A general theme from an observer of your time and tenure as Sheriff is like there's just a ton of things that are going on and you're like Hey, this is this may be in my lane it may be out of my lane like but it's a problem and like I'm interested in fixing it. We're going to fix it because a lot of people like they see a problem and be like >> It's not mine. Somebody else's problem. >> You don't have that option. I mean you you just have to as they would say take the bull by the horns and and deal with it. >> This 56 a Pinellas County Sheriff's Office podcast. I'm Ricky Butler with Laura Sullivan and Ashley Cooley. We have we're making history on this episode. We have our first repeat guest on 56 and it's only appropriate that be Sheriff Bob Gualtieri. So Sheriff thanks for joining us again. When we talked to him last we kind of did that whole superhero origin story for the Sheriff kind of talked about the personal side but a huge part of who he is and why we are so fortunate to have him here is all the other extracurricular things that he does other than Sheriffing in Pinellas County. So we're going to we're going to get into all that and talk about it but first We do have to ask the repeat guest a new question. So Ashley it's your time. >> All right. This is a scenario. You are a passenger in a car on I-4 headed to Orlando. It is 5 o'clock traffic. The driver you it's a would you rather who do you want the driver to be? The driver could be someone that is driving fast. So every opportunity they have to get in another lane they're doing it. >> Jumping around. >> But not really getting anywhere but they feel like they are or they are that person that drives slow and is committed to that right hand lane cuz eventually they're going to they're going to get to their exit. So they're never going to really leave that lane. Which would you rather as your driver? >> I'm going to stick with the nice steady commuter. >> Of course you do. >> I'll I'll Well, I have to say I I just I came just came back from Peru and the driving there is insane. But, the people there, although they're they're like this far away from everybody's bumper and they're cutting each other off right or left, they're so chill about it. And and there's no accidents that I saw. So, um I don't think that works here. It worked there, but it did terrify me the whole time. Anyway, yeah. I'm I'm I'm doing slow and steady. Slow and steady. I'm the tortoise. >> What's got? >> Yeah, slow and steady because look at things from the perspective of doesn't accomplish anything. You're not accomplishing anything by doing it the way you were describing because traffic doesn't move. So, what's the use? >> Now, if you were the driver yourself, would your answer be any different? >> Not not there, not in that scenario because it's too clogged up. It's not going to work. >> Right. >> Yeah. I'm going to say the slow and steady also just cuz I-4 is scary. So, um but it would drive me insane to just be committed to that lane and not >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm all over the place. I'm I don't stay in my lane. So, if I was driving >> life, not in driving. >> Yeah. So, so if I was if I was driving or if I was a passenger, it's like let's just try. >> Right. >> It but it would get nowhere. >> Yeah, yeah. >> But, the driver feels like feels like they're feeling better. Yeah. >> You know, cuz you're sitting there and you're watching like traffic and you're like, "We should be in that lane." And then, you know, they pass you. >> Yeah. >> And that's good. Just don't don't drive on I-4. That's the That's the moral of the story. >> Yeah. >> It's a scary place. >> All right. So, uh good one. Thank you. Uh all right, Sheriff. So, uh what's been going on since we talked last? Anything Anything exciting? >> Lots of stuff, you know. You know, I I don't remember exactly when we talked last. We We uh >> This is our 25th episode. So, it was a while ago. >> 10. so like about a year and a half ago. >> Year and a half, yeah. >> Uh so we had some storms. >> Yeah. >> We had a a couple couple major storms. Um what uh let's talk about it a little bit like what um you know what was your how did it go for us between Tropical Storm Debbie then we had uh Helene and Milton like obviously Helene was huge for us with the barrier islands, but how did um how did that go? From your perspective. >> Well, it was something that we had never experienced before. We never seen anything of that magnitude and we never seen that much water before, so uh a lot of it was new. Uh a lot of lessons learned. Uh some of the things we did well and some of the things we didn't do so well. Um one of the things that I think came to light and we all realized during Helene was you're never going to be fully prepared and you're never going to have enough stuff. >> Mhm. >> Um because you you just can't uh for something of that magnitude and when you look back on it and think about even what we did experience here, it wasn't as bad as those storms get. >> Right. >> So while it was unprecedented, we had never experienced anything like it. Um you know, we just can't have something like that again, especially this year. So a lot of lessons learned out of it. Uh we have invested in some new equipment, uh retooled some things, uh looking at uh restructuring some of the things as to how we do it, how we respond, um and knowing that you know if something like that happens, you just need a lot more than what you have in place because you're never going to be able to meet the demand, especially when it comes to the evacuations and the rescues during the event. >> Mhm. >> Uh more rescues during the event. The evacuations are before a little bit, but after especially, and you're just spread so thin all over the place. >> So and I I know some of this stuff is is in the works and then whatnot, but so specifically though some of the things we could do better, I mean, it was a just anticipating I mean, because we've never been through it, right? I mean, by default, I think most things you say, "Oh, we could do better." cuz now you know. But like, is it is it just allocating assets? Is it, you know, having the training to go do it right then? Like because one of the eerie parts about the storms is when we say, "Hey, we're not responding anymore." So, are we trying to move toward kind of changing that a little bit to where we can have more capability or >> No, because the only time we're not going to respond is when it's unsafe for our people. So, that'll never change because we're not sending them out there if it's unsafe for them. So, otherwise, we'll respond as long as it's okay for our people to do it, but I think that um we need to just realize the terrain of Pinellas County, uh especially the Gulf Boulevard area, and the high-water vehicles sometimes will get you so far. >> Mhm. >> Um and the shallow-water boat sometimes will get you so far, and sometimes you need a combination of both, and you just can't get from point A to point B. Um I think that one of the things that I think we really realized is we need more uh on-site uh operational command out there that can provide live, real-time assessments and tell us exactly what's going on so we can reallocate resources. And try and get those resources to them the best we can. And that there's just going to be an inundation of demand, and we're going to have to prioritize it. So, we're investing in some things, uh some personal watercraft because jet skis can get uh really anywhere, and they kind of split the baby between uh shallow-water boats and high-water vehicles. You can get more places, but we also have to invest in some uh as we call it PPE or personal protective equipment for deputies so that they don't do things like come in contact with power lines that are down. >> Sure. >> So, we need to make sure that we've got people trained right, we got the right equipment uh to be able to affect it safely. So, we're doing some of that investment and we're also looking at restructuring uh to divide the county up. I think we have developed some good relationships with the fire departments, the fire chiefs, with EMS uh to collaborate more uh to eliminate redundancies. That's another thing we saw last time as these calls were coming in because fire and EMS dispatch is separate from law enforcement dispatch. So, a call would come in and somebody said they need to be rescued. And because we have a consolidated now one center in Pinellas, sometimes those calls were going to both fire and EMS law enforcement. So, both responding. That's we need to deduplicate that. So, we're we're looking at a better uh coordination. Um fire chiefs have been great to work with and I think that we're well on the road to you know, retooling some of how we respond. >> Mhm. And um obviously, the biggest way the public can help, especially when it comes to the islands and when they're live when they live in those evacuation areas, is obviously to evacuate. Um but you know, I think I mean, from our perspective in in PR land, you know, we worked really hard to make sure they were seeing what was actually happening out there, especially, you know, after Helene. So, after all that to those folks that that, you know, may have been frustrated, they may have not been able to get back as soon as they wanted. I mean, what do you what do you say to those folks uh as we navigated that unprecedented thing? >> Well, you said it nicely and I'll say it not so nicely, okay? Get out. >> Mhm. >> Because uh that's what you have to do and I don't know how to say it any more strongly than that, more effectively than that. And I think people I said it last time and people didn't do it. You know, the second time they did because it's serious, you know, you you you shelter in place for wind, but you have to evacuate for water. Water will kill you. And I think we saw that with a number of deaths we had out there in the beaches. And you're putting yourself and your family and first responders in a bad situation and in harm's way by not heeding the warning. Um again, if it's wind, it's one thing, but when it's water, it and the water that was projected uh the way it was is is going to be serious. Now, I also understand that this was the first time really in Pinellas County's history that we saw anything like that that anybody here now could ever remember or ever experience. So, what again, some people just didn't take it seriously because oh, this is we've experienced this before, we'll be fine. We kept saying, no, you're not going to be fine. This is going to be different, but you know, it's human nature and some people listened and some people didn't. So, you know, if it happens again, hopefully when we say, look, folks, this is the real deal and the water's coming again, you need to go, hopefully they'll listen to us. Mhm. >> Yeah, that's what we tried to do with the messaging was kind of follow your bluntness to get people to leave and and we believe that it did get more people to do that. Um one thing I was thinking for this year um cuz I believe it was 12 people that died out on the barrier islands. Um and a lot of them were in the older community. Um so, this year with our messaging, I definitely want to include something like check on your neighbors and make sure that they have a plan or get them connected with somebody that can help them cuz I and I mean, you can only do what you can do. If they're like, no, I'm fine and don't want to go anywhere, but I want to include that this year to kind of maybe help those people. >> Yeah, cuz also comes up like, what about people that can't? It's like, well, there's if you plan ahead and you know, there's registries, there's all kinds of stuff where you can get help to you. So, um that's important. So, something I'm always curious about, I think most people are, but you don't always want to kind of uh share that side, but you know, you're you have a big job in those situations, you know, that's where really truly that um you know, uh chief law enforcement officer piece uh comes in. Like, you have obviously the responsibility of being sheriff and and all those things happening, but like how do you how do you balance that? Like at it was there any point with any of those storms like, "Okay, like this is like this is really happening." cuz we all know, you know, we have to prepare, we have to watch, the storm's unpredictable, but you know, was there a point where you're like, "Okay, this is this is the real deal." and like how do you how do you handle that? >> No, because I I I took it as a real deal from the beginning. >> And so, you know, I think I was in in touch with that reality. Uh so, I I what happened is really what I expected and I expected it not to be good and it wasn't. So, there was no like, you know, aha moment for me because, you know, we we get good information from the state, from the National Weather Service, and, you know, the the county's flood plains manager and others are experienced, they know what they're doing, they give us good information. So, I, you know, no, there wasn't any of that for this one. There wasn't like, "Oh my god, this is the real now." >> Because we saw we saw it coming. >> Planned, yeah. So, you talked about coordinating with fire chiefs, which kind of is a is a good segue because when we're trying to talk about what we wanted to cover with you today, um you know, you mentioning working out, you know, reaching out to them saying, "Hey, we got a problem here. We need to fix this." Um a general theme from an observer of your time and tenure as Sheriff is like there's just a ton of things that are going on and you're like, "Hey, this is this may be in my lane, it may be out of my lane." like but it's a problem, it's a systemic problem and like I'm interested in fixing it, we're going to fix it. And um you know, back there's that's the 90% of what you do is is step out and and address issues that need to be addressed, but where did that come from? How do you know, because you you you were you're elected at you're appointed Sheriff, you're elected, and you know, you'd already dealt with Safe Harbor, which we talked about as chief deputy when we talked to you last, but like where did that Were you just looking at it like practically from the operator standpoint and say, "Well, this is the problem and we can fix it." Because a lot of people like they see a problem and be like, >> It's not mine. Somebody else's problem. >> Yeah, well, you you know, and in this position we saw at least I see this position and the role is you don't have that option. I mean, you you just have to you know, as they would say, take the bull by the horns and and deal with it because I think probably early on, you know, I came to the realization you know, there's that old adage and I think it was President Eisenhower or who kind of coined it as the buck stops here. Well, with me the buck does stop here. I mean, there there is no out basket to send it to and figuratively and literally. Uh so, when something you know, is not right, you know, I and and I won't use names, but I remember talking to somebody at one point who was in a command position and we were talking about um issues and some things that were deficient. And their response was, "Somebody should fix that." Well, of course my response is, "Look in the mirror cuz that somebody is you." You know, because if you don't fix it, who's going to fix it? So, you know, at the end of it and whether it is you know, things solely internal within the sheriff's office, things that are within the law enforcement public safety community in Pinellas County, there there you know, interdisciplinary issues, you know, I just believe in getting it done and just take care of it. Don't you know, just step out of a step out of your bounds if you have to. Step out of your lane, but things need to be done. Just take care of it. >> But sometimes you're like the only person. I mean, I get what you're saying like with internal stuff, but like when you look at some of the things that have happened with mental health and you know, we had one of the first mental health units around like way before it was cool. You know, that was that's a systemic thing with a bunch of partners that are not the easiest to to work with and they've always done things this way because it's the way it's been done. So, it's it's I mean it's much bigger than that. Um talk about the mental health piece a little bit if you would because that was much like the homelessness issue with with Safe Harbor like we're we're finding people that are in the criminal justice system that shouldn't be. We're not addressing the problem. So, how did some of that come to be as like a really early example? >> Well, you see a need and and you have to be willing to affect the change and sometimes as I say change is hard and people don't like it for a whole whole lot of different reasons. Some of it self-serving. Some of it is because it's the way that they've always done it. But, you know, adages, you know, always do what you've always done, you're always going to get what you always got. So, unless you're going to do it differently and you're going to break the mold, then you're not going to have a different outcome and in that area what we saw was is that what I saw was that the outcome was not good. Uh where I saw the largest void and still see the largest void is an area of case management. And all these people with mental and behavioral health issues, they don't want to be sick. They don't want to have these issues. But, if they and if they could fix their problem by themselves, they would. They can't. They need somebody to So, again, sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively, but the point's made is hold their hand, guide them through the process. You need navigators. You need case management. So, you know, I've been talking about that for 15 years and you know, but a lot of the people within the mental health system haven't affected that. So, we decided to affect it ourselves. I guess that goes to the point and part of your I guess question or you know, statement is is that, you know, sometimes we just do it and because I you know, I don't know. Maybe that's just my nature I and I'm not going to stand by and take no for an answer if it's the right thing or let other things get in the way. We're just going to get it done. So, that's what we've done with our mental health unit, you know, and now we have the cities of Largo, Clearwater, Pinellas Park that are contracting with us for the the response specialist. Uh we're moving in in a good direction. We are affecting better outcomes. There's still a need for more and better case management. We initiated what we call the PIC teams, which is the uh through PICA, the Pinellas Integrated Care Alliance, which is a dedicated case management entity that provides case management to, and I don't say this derogatory, the worst of the worst. They're not bad people. They're in They're in the worst mental health situation. They're the chronic mental health patients who affect us the most, who otherwise would often be in the criminal justice system. So, it's the same thing. You just have to do it and let the chips fall where they fall. And, you know, sometimes people get ticked off about it. You know, why are you doing this? Why are you in our wheelhouse? Well, because you're not. That's why. And you're not getting it done. So, you know, you know, it's the way it works. >> And just for our listeners that don't know, the mental health unit is when they go out, it's a deputy and a civilian crisis response specialist. >> Correct. We have a co-response model. And the co-response model is sometimes when calls come in and people are in crisis. Or it looks like there's a mental health issue and it could be anything from a neighbor dispute to a domestic to somebody that's threatening self-harm to you name it. Is that if we have the mental health team, the co-responder model with a response team, which is a deputy or an officer from one of those cities and the CRS, crisis response specialist, then they'll respond. Again, to handle it better because the CRS is somebody Cops are not qualified to handle this. You know, what cops are going to do is evaluate it. And if they can act, which means to arrest somebody or take them into custody under the state's mental health involuntary examination law, which in Florida we call the Baker Act. That's what they do. And you can talk yourself in or out of a Baker Act. If you say the right or wrong things, depending upon your view, you're going to get Baker Acted or you're not. But if you have a mental health professional there and they can do an evaluation, is that the idea is not to Baker Act. If we can leave the people there and then get them services and get them in the right lane, and and then the follow-up teams come in on the backside, and they will follow up with those people in the subsequent days to make sure that they are getting into services, and talk to our caregivers, family members, others that to help them. So, the idea is is that we I think we and I know this is is that the qua- across the board with is that law enforcement over Baker Acts. And over Baker Acts because law enforcement is in a C Y A mode, and don't know what else to do. So, they do what cops do, and that is to remove the person from that situation to solve the problem. And so, they get Baker Acted, and then they go to the crisis stabilization unit, as it's called, uh receiving facility, and they say, "Yeah, you're not really in crisis." Well, they may not be in crisis, acute crisis, by their evaluation, but it doesn't mean they're okay, either. And then, they get out, and then they do the same thing again, and we get called. Well, what do we do? Baker Act them. Okay. >> Right. >> And it's so, it's just a cycle to no place. So, that's where we had to break that cycle, and do it a different way. And we are, so it's working. >> So, what's next for that? Is there Is there an additional I mean, I know it may not be a lift that that we are going to make, but is there Is there anything any organizations out there that can step up, or >> Well, there is. I don't you know, I don't know. Well, internally, I think we have room, but it goes back to finances, and you know, funding, and budgets, and we don't have the responding teams in all areas of the county. Uh some of the north parts of Pinellas, some of the west parts out by the beaches, west Seminole, etc., is that we don't have that as part of the response area, because we just don't have the people to do it. So, uh we we still have room to expand. Uh we have room to grow it. But, if we ever get the funding for it, that was something that that certainly we would do. Um mental health is so complicated. Uh the mental health system in Florida uh leaves a lot to be desired. I know there's members of the legislature that have an interest in making some changes to it, but it is such a beast and the way that it works, and the way the funding flows from the legislature to the Department of Children and Families to what they call managing entities who then contract with providers and the way the money flows and the way the whole situation evolves, very complicated. So, I think the system itself, I'll I'll say it and I've said it many times is that what it really needs is more case management and navigation to the right services, meaning the right quality, the right quantity, the right type. And when individuals who are providing the services that are getting paid points for providing those services are determining the quality, the quantity, and the type, sometimes they might be all the time for the right reasons. Now, they got to keep their lights on, keep their doors open, but they're not case man- objectively case managed to the point that they need to. So, you know, and I and I I've been saying that for a long time. So, anybody who hears this and listen to it, "Oh my god, he's trash talking the mental health people." Well, no, I'm not. I'm just saying it the way it is and, you know, as I've said to people many times is is that tell me I'm wrong. And, you know, what their response is, "Well, you're not wrong. You're just not supposed to say that." So, okay. >> Similar to, you know, we've been offering Safe Harbor for >> decades. >> decades to come take it. >> Same thing with Safe Harbor, you know, you know, we should we shouldn't be in that business. You know, we should not be the largest provider of homeless services in the county. >> But, no one else is doing it. >> else is doing it. So, we're going to do it. You know, we get it done. So, we've been doing it since 2011 and you know, we spend the money and we do but but it saves money and it's the right thing to do. It's It's treating people right. It keeps people out of the criminal justice system and it drives a better outcome. So, anybody, you know, more than welcome to step up and take it over. >> Hasn't happened yet. >> No, and it won't. >> So, both Safe Harbor and the Mental Health Unit in a sense are are diversion programs of sorts, but we also have really strong adult and juvenile diversion programs, which is another thing that you kind of championed early on in your tenure. Um talk about just a little bit more about why that's important to you and and why it's important for folks to not get bogged down in the system. >> Well, I mean, we look at everything through the lens of what's the right thing to do. You know, is that not everybody who does something wrong is a bad person. People make mistakes in life. There's bumps in the road and things happen. Say especially, you know, with kids as an as an example. You know, every kid that goes out and steals a necklace from department store at the mall, every kid that's got a joint of marijuana, every kid that's got a can of beer, every kid that writes something they shouldn't write with graffiti. They're not bad kids. Sometimes they're just doing stupid stuff that kids do. And so, why should they have, you know, you know, there's also adages. You know, first rule is do no harm. So, if you tag that kid with an arrest, this is that that could be an impediment to future success because they were arrested and they have a criminal record. And it's something they're going to have to disclose. You know, really not necessarily for the rest of their life, but for the foreseeable future as they're looking at anything from getting housing and apartments to jobs to military to school to whatever. So, do you really need to use a sledgehammer to solve the problem? So, you say, "Look, we're going to not give you a a criminal record. We're going to have pre-arrest diversion. But, we're going to also get you on the right side of this and there has to be some consequences." So, they are put into a program where they do community service. They may need to do some If you got a kid that has some anger management issues and he hit somebody, he got to fight at the bus stop, and it's the first time, then, you know, maybe some some uh anti-shoplifting classes. You know, there's different things that you can do to hopefully keep them on the get them on the right path. Yeah, so with kids, you got kids to do the right thing, and you got the horrific kids. And there's a pendulum. And these kids over here are they're not always doing the right They veered a little bit. You just don't want them to go too far this way, so you try to push them back the other way. And so that's where diversion comes in, and it works. It's highly successful. We divert kids. Most of them are first-time offenders. We'll do some second-time ones. And And occasionally, we also do some uh what I'll call the gotcha uh third-degree felony property crimes. So, as an example in in Florida, is that if And kids play this game, you know, but it's also, you know, silly games, you know, silly prizes. So, when you get bad consequences from it, where they'll order a pizza, and the pizza guy will show up, he'll go up to the door, and then they'll go to the car, and they'll steal the pizza boxes out of the car. Well, that's a burglary. That's a third-degree felony. It is Joey, who's 14 years old, really need a burglary charge and a third-degree No. So, you know, we'll do some of those. And some of it, too, again, shouldn't be a gotcha. You know, vandalism in Florida, anything more than a thousand dollars is a felony, but anything under is a misdemeanor. So, if it's the right circumstances, and it's 998, the kid gets diversion. But if it's a thousand and five, the kid doesn't get diversion. No, that doesn't make sense. So, you know, we look at it common sense. >> Case by case. >> Case by case, yeah. >> Not so common, though. >> No. >> Um when we talk about we talk about the other end of the spectrum with these kids with uh home, uh which was the habitual offender monitoring enforcement. Another thing you kind of stepped up and responded to uh with juvenile car thefts. That was a that was a big thing. I think we might be seeing a little bit of that ticking up again off and on over the last several years, but talk about what the home task force does. >> Yeah, well with car thefts and kids, I mean you're you're going back now 2014, 15, 16 it was out of control. You know, we had thousands of cars being stolen car thousands of cars being broken into and it was truly an epidemic and it was predominantly kids coming out of some of the lower socioeconomic areas of the county going throughout the county and it was primarily the middle of the night and they were just stealing cars and then there were guns in the cars and they would lead to other violent crime etc. So, we had to push back on that and that was also back at a time where the legislature hadn't acted and changed the law and these kids had really no consequences for those actions because no matter what the kid did. Didn't matter whether they stole a car or whether they committed an armed robbery, no matter what they did unless they were charged as an adult, a judge had no authority to keep them in jail for more than 21 days or kid jail at the juvenile detention center. They don't care about that. Give me my 21 days, I'll get back out and steal more stuff. So, you know, we had to push back on that. So, the home program was developed as a collaborative effort between Largo, Pinellas Park, Clearwater, St. Pete and us. And we all assigned personnel. Again, whether it's in a positive way with case management mental health. All that means is is that you're intensely involved in trying to guide them into services. We just talked about that. But all home is is the same thing but not in a positive way. It's watching what you're doing and you know, you're going to kick them in the tail end if they mess up and keep them on the right track. So, home is just watching these kids and trying to deal with the families. A lot of the problems with these kids is that they don't have parents who parent. Most of the time it's a single parent situation. And these kids, a lot of them unfortunately, it's very sad, a lot of them don't have anything. And so they go to school and they see these kids, others, they have things. They kids got iPhone, the kids got this and that. And they sitting at home on Friday night and you know single parent and that single parent is out doing whatever and they're by themselves or like, "Heck with it. Let's just go steal cars because you know, I want stuff too." See, but with home is is that these kids they get put on electronic monitoring and the deputies and officers are out there watching them. They're going by the house, they're keeping an eye on them. So the pressure's on. So that is the you know, the kick in the tail end where and if they mess up then there's consequences. So that's why home's been successful. >> And and this isn't for kids that have just made a couple mistakes. This is like five felonies in the last 12 months. This is more serious. >> yeah. I mean that that criteria was something that was was for the what we call the PJO's which are the prolific juvenile offenders. So they're all not that bad. Some of them are, some of them are worse. But it's the ones that have that have committed felonies and for the most part are under some sort of court supervision. Either some sort of pre-trial release now with some sort of electronic monitoring or they're on probation. But they've done something that they're under some sort of supervision. And we have what we call the radar list which is a subset of that which they may not be on some sort of court supervision but boy, they're on the pathway to it. And we're trying to get them back getting that pendulum going the other way. So that they don't continue to do bad things. >> There there's a lot of I think generally most people support it. They think it's smart, you know, whatever. But there's there's people that are you know, that don't believe that we should be spent They look at the kids and the families as well, you know, where are the parents? That's not our problem. But it kind of is on the other end. Just talk a little bit about why being proactive is important because like the other end the other option is they're out there wreaking havoc. >> Yeah, well, you know, one of the things that I talk about this a lot is the success we've had in keeping crime from being committed to begin with. We can talk about all the arrests we've made. We can talk about closing cases, but the the better success stories are where we've prevented things from happening to begin with. So, we talk about that and talk about our crime reduction of, you know, 54% in the last 10 years. That means it hasn't happened to begin with. So, how we were able to achieve that is by programs like home and other programs where we are front loading it and we're keeping the kids on the right track as opposed to doing it with it reactively. So, being proactive and keeping them from committing crime means that people aren't victims. Means their cars aren't stolen. Means their homes aren't broken into. Meaning all the other type of crime that happens, they don't have to experience it. So, that's a better uh outcome. Uh, it's also a better measurement of our success. >> But, it's also hard to measure. >> Yeah. Well, it is. You know, anytime you're trying to This is actually one one of, okay, one of the easier ones because you can actually look at the number of crimes that occurred and how the number of crimes that occurred is down. But, to your point, and you're right, it is generally very difficult to measure an intangible and manage something that is averted. So, where we run into that and where it's very difficult to manage to to manage and to measure, really, is measure is averted violence. So, how do you measure the success of things like our threat management program and some of the other ones that we do where uh we have kept it from happening to begin with. So, you know, last year, and I this is a hypothetical, let's say last year we had uh 200 aggravated assaults. And this year we have 198 aggravated assaults. But for all of this work that's done here, we would have had 260 aggravated assaults. But how do we How can you say that all that is It's so it's very difficult. >> Mhm. >> Uh but you can look at what you're doing. You go, "Okay, the work that's being done. You look at the number of complaints you have and what's happening say that um it is successful. Um so, whenever you're trying to measure something that didn't happen, it is. But when you come to that type of crime is when it it's staying around the same and you're saying, "Well, it didn't increase and we're keeping it from increasing." But when you're actually seeing a decrease, >> Mhm. >> then at least you got a metric. >> Yeah. So, you mentioned the legislature. Uh you've been legislative chair with Florida Sheriffs Association for a minute. Going on a lot of years now. >> I think it's 10 or 11 years. >> But who's counting? >> Um >> So, how did you get into that? I mean, you're you're a new sheriff, you're involved in FSA. Was it one of those situations where again applying your Well, somebody's got to deal with the issue because these are not small issues. >> No. >> These are These are big, complex issues that people have been kicking the can down the road on. >> Yeah. >> Were you all just in a meeting and you kept speaking up? So, like, "All right, you're in." Like, how did that go? >> Yeah, I guess. You know, I don't I It's so long ago now, I don't remember to tell you the truth. Uh it was like 10 or 11 years ago. Um you know, issues would come up and they'd be important issues and um I think that I realized that there's a lot of talk, a lot of discussion. Things were not getting done and and and then I think at one point I do remember some I said to somebody somebody should do something about that. So, same thing, they put it back on me at that point. They went, "Well, you can do it, you know." So, um I got involved with it, but I it just kind of evolved. It's really what it is. >> Because you I mean, you didn't have a background working with the legislature and stuff. But now, I mean, you're you know, you walk through the capital, it's like you know everybody, you worked on something with everybody. Um so, it grew into something um great. So, besides the uh we're going to talk about uh school safety, all that stuff, but throughout your tenure working with FSA and working with the legislature, what are some other, you know, big successes y'all have had? We just talked about juvenile crime. I know you had some great bills last year on that. >> Yeah, I mean, that was that was there's a you know, that's a big one. You know, jeez, you know, it's it's kind of hard because there's been so much, you know, over time. >> on it year after year, too. >> Yeah, you do. And you know, but some of it, again, you talk about, you know, dealing with negatives is is that a lot of it is getting the good stuff through, but it's equally important to keep what would be detrimental from happening. So, it was is is is you probably spend more time on defense than offense. And and one of the things that you have to quickly come to a realization about if you're going to be effective in the legislative process, and whether it's in Tallahassee for us or whether it's in Washington with Congress, uh is is that the entire legislative process is very, very much a compromise process. Uh very rarely uh can you or should you be in a position where you just dig in your heels and say, "No." Uh it just doesn't work that way. And it's a compromise process where you have to have those relationships, and you have to have your credibility, and you have to be known as an honest broker, and be straight with people. And if you say it, do it, and tell them the way it is. And if you're not going to support it, then you tell them, but um in order to, you know, be uh effective with that, you have to be willing to one, be candid with people, and two, compromise. >> What are some examples that you've had? >> Well, just like thing just just like some things with Well, I'll give you one example is is that last year, okay, we had a school safety bill. And the school safety bill imposed some pretty stringent standards because we saw some things that weren't being done. And the school districts came back this year and said that some of those requirements are they're tough. They're onerous. They're burdensome. We can't get it done. So, we listened we worked with them. So, as opposed to having people that were just upset, mad, thinking we're cramming things down their throat, we listened to them. Some of the things that they asked for we agreed with. Some of the things we didn't. And the things we agreed with is we got the legislature to change the law and the bill this year isn't really a largely it's a tweak to last year's bill. And they're very happy with it because they think that they can live with it and we listened to them. And that's the way it should be. You know, they have to affect it as long as the goal is accomplished. You know, we don't want to make it hard on people. We want them to just get it done. So, but there that would be one example. But there's plenty you know, all the time. Worked on a bill this year that has to do with you know, whether law enforcement officers' names are released. It The bill didn't pass. It'll probably come back next year. It's a kind of a derivative off of Marcy's Law where victims' names are confidential not released. And the question that's wound its way through the courts and up to the Florida Supreme Court was whether a law enforcement officer is a victim and whether the law enforcement officer's name can or should be released when they use deadly force. So, working with the Marcy's Law people, working with others, we compromised on a solution to that. And one of the compromises that I came up with and suggested to them and it was the subject of the bill. Now, it didn't pass for some political reasons. Was to keep it confidential for the first couple of days. After that, it's releasable, but it's up to the agency head and they have to make a written finding. So, that really struck a good balance between what are really competing interests, because you have law enforcement officer advocacy groups like the PBA and FOP and others that wanted it one way, and a lot of us wanted it another way. Um you know, it's one of those things where when they walked away from the table, they didn't love it, and we walked away from the table, we didn't love it. >> Mhm. >> Sometimes that's the best legislation. >> Mhm. Now, to be clear, you're not supportive of of uh hiding the names of law enforcement officers. There's kind of definitely a divide uh on that issue. Um which is I just we could talk about this at any point, I think, but there's so many things that, you know, doesn't necessarily fit the narrative uh that's out there when it uh comes to law enforcement, whether it's at the state level, national level, that general perception, like that idea of of hiding things and trying to be tough, you know, beating people down that are um you know, having different issue Folks who would make diversion, you know, you're very proactive, and you're very progressive on some of these things. Um and I feel like that really disarms critics uh when it's I mean, is that intentional on your part? I mean, I know it's what you believe, but do you recognize that? >> I don't do it it, you know, like intentionally. I'm going to be on I'm going to set myself up to be like on this issue over here and this issue over here. No, uh uh it's the way it falls out, because I'm just trying to be me and how I view it. Um and you know, I tell people in in I guess it's what people do is is that don't try and pigeonhole me. >> Mhm. >> Because if you try to stereotype or pigeonhole me into a a a view on something, it's probably not going to work out for you. Because I I'm you know, uh you know, like with open carry as an example, I'm very opposed to open carry. Um have been, will be, you'll never convince me that open carry is a a thing. But, I consider myself to be a a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and I believe people should be able to protect themselves and a strong supporter of carry concealed carry permits, and I have no issue at all with permitless carry because it really applies why should you have to pay 200 bucks to the state to protect yourself when all the criteria is the same. So, do away with the permits. Permits are they don't do anything for you. So, you know, but that would be you know, kind of I guess an example of that. But, you But, you have to But, yeah, I I'm different issues. So, like on Um one of the things I know for sure is is that a lack of transparency is bad. A lack of transparency breeds suspicion, and that suspicion breeds contempt. And in my view, in my world, okay, under no circumstances, none, do you get to act under color of law and kill somebody and in the United States of America you get to hide behind some law that says people don't have a right to know who you are. No, that doesn't work that way. This isn't Russia. This isn't Cuba. This isn't No, this isn't No. If you under color of law, you decide to put this uniform on and go out and do the job, and you have to use deadly force, then people have a right to know because again, if we're not transparent about it, and that person who used that deadly force has all kinds of baggage. And there's all kinds of issues. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong there, but people have a right to scrutinize that. And maybe just the opposite, too, where they're absolutely stellar, and that breeds confidence. And what they did is right. But, when you're trying to hide the identity of the individual, I I I'm very opposed to it. But, you know, what we, you know, ended up doing here with this with this bill was to have a little bit of compromise in there where it would be and I'm okay with it. I don't again I don't love it. You know you how I operate is is that if one of our deputies uses deadly force as soon as we know the deputy's okay and we know that they've had an opportunity to tell their family and tell the people they need to tell and I make sure that all those eyes are dotted and T's are crossed and there's no issues with it. I'm releasing their name. But under this that we agreed to it would be 48 hours. I don't think that's terrible. I mean you can wait 48 hours. It's not you know the end of the world but it it but that's where you get that compromise in there but you know I had issues No you just you know call the way you see it. >> Mhm. >> And some people look at some of the things well you're you're way over here on this and way over here on that. Well what's your point? >> Right. >> Is it the right thing to do? >> Right. I think it's called principle. >> Yeah it's >> It's dwindling. >> Yeah. >> I think. >> Um >> Yeah but people like boxes right now. >> Right. >> You know like if you're Republican you then your views are all Republican whatever that stereotype is. >> Right. >> Which shouldn't be that way. >> right it's it's right it is that if you're but they don't they don't do it just to be they do it everybody. >> Well of course. >> Right. >> like another one another example along those same lines. And then when people hear like Grady Judd is is that Grady is 10,000% adamant against open carry. And people are like oh my god that can't be. Grady Judd he you know he want every No he doesn't. >> Mhm. >> So you know it's but they do it they do it to but it's that it's just kind of the dynamic that's at play and people think that you know they can put a label on you. Some people they can. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> You know they're always going to come down and they're not looking at it because it's put their finger in the in the air see which way the wind's blowing and they just go you know whatever because it's consistent with a political ideology. I don't I don't do that. >> Well, you're hard to pin down. I think that makes it interesting. >> Yeah, I mean and I don't do it intentionally. >> Right. That's just how it is. >> I'm not trying to play some >> I think that's how I think that's probably how it should be. I mean >> I don't you know, but it is but you also you but you also balance that out is you also have to be consistent and you want to be consistent because especially you look at it different ways, you know, depends on what it is, you know, internally and from an operational standpoint and predictability. So people have an idea as to what the expectations are. So you don't want to be you can't be all over the board on things, but there are certain certain things where you know, and you know, I always tell people just be yourself. Um you know, when you get asked a question, give an answer and speak from the heart on it and and don't uh think, well, you know, what do you want me to say? >> Right. Just say what you think. >> Say what you think. >> Yeah, I like it. If we could clone you, uh we'd take like 500 of them. How many members of Congress are there? As many as we can get. >> 435. >> Yeah. But who's counting, right? >> Yeah. >> Um so on along those lines, school safety uh something that you've been on the forefront of. I know something that somebody asks you, you know, what you're most proud of, what you really felt like you moved the needle on, um it's school safety, but of course that all started with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas uh public safety commission. So uh talk about involvement in that. Where were you when uh on February 14th, 2018? >> Yeah, I was actually up in uh Washington. Uh I was at a meeting up there, Major County Sheriffs of America meeting. Uh when when the shooting happened at Stoneman Douglas. >> And how'd you find out? Like was somebody like there was a shooting or >> Yeah, I was actually sitting next to uh at a meeting uh and it's one of those things, you know, for me, every, you know, where were you on 9/11, right? So, you know. >> For me, it's where were you? I was sitting in a meeting in, um, Washington, uh, sitting next to Jim McDonnell, who was the Los Angeles County Sheriff at the time. And he took out his phone, he was looking at something, got an alert, and he showed it to me, he said, "You got a pretty bad school shooting in Florida." And And I looked at it and said, "Hm, yeah, it's Broward County, you know, Southeast Florida, obviously no impact on us." And said, "That's awful." >> Mhm. >> Uh, but didn't anticipate any fallout from it up here, or any impact up here, I guess is a better way. >> So, you know, I was aware of it, but didn't really do anything with it. And then, so that was like the last day of the conference. And I came back. And, you know, there was immediate recognition by the legislature was in session then, which was a unique situation. And Governor Scott and the members of the legislature, you know, quickly realized that there were problems down there. And so, uh, the governor, uh, acted very proactively, and wanted people by the following Monday in three different groups, um, schools, mental health, and law enforcement to convene in Tallahassee, and give them input, uh, and they drafted a 105-page bill, uh, in about 2 weeks. They got it through the legislature, signed by the governor, and enacted into law, which is unheard of, and they really did a fabulous job with it. >> And then, so where does the, uh, where does the chairmanship come from? How does that come up? Cuz you obviously were You were known on the legislative side. So, >> Yeah. So, part of what they did in that bill was realizing the stuff that they could do immediately. And some of the stuff would require a real investigation to uncover all of what went wrong and then make recommendations to affect a change. So, they created in that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission. Uh it was like 21 people um with some of the high-level state officials, agency heads, and others uh representing law enforcement, mental health, education. And said that was in March signed by Governor Scott. I think it's March 13th of 2018. And you had to have a report in by January 1st of 2019. So, they gave the commission subpoena authority, a lot of power in that commission, probably one of the most powerful commissions I've ever seen come out of the legislature because of the investigative authority the commission had and the scope of it and what the legislative mandate was. So, I was asked uh I was appointed to the commission itself. So, the governor got a certain number of appointments, the speaker of the house got a certain number of appointments, and then the Senate president got a certain number of appointments. So, I was actually appointed to the commission uh by then Speaker Richard Corcoran. And figured, yeah, okay, let's go. I'll do it. You know, happy to help wherever we can, provide input. And then I got a call from uh Governor Rick Scott and because he was tasked with appointing the chair of the commission. So, Governor Scott said, you know, I want you to do this. I said, "Sure, you know." So, that's how it came about. >> Just like Sure, yeah, no problem. >> Yeah, well. >> Just the next 6 years or whatever. >> yeah, well, it's been 7 years now. The commission is still in existence. It doesn't sunset until 2026, but the commission's work is is really finished. Uh but school safety work will never be finished. There is no finish line. Uh there is no end zone. In fact, I was over yesterday morning in Orlando speaking at the statewide uh school safety summit, which is an annual training for all the district uh school safety specialist. And um the first year and a half uh of the commission's work was relentless. Uh we had uh there were times where we met down in Broward. You know, all but one meeting we met down in Broward County because it was ground zero, it's where it happened. And there were times where we met uh four or five days at a time, sometimes a couple days at a time, but it went on and we had to get that report done. Mhm. And we found you know, just really I don't know how to describe it other than just massive problems. Florida was totally unprepared, just like other states. Uh there were problems with the school district in Broward. Uh there were problems with law enforcement, law enforcement response, problems with mental health. So, you know, the first report we produced was about 500 pages. And >> Dang. >> that whole effort uh which was really a Herculean effort by a lot of people. There's a lot of people that that contributed. We had some people here that we assigned as investigators, a lot of help from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Their staff was phenomenal. And all the commission members and everybody put forth a real effort. We brought a lot of people in to testify. So, there's a whole whole you know, group whole lot of people. But uh uh it is the most challenging thing that I have ever done, uh but also the most rewarding. And we've made a difference. Florida leads the country today in school safety and what we've done people look to replicate. Nobody has replicated it. I hope they do because it's a great model. Uh one of the last things that I did was to totally revamp the entire uh statewide threat management system in the schools. Uh threat management is most simply being proactive and trying to avoid these things from happening. It's the best effort at prevention. So, um it it's There's nothing more important than the kids and parents have an absolute right to expect that when their kids go to school in the morning, they're coming home alive in the afternoon and that's the number one goal of all the stakeholders in education. There's nothing more important in education than the safety of the kids. So, we made a lot of progress and I'm happy where we are, but it can never end. >> Can you >> Sorry. I was going to say, can you outline some of the things for maybe a parent that's listening right now? What are some of the things that have been implemented to make our school safer? I know one of them is with the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas that he found an exterior gate that he knew to be unlocked. >> Yeah. >> So, so there's so much, you know, but I guess to put it in the order categories is, you know, um physical site security. So, I don't know. Let me kind of describe it this way is that the first thing that everybody wants that you can never have is prevention. It's going to happen again. It's a hard thing to say, but it's going to happen again. The question is when and where. The question is is that what are we doing today that's different that is going to mitigate the harm? And if you accept the fact it's going to happen again, then you want a better outcome than what happened at Stoneman Douglas or what's happened at some of these other places. So, at Stoneman Douglas, there were 34 people shot and/or killed in 3 minutes and 51 seconds. Well, 34 is way too many, but one or two is better than 34. So, what you want to do is have the right resources in place to stop the aggression, to stop the shooting as quick as it starts. Nobody was there to stop it. So, you have to stop an armed person with an armed person. So, one of the things that Florida did is to make sure that there's an armed person on every school campus. The other thing that you want to make sure is is that you have as many speed bumps in place as possible. Again, to try and mitigate the harm. If any of those speed bumps help to prevent it, then great. And sometimes they do. But, there isn't again, nothing you're going to put in place that's going to ensure that it's not going to happen. So, physical site security. Um Stoneman Douglas is an example, they had huge campus, 14 buildings, 45 acres, 2,500 kids, is that they had the whole campus was fenced. But, they had gates, but the gates were left open. So, if you're going to have a fence and you're going to have gates, but they're open, and then the guy that was sitting there that watched the shooter get out of the car and walk through the gates carrying the rifle bag, and he knew it was a rifle bag, he had no communication device. So, again, at its core concepts, you got to be able to identify the threat. And if you can't identify the threat, then there's nothing you do about it. So, but if you identify the threat, you got to be able to communicate the threat. Well, if I see a guy walking with a rifle bag, but I can't tell anybody about it, then people can't react to it. So, you have to identify the threat, communicate the threat, and then be able to react to it. So, I can see it all day long, but if I can't communicate it, then nobody can react to it. But, if I have a communication device and I've identified it, I can identify it, I can communicate it, but if I don't know what to do, you don't know what I can tell you, "Hey, Ashley, we got an active shooter here." And you're like, because there's been no training. Remember at Stoneman Douglas, there hadn't been, and think about this, is it is that the shooting at Stoneman Douglas happened in 2018. The shooting at Columbine happened in 1999. Right? >> Mhm. >> So, 19 years? >> Yeah. >> Even I can do that math. So, 19 years. And at Stoneman Douglas, there had not been one active shooter drill on that campus in the entire year before the shooting. So, they had no active assailant response policy. The Broward County School District, which is the second largest in Florida and the sixth largest in the United States, >> Mhm. Didn't know that. >> in February of 2018, 19 years after Columbine, that school district had no active shooter response policy. How? >> Probably like you're saying. >> Complacency, it's not going to happen here. It's going to happen other places. So, you know, so making sure now, so getting back to your point, question, is that every school district has to have an active assailant response policy. Every school district has to have um physical site security. We have what we call the FSSAT, which is the Florida Safe School Assessment Tool. It's a huge document. All the schools are assessed. You have to have locked classroom doors. You have to have locked hallways. You have to have safe areas in the classrooms. You have to have communication devices. You have to have So, there's really a plethora of things. But, at its core, where we began, was putting those things in place that are going to mitigate the harm. So, that was the physical site security. And then it kind of evolved uh into the last thing that we did was to make sure we got it right, which is the threat management, which is the prevention. Because prevention's a goal, but it's the hardest thing to accomplish. And prevention is not always going to stop it. And so, you get you can't do it. So, you want to make sure you you focus on some of the other hard things before you get there. And that's what we did. >> Could you talk more about the uh threat management in Florida schools? About the uh >> So, threat management is as I said, threat management is the single greatest opportunity to keep bad things from happening and whether it is inside of schools or out, >> yeah. >> In the schools uh but also outside the schools. So, the concept of threat management is this is people generally speaking get on what's called the pathway to violence which they're back here and they get on the pathway to violence which is when they act and commit targeted violence towards somebody else and it's generally because they have a grievance. Because they're ticked off about something. The majority of people thankfully when they get ticked off about something have the right coping mechanisms that they don't act violently towards somebody else. They have a way of dealing with it and addressing it. But especially okay, when you're dealing with younger people and so when you look at all the data, you look at all the studies, majority of school shooters are people in their mid-teens 14, 15, 16, 17 because a lot of those people, they have grievances, they're ticked off, they don't know how to cope with it. They don't have the right coping mechanisms. So, the idea of threat management is to uh identify and it gets kind of complicated, it's a little nuance, it's a little inside baseball. But what you want to change the model, change the mold. Because what you want to do is you want to identify what we call concerning behavior. So, concerning behavior is a deviation from baseline behavior. So, if somebody's acting weird but they're always acting weird and they've always acted weird, then that ain't weird. >> Right. >> Okay, so if somebody gets ticked off but they're an introvert they doodle, they do all these things, they're not talking to anybody. They do all these but but that's the way they've always done it. Then that isn't necessarily a problem. So you got to know what baseline is. And again, most people very The other way people act is they act based upon ideology ideology. Uh but that's not the majority of targeted violence. The majority of it is is because they're ticked off because they didn't get on the baseball team. Because a girl slighted them. Because they got bullied. Because a teacher gave them a bad grade. All these things and then these kids and it is with adults, too, in different context. Again, something bad happened to them. They're ticked off. They have a grievance. They look in the mirror. No, I didn't do anything wrong. You did. Or you did, but I'm going to get back at everybody. >> Right. >> And so they start doing things and and this happened with the Parkland shooter is is that he was ticked off because he was being slighted by a girl. He had been bullied. He had mental health issues. And he started doing weird things. And people saw some of those weird things, but they didn't identify it as being concerning behavior. And concerning behavior is not always what we call prohibited behavior. So concerning behavior may not be a rule violation, a policy violation, a law violation. It may mean that you're ticked off and you're acting weird. So what can we do to help you to cope with that, to deal with that, to address it so that you're in a good spot and you know how redirect your emotions so that you don't feel like you got to lash out at somebody. So that's really what threat management is and once you identify that somebody uh is engaged in concerning behavior. Now sometimes it can be prohibited behavior. Sometimes you don't catch it fast enough. And you don't catch it generally because people don't report it. And so the best people who know whether somebody is acting weird because they're ticked off about something need to have a mechanism to report it. So, there's there's about 4,000 public schools in Florida. And there is a required threat management team in every single one of those schools, and there is a reporting mechanisms in place. And when that information gets reported, it's immediately assessed. And somebody's put on what we call an SSMP, which is a student support and monitoring plan. That uh immediately they get identified is whether it's a low, a medium, or a high. And they get put under some type of a plan while it's investigated, and then a whole team comes together, an interdisciplinary team of teachers, mental health people, law enforcement. And look at it and say, "Okay, if there's something here, how do we get the person help?" Threat management has nothing nothing to do with criminally charging somebody. That is that's not what it's about. It's about getting people help so that they don't offend and try and keep them from engaging in targeted violence. So, it is I'd say the as people would say the penultimate. All right. Diversion. It's It's the It's the ultimate where things are looking like they could end up on that bad path to targeted violence. Where the concept really began was the United States Secret Service really coined the concept many years ago. And through their National Threat Assessment Center, they developed some liaison with local law enforcement is what they have done for years in dignitary protection and evaluating threats. But we took it to a new level here in Florida. There are some different models around the country. And we created the Florida model. And I put together a group of subject matter experts and educators, mental health people, law enforcement people. We met in Orlando for probably close to a year. And developed the Florida model. Took it to the legislature, got the legislature to pass the bill. Uh it was enacted would have been What's track of it now? About a a year ago. Uh little little more than a year and a half ago. And we're really at the end of the implementation now. The legislature funded $7 million for a statewide threat management portal. Where all of the information can be shared. So if you get a kid that's moving between Pasco and Hillsborough and Pinellas and all these different areas, everybody can have access to it. And it's all confidential. So that as kids, you know, get on the right path, get on the right track, the information's not going to get out because all about trying to about trying to help people deal with things they can't deal with themselves. But it has a propensity or looks like it's going to a bad place. And that's what we want to the key from happening. So we also translated out of the schools. You know, here within the sheriff's office we have probably one of the largest threat management sections of any law enforcement agency probably in the country. And we're doing the same thing here with people who engage adults. Whether again, whether it's domestics, whether it's neighbor trouble, whether it's whatever it is. But it all also gets back to because it all segues, ties into each other, gets back to measuring averted violence. >> Right. >> You know, how do you measure the success? How do you measure and I can tell you unequivocally without any question that we have averted violence by what we've done with our threat management section. >> Right. >> some people that we keep tabs on for a very long time. You know, get them help, get them services, get them into mental health treatment, get them into different programs. And they haven't acted that they definitely would have acted had we not intervened in. >> And and this is all along those same lines, but something else that came out of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Safety Act were the uh risk protection orders uh or the red flag laws, which plays into all this. Another one uh politically that is kind of all over the place for people, but but it's something that uh is, you know, coming up again uh for some reason people want to get rid of them, but we've had a tremendous amount of success with them. >> Well, we've had great success with them. The reason why people who say they don't want to get rid of them is that that that's where they are saying it for political reasons because they're misinformed about the Florida model of risk protection orders or red flag laws. Is when you hear people then they engage in the rhetoric, "I don't want cops running around taking people's guns." Well, that's not how it works, okay? And people will say, "You have to have due process. You have to have this." You hear a lot of politicians. You hear people at high levels of state government uh or people who are running for high levels of state government. Well, the first thing I'll do is I'll get rid of the risk protection orders. You don't even know what you're talking about because they are highly effective. And uh there's a lot of due process and they're very fair. And the way that the Florida law works is you have to establish cause. It has to go before a judge. A judge has to make a determination that that cause exists. And then when we serve that risk protection order on somebody, we can't go into their house and take their guns. They're required to surrender the guns and they don't even have to surrender them to us. They can give them to a family member, they give to a friend, they can give them to somebody else for safekeeping because what a judge has said is, you know, the things that you've said, the things you've done, the contact conduct that you've engaged in, you're not on the right path and right now you shouldn't have ammunition and guns because there is a likelihood that you're going to engage in self-harm or you're going to hurt somebody. So, till we get this figured out, yeah, no guns for you. And then we're going to go through an investigation. We're going to take it back to the judge. The person has a right to what is in essence a full trial, and they can put on evidence, they can call witnesses, a judge hears it and then decides whether they should enter the final order. And that final order is good for 1 year. But at any point in time during that year, if the circumstances have changed where the person got to a point where what was causing their angst, what was causing that behavior, it's all fixed now. They can go back to the judge and say, "Hey judge, you know, while I was acting this way and said these things, did these things, and I know everybody was concerned I was going to act out, and that's not the case anymore, and here's why." The judge can rescind the order and give the person right to have their guns back. So, there's a lot of protections in place, there's a lot of steps in it, and we we have used them very responsibly and very effectively. So, again, you get back into, you know, stereotypes, people and so we looked at the numbers recently. Is is that the two highest counties in the state of Florida for seeking and courts issuing risk protection orders, Polk and Pinellas. >> Mhm. >> From me, Grady. So, counties where there were the least amount of risk protection orders that are very democratic, stereotypically left-leaning, right? Broward and Orange. So, that defies the >> Right. >> the stereotype. >> Right. >> Yeah, Orange, they did very few in Orange. Oh, you know, stereotypically very different democratic, very left-leaning, hate guns. Take everybody's guns. But they don't do risk protection orders in Orange County. Interesting. So, Polk County, >> Right. >> Yeah. Grady's land. Love guns. Love guns. They lead the state in risk protection because it's the right thing to do. >> Right. And it does >> Cuz it works. >> Right. There's a lot of obviously domestic situations, things where it's like, "Hey, if this person Because that's what really the the even the threat management piece, the the stuff kind of Parkland, I mean, very basically that comes from everybody's tired of hearing" I know I was tired of hearing, you know, every time there's a shooting, "Oh, well, this person, you know, this they've been in contact with law enforcement XYZ. This happened. This happened." This is just kind of being proactive with it. >> But if you But if you go and ask some of these people who are your quote die hard, you know, Second Amendment people. Do you think that somebody who has serious mental health issues that is threatening their next door neighbor, who has done all of Do you think that that person should be able to possess firearms? Well, of course not. And you ask them all these different scenarios. But then you say to them, "Do you support risk protection orders?" No. "Cops shouldn't take people's guns." Because it's political. It's this I guess ideological thing. They don't want people to have guns, but they don't like RPOs. >> A little cognitive dissonance going on there. >> Yeah, why? >> Right. It it it It doesn't It doesn't drive. >> Yeah. You got to like talk it through. Like, what are what >> Right. And and understand it and and like in order for us to get back to that point, I don't want cops taking people's guns. In order for us to take a gun from somebody with a risk protection order under the red flag law in Florida, we actually have to go and get a search warrant. Well, there's no stronger protections than whether law enforcement is required to go to a judge and get a search warrant. So, don't tell me that there's no protections in place, there's no process in place, that they're not evaluated and what what are you going to say, we don't trust judges? Well, if you want to go down that path, then we got a big problem, right? So, you know, there's a lot of protections in place, they work, and they're very effective. Now, I'm not part of it though is people are misguided on this. Not every state has red flag law that works like Florida's does. There are some that are very different. So, you know, what I would say to people is is that before you form an opinion about Florida's red flag law, risk protection order, become educated on the law, on the statute, and how it works. Then if after that, you have objective concerns or criticisms, then you're >> entitled to them. >> entitled to have that, you know, viewpoint. >> Read the law, basically. >> it before you form an opinion on it because when I talk to people and we go through all this, well, I didn't know that. Well, I didn't know that. Well, I didn't know that. Oh, I guess I wasn't right on it. You know, so >> Right. >> You know, be be informed you form an opinion. >> Right. So, last thing on school-related stuff, one of the other things you all found was reunification was a big problem after after the shooting in Parkland. We've beyond what of course the recommendations that the commission made, we've done a lot of work towards reunification in in Pinellas County. Can you just briefly talk about that? >> Yeah, it it is probably an aspect of all of this. So, you know, when you talk about all of responses to these bad things, you've got again, first thing you want to do is focus on or one of the things you want to do is focus on prevention, we've talked about that. Yeah, then you want to focus on harm mitigation, we've talked about that. Then you want to talk about the law enforcement response, we talked a little bit about that. And then the last thing that you want to focus on is the aftermath and and the reunification. And it's what largely goes unaddressed uh not unnoticed. And it doesn't go unnoticed by the family members. And what happened out in Parkland at Stoneman Douglas was just awful. They had no plan. They had no way to separate people who had loved ones who were killed, who were seriously injured, people who were fine. They were in a room. They were telling people their kids were dead. They were screaming. It was just awful. They had parents who were to being told by phone as they were driving down the road. They had no process. They had no system. It was just the worst situation you could have. So, we started talking about it during through the Stoneman Douglas Commission meetings and it it was, you know, again later on about reunification. And so, we put it in law that every school district had to have a reunification plan. We developed a model plan that they could use. Started looking at what some people places did and again, just how some some viewed it as, "Well, if the law says I'll do it, I'll do it." They just checked the box, but it really wasn't meaningful. So, I looked at, you know, what was out there. I really didn't see anybody that was developing a robust model to where it needed to be. So, we did that here and we formed We are all better together than we are separate. And that applies to uh in a number of contexts. And in reunification, that's certainly one of them because there isn't it's so massive. If you have a massive event, and whether it's a targeted attack, violent situation, whether it is a natural disaster, or whether it's an accident. And there is really no agency that can do it all by themselves. So, you you got so many resources focused on the event. But what about the reunification and dealing with the aftermath? So, I got with uh the police chiefs uh uh in the county and we formed the Pinellas County reunification task force. So, we have about 250 people from all the municipalities uh from the sheriff's office, from the school district that have come together and you don't have to be a law enforcement officer to participate in reunification. So, a lot of the people we're using are uh non-sworn members of all the agencies who are willing to step up and help with that. And I went to the the county commission and give them credit for helping to fund uh all the equipment we needed for it. So, it's been in existence now for about a year. Uh we have a big uh active assailant exercise coming up this summer at Clearwater High School and this will be the first time that the uh family reunification center and the reunification task force will fully be established and operate as part of an exercise. So, I would say what reunification is and all the equipment we have is one big, huge, massive insurance policy and when you need it, you need it right now and it better work right. And you hope you never need it. >> Right. So, that's what we're doing with reunification, but I'd say there's nobody in the state and maybe even the country >> that is doing what we're doing with that. We have some very talented people here internally in our IT information technology section that developed uh software that we're using to manage the people check in and out, manage the whole function. So, it's a very um uh robust system uh with a lot of moving pieces, but it's very collaborative. A lot of people here have worked very hard on putting it together. And like anything, you know, we started small uh baby steps, got to crawl before you walk and the first couple exercises we did, you know, you can have some bumps, but we're working them out. But I'm really anxious to see how it works this summer. >> Yeah. I mean, it's quite a it's a lot to it, you know. It's just >> Like Like so many things, like the public just doesn't realize like Yeah, that's It doesn't This stuff doesn't just happen, right? Like there's meetings, there's people, there's a lot of stuff. >> Well, it it and they may not ever realize what went into having an effective outcome, but they sure would know if we screwed it up. >> Correct. 100%. >> So, and we'd hear about it, rightfully so. >> Yeah. >> So, it's it's one of those where, you know, if you do it right, okay. >> Yeah. >> Smooth and easy and nobody knows. >> Right. >> But, if you don't do it right, >> Oh, yeah. No kidding. Cuz that's I think people don't realize like we did do a post about the reunification um plan that we have. And there's some people in our comments saying things like, "Well, my family knows what to do. We're going to Like I'm going to pick them up and it's not going to be a thing." And I'm like, "You're not thinking about how >> chaotic that situation will be. Like you you're going to rush there. Everyone is rushing there, you know? And understand that you might get lucky and your kids somehow got through that. But, there needs to be a process. >> Yeah, and if they can't, that's fine. You know, with any of these things, the the ultimate goal for the response to any of these in any of these contexts is organized chaos. It's going to be chaotic. What you hope by what you're doing is is there's some structure to it. It's never going to be where it totally fits in a box and it's orderly and it's It's not a classroom. It's not a sterile setting. It's organized chaos. But, if you don't have some organization to the chaos, you're really in trouble. >> You're in trouble, yeah. >> Yeah. An idea of where, you know, how you want things to be and how to go about it, for sure. >> Definitely. >> A lot of nuances. Speaking of chaos, immigration is another topic that you have you have associated yourself with over the years. It's a hot topic now, but we've been doing it. We've been handling dealing with immigration and been proactive on immigration for a lot longer than it's through a couple of administrations actually have been been working on it. So talk a little bit about you know where it is today and those you know the responsibilities of local law enforcement non-federal law enforcement when it comes to immigration and and how we got here. >> Well, probably I think you know a lot a lot of people now especially over the last 5 months 6 months become more familiar with how it works especially prior to that most people had no idea and they thought that state local law enforcement have or state local governments really for that matter have something to do with immigration and we don't. Immigration is solely governed by United States law by the federal government. And the states and local governments cannot implement any laws that deal with immigration. We have no immigration arrest authority, enforcement authority, rule making authority. We have no authority to do anything with it. The only time that we do now what's come to light is if our officers and deputies receive authorization from the federal government to act under their authority. So if somebody if I'm not if you will and I'll just call this deputized under federal law, somebody can walk in here right now and say I hey I'm here illegally and I've been here for 15 years there's nothing I can do about it. And it is very complicated. There's a lot of nuances to it. The law is difficult to understand which means it's difficult to apply. And most of it's civil. So, and most people don't understand that. Uh very few people who are charged with immigration offenses are charged with criminal immigration offenses. Most of them are civil. And so, you have to have the authority to affect those civil immigration laws. It's called Title 8 authority. That's where it is in the federal law. And not even all federal law enforcement officers can do that. You know, now over the last 6 months they can because with the current administration they have cross-designated. So, it is a dilemma in some respects and absolutely low-hanging fruit in others. And what the federal government has done by having woefully ineffective immigration laws and policies that what to enforcement or non-enforcement of those laws created a situation where you have and depend upon who you talk to and what the estimates are. So, you know, you got to take it for what it is. Probably somewhere around 14 15 maybe million people in the United States that are here illegally. Uh a whole lot of those people came in under a variety of circumstances. Some are people that came on visas and overstayed. Which is never criminal, by the way. It's always civil. And that's the way Congress set it up. If Congress wants to change it, they can, but that's it's civil. Yeah, people that illegally crossed the border. You have a variety of circumstances. But because of the open and porous borders, especially, and the lack of any effective immigration enforcement you have people that came here 10, 15, 20 years ago that have assimilated into our communities, assimilated into our culture, that are just going about life. And one of the things that people are often astonished about is a whole lot of people here illegally who pay taxes. I mean, they really are just part of the the fabric of the community. And have been here for that amount of time, have kids, just going about living their lives. Those are the people that are the really the epitome of the immigration debate and dilemma. Because what do you do with those people? So so somebody can say, "Well, you know, take that person and send them back to Guatemala." Well, what are you going to do with their kids? They got four kids and they got a spouse and they got you know, all What are you going to do with them? >> Mhm. >> Uh it's it's not that easy. And just from a volume standpoint the people who are unquestionably the ones that we need to go after and where the focus is now are what we call the criminal illegals. If those are the people here illegally who are committing crime, who are wreaking havoc in the community, who are doing bad things to others, they just need to go. And unfortunately, there's a whole lot of them. And that's what we've been trying to focus on in in helping the federal government. And the federal government's priority now uh it does shift a little bit depending upon who you hear from and talk to. But at least their stated priority officially is criminal illegals, people who have been previously deported and returned. So if an immigration judge if a federal judge says "You've been through the immigration court and through the system and you're out of here and you go and come back, that's not right." Okay, you you need to be gone again. So criminal illegals people who have been previously deported and come back, people are public safety threats, people are national security threats. Those are really the the the priorities. And you have a whole lot of people, too. Depends upon the end of the moment, but there's probably about 1.5 million people who have been through the immigration system who have active final orders of deportation with arrest warrants attached to them that are still sitting here that have just said, "Yeah, I went through the immigration system and yeah, there's a warrant and they say I need to go, but guess what? I'm not going." Those people need to go. So, the criminal illegals, the people with final orders, people who are national security threats, the people with uh public safety threats, and the people who are engaging in crime, that's the focus. The rest of the people are the dilemma. >> Right. >> And the system is it's totally broken. ICE only has in Florida only has 2,500 beds. So, they can go out and arrest all these What are you going to do with them? >> Right. >> And they can't get them out of here fast enough. And it's the whole the whole system is a mess. So, what they've asked for and some people have asked us to do is for local law enforcement through this uh deputization program. People call it 287G, which is just a section of the law. That's how it got short-handed. Uh but even if we were to robustly do anything, ICE doesn't have the capacity to handle what we give them. So, um right now we're not doing a lot. >> Mhm. >> We'll do what we're asked. You know, we'll support them, especially in the jails when it comes to the criminal illegals. So, we've been honoring the immigration detainers here. I signed an agreement with them back in 2018. >> Mhm. >> Um and the people who are here illegally who are committing crime, we need to you know, with both feet in, >> Right. >> uh help them to get those people out of here because they're the people who are causing problems. >> Right. And and I think that's the other thing that people misunderstand, too, is like this is not uh this hasn't been an issue that just popped up out of nowhere. It's been decades of, you know, policy and it's not something that it can fix, but it is something that has been kind of um I guess misappropriated some of the the potential blame on law enforcement, local law enforcement to assist with it, and this is not that same >> Well, in the law it it there's two things. And I'll say it here and it'll never change. When it comes to Congress and it comes to laws, the laws on guns and the laws on immigration. Because and this is so like behind the curtain. The House passes bills. Those bills go over to the Senate. On any bill that hits the United States Senate that is not a fiscal bill, that's a policy bill, is that because of the rules in the Senate for things to pass and not get what's called filibustered, in order to break the filibuster, there has to be 60 votes, 60 senators. So, it's not a 51-49, it's 60. And given the political dynamics in this country, no party, the Democrats or the Republicans, will ever have 60 senators. So, that's why nothing gets done. That's why nothing can get done. And people can say, "Well, it's easy. Just, you know, change this or change that or do something." No, it can't happen because they can never get a bill through the Senate. So, this is something that's been around for a long time. It's going to be here for a long time. It's not going anywhere. Uh we've got some, you know, robust efforts going on now to deal with uh it more, and ICE is trying, given the mandate, but they're so understaffed and frankly underfunded and don't have the space. So, it's it's really a difficult situation, but still you've got the people who are what I see as you know, the epitome of the dilemma and that's the the mom and the dad, whoever that's been here for 15, 20 years, never done anything wrong other than be here illegally, which is wrong. Okay? But we haven't done anything about it. >> Right. >> And so when does being here for 15, 20, 30 years become too long where we shouldn't do anything about it? And they've got jobs, they're going about their business, they're raising their kids, living their lives. You know, what are you going to do with them? You throw all these people out? You know, I I don't know what the answer is and people say, "Well, there should be a pathway to something. There should be a pathway to sit I you know, I don't know. That's not my job. You know, that's Congress's job but it back to they will never, never, ever provide a solution to this. Not going to happen. >> And for you to give up on a problem, that means it's a big problem. >> Well, yeah, because it really yeah, because I don't yeah, I don't do that lightly but this is something that can't be solved. I can't. There's you know, and we've tried and we you know, I will always help ICE do what is right and will follow the law to the letter and will will do what we need to do. But the whole thing in the simplest of terms, whole thing's a mess. >> Mhm. >> It is. >> It's fair, I think. >> That's really sum it up. It's a mess. >> Yeah. >> And it can't get fixed. >> Right. It's complicated. >> Um were you saying that 60/40 thing or not 60/40 but 60 senators um that that there's no changing that? Or you just don't think it will? >> change the rules but >> Yes. >> Okay, so the party that's in power could change the rules >> Yeah. >> and say you don't have to have 60. But you know, be careful what you ask for because if you're the party in power and you change it where it's a simple majority. And the way that it works, I mean, you look at the history, is the Senate flips the majority depending upon the election. >> Right. >> So, if you're the Democrats and you use what they they call it the nuclear option. So, the nuclear option is change the rules and eliminate the filibuster. Take it back where you have to have a 61 and then you pass all of this sweeping legislation to deal with the most controversial issues. >> Mhm. >> You know, let's say hypothetically, okay, that they control everything and they pass a bill that says, "Poof, everybody that's here illegally is now a citizen." Well, then 2 years later you go through the midterm elections and now the Republicans are in power. >> Mhm. >> And they come in and say, "Poof, we're going to pass a bill that says, you know, you know, and again, I'm being hypothetical about this. I don't know what you you know, is that, you know, every everybody's mandated to carry five guns on them at any given time." All it takes 51 votes. So, what my point in that is is is that nobody wants to use nuclear option because when they do it and they change it, it's going to come back to be used against them in reverse on that topic or a different topic. And so, once they change it, there's no getting that back. So, nobody wants to undo that. So, that's why nothing will ever change up there on controversial topics. It's The only time that you can get something through is if it's tied to an appropriations bill. On a majority vote. Everything else, 60 votes in the Senate. And that's why you see the House passes all kinds of stuff. >> Yeah, they do all kinds of stuff. >> They pass it and it goes over there and it sits. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't go anywhere. You know, it's just like it was like, you know, like, you know, um you just go through a whole list of stuff. I mean, you know, look at what's happening now with you know, the the bill that Trump's trying to get through on you know, what do they call it? The big, beautiful bill or something? I don't know what they call it. Something. But, they it it hits the Senate, well, done, you know. And they're having trouble. >> Yeah, cuz you're or asking those two parties to unite or at least some to unite on an issue and everybody likes their bucks. >> Yep. Right. Exactly. >> Yep. >> So, you obviously don't uh shy away from controversy just in general. We've had some doozies over the years uh around here. Um and we don't need to break them down or talk about them. But, uh I was just curious as to if there was any one particular issue, one particular thing uh as an agency that stuck out to you or, you know, your first, you know, was there your first one where you're like, "Oh, I guess I guess I'm in on this one." >> Jeez, you know, no. I don't I I can't think of, you know, I mean, >> There was nothing like, "What did I sign up for? I'm taking a couple weeks off or a month off." Nothing that happened? >> Yeah. No, I can't think of anything. You know, I mean, it's we you you got to take it in stride. >> Mhm. >> You know, you really do. You just got to keep it in perspective. Um you know, uh I I think that the way that I view things, you know, don't get too up with the ups and don't get too down with the downs because there's another one coming at you. And you just got to take it in stride. >> Cuz I mean, it's You tell people sometimes when you're given the agency or whatever you talk about your role responsibility like the best part of the job is I get to make all the decisions and the worst part of the job is you make all the decisions. >> right. It's true. I mean, because, you know, for the sheriff is a very unique because um it's one of the few positions, if not the only position, uh you know, the the other constitutionals are in the same situation, but it's still a little bit different uh with the sheriffs is is that, you know, I don't work for anybody but about but the citizens. I don't work for the county commissioner, I don't work for the county administrator. Uh it's truly an independent constitutional office. And so that's where that thing that I say comes in is is that you know, one of the greatest things about the job is because you can get stuff done. You can make things happen. Because you get to unilaterally make all the decisions. But one of the worst parts of the job is is that you got to unilaterally make all the decisions, which is hard sometimes. So that's where that comes from. >> So taking your insight on why nothing ever happens in Washington and just kind of looking at it just globally and and thinking about how we can change things and how we can solve problems and you know, drawing on your experience like you have a you have a a magic wand. Like what as a policy leader, like how how do we move the needle on getting stuff done? >> I mean so it really depends on the topic, you know, and and some of them are are very, you know, complicated. I think but but I don't know that you know, we'll ever get back there as a country just because of the the way things are today and things are just so, you know, volatile and people are so dug in. I think there has to be compromising collaboration and you have to compromise on the issues. Um but so I think that's how you get stuff done. Is is you have to compromise on them and and come up with some practical common sense solutions. Um I think we see that in Tallahassee. Um I I can't think of anything and it may, I'm not going to, you know, bash them but I I I you don't see it very often in Washington. You know, things tend to become all or nothing. Um and there is some on some issues where you can have some uh input and some tweaks to things, but as to the big issues people are so dug in on them, I think it's really hard. >> No hope. No. >> And we found the title of the podcast. No joke, god. >> Yeah, no not not on the big issues. I don't think so. >> Yeah. >> And I just try and be realistic about it. I You know, to say that to think I again the the two that I I say that there was no hope on it that you'll never see any is those are two, guns and immigration. >> Yeah. >> You'll never see you'll never see any big you know, the question becomes is your next question is which you know, I'm not going to get into because sit here forever and talk about it is okay, well if you what do you do about guns and immigration? >> Mhm. >> It it's complicated. >> Right. >> Uh um you know, what do you do with with some of those things? Um so I think it's a >> Probably just people don't want to talk about it, so just avoid it all together. >> Well, then it becomes it you know, as far as I'm concerned it's not productive to talk about it because they're never going to do anything about it. Yeah. You know, under the last administration they touted that they passed the first gun bill since like you know you know 1456 or something. You know, we weren't even a country back then. So you know, but but it was all frankly it was all nonsense. >> Right. >> There was nothing in it. It wasn't a gun bill. It didn't do anything. You know, they did oh, we had a bipartisan gun bill. No, you didn't. It was all smoke and mirrors. It didn't do anything. Yeah. Like we got some problems procedurally in some of the immigration things. Like some of the civil immigration arrest warrants, we can't serve those. We should be able to serve them. But you can't even get them to do anything to file a bill to get a law that would tweak some of those things that really do make sense because you can't open that can of worms. Because once you get a bill and you open it, then it just gets all >> Here it goes. People is trying to pile their different things on it. >> You get all the amendments and you get all the, you know, as they call it in all the markups and you get it would never pass. >> Yeah. >> Cuz even something that is good and is common sense and something that's needed, you still can't get it done. >> Yeah. As a voter, you know, there's some of those things on the ballot and you're like, "Ooh, I like this part." And then there's something tagged on to it that you're like, "But that sucks." >> There's nothing you can do about it. There's nothing you can do about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's like >> No, you can't. >> Can't it just be the one part? I don't need the second part. >> Yeah, you don't have line item veto as a voter. >> Right. Right. >> It'd make it interesting. >> Yes to this and no to >> Right. Right. >> Just cross it out. >> Get out the Sharpie. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I know so many people are like, "Why can't it be like that?" And it's Cuz everyone gets their say. >> Got to get involved, I guess. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, outside of the stuff we've talked about, is there anything out there on the horizon that concerns you, that you're interested in, that you're worried about, that you're keeping an eye on? >> You know, you know, I think we talked about, you know, a lot of the stuff, most of the stuff, you know, that that's out there. Um you know, I mean it goes back to the the thing you first started talking about, which goes back to the storms. You know, I I do worry about the the budget impacts um and the fiscal impact to the businesses and to the community based on the storms. I think we're are in for a pretty tight budget year this year because real estate values are down. Uh we also have to and I agree with the premises, we really have to watch uh government spending. Uh we have to be very careful with that. And we have to prioritize things and be cognizant of the fact that we're using, you know, other people's money to get the job done. Uh so we have to watch what we're doing and I think that that's going to be a challenge over the next couple of years. >> Mhm. Definitely. Definitely trending that direction. >> Yeah. >> I want to dial back just a second. Um this is when uh we were talking about you being the legislative chair for the Florida Sheriffs Association. Um I just want to clarify like what that means. That would mean you're going to these sessions representing all of the sheriffs from the Florida Sheriffs Association after you spoke with them. >> Yeah, so we have a legislative committee. There's depends on the year 10 or so sheriffs on the committee. And so but I chair the committee which means I kind of speak for the committee and speak for the sheriffs and others do, too. But as the chair of the committee I kind of have you know, a role to kind of lead it, direct it, and be a voice. >> Okay. And so when you were talking about with um I can't recall exactly, but you were talking about how you spoke with the schools about different things. Is Is that you or is that the whole committee or >> Uh no, it's not the whole committee. You know, generally it's something I would do. You know, speaking for everybody. >> Yeah, like being that liaison. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Cool. I was I just want to clarify that. >> Yep. >> Good stuff. >> No, I can't think of anything else. I mean, there's you know, big impending out there that that that people would, you know, be interested in. I think that you know, we're always looking to do better. >> Yeah, what are some good things on the horizon? >> Yeah, I mean, you know, I mean internally, you know, we're we're going to go through some by the time people hear this it'll be out a little bit, but it's always good to do periodically. We're going to go through a little bit of restructuring just to make sure that we're functioning at the highest level. We got the right people in the right seats. Some of the areas where we're probably a little as they would say a little fat. We need to be lean. And we need And And that means, translate that, it just means that we need to be more efficient and and effective. Making sure we got the right people doing the right things. You know, so in the years now, this is the start of my what, 15th year in office. So, periodically you go through this. Where you do some self-reflection, evaluation, you move some seats around and you look at the future and you look at succession planning and you look at the long term and how do we develop people? You know, probably the most pressing thing for me is is personnel development and succession planning because we have so many new people. But, that's law enforcement in general. >> Right. >> But, we are consistent with law enforcement in general and we have those challenges. So, we have a lot of talented people, a lot of them in the pipeline. Uh they'll have great careers and be highly successful, but they're not ready to right now. So, it's I know how do you deal with that and address that? So, we're going to be um in over the next month or so, we got some people retiring. So, it's an opportunity to hit the reset button and look at what we're doing, how we're doing it. It gets back to the budget, it gets back to being efficient, making sure we're producing the best outcomes in the most efficient way. So, and and it and every once in a while it's a good Change is hard and people don't necessarily like it, but you're better off for it at the end and I think we're going to go through a little bit of that um change time in the near future. >> Sheriff, I'll go to everybody. Thanks for coming on, Sheriff. We appreciate it. Laura, uh if people want to give us feedback on this episode, other episodes, guests, what have you, how could they go about doing that? >> Uh they can email us at lets56. Uh wait, what is it? lets56@pcsoweb.com. >> it. >> l e t s 56@pcsoweb.com. >> Or on Instagram at 56podcast. Thanks, everybody. >> I