov 3, 2006 5:11 AM:

" Can we please give the man a break. The commission approved the costs and then come back with an investigation. This is more than likely politically motivated. Let the man do his job. "

Bravo!! wrote on Nov 3, 2006 4:26 AM:

" I am all for outfitting our dept. in nothing but the best~~hello?? They are protecting us!! If an officer was your husband, son, daughter...wouldn't you want them to be protected as well?? Thanks Sheriff Berg! "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.