Parkinson declines to debate on KVEC

September 22, 2010

After considering the invitation for two weeks, Sheriff’s candidate Ian Parkinson has decided not to debate opponent Joe Cortez on KVEC radio.

KVEC news director King Harris had been attempting to bring the two candidates together for a forum on the San Luis Obispo news/talk station. Cortez, a former Pismo Beach police chief, accepted immediately.

Parkinson, currently a captain with San Luis Police Department, eventually demurred. In an email to KVEC, Parkinson talked about his “tight schedule,” referred to two other debates that would be televised, and said:

“Once these debates are completed I will have done approximately 24 debates/forums as a candidate for Sheriff.  As I have told the others, I feel that the 24 debates/forums have provided the voters with excellent opportunities to determine which candidate they would vote for as our next Sheriff.  In addition to these two scheduled debates, I have chosen to direct most of the balance of my time in the campaign to other campaign activities such as meeting with voters one-on-one. I find these meetings to be most productive for myself and the voter.”

Cortez and Parkinson are scheduled to appear in mid-October on KSBY. They will also participate in a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters on Sept. 29.

“I think Capt. Parkinson is taking a page from the Sam Blakeslee playbook,” said KVEC talk show host Dave Congalton. “He’s trying to protect his lead and avoid giving any unnecessary  opportunity to his opponent. That’s smart, politically. And he probably didn’t want a repeat of what happened last time he was on KVEC.”

In a KVEC interview last May, responding to a question from a caller, Parkinson vehemently denied having had any tax liens placed on his property. News stories later revealed that Parkinson had six liens filed over ten years.


Has Mike Brennler endorsed either of these candidates?

While most endorsements are merely back-scratchery of one kind or another, I truly believe in Brennler’s honesty and and BS-detection ability.

If we are looking for openness and integrity, we probably like whoever Mike likes.

I have not read his stand on these candidates…


As the old Gomer Pyle character would say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” (the irony, oh the irony) As has been said before (and probably better), when we are having an election for a position that the current occupant has decided not to run because he is so unpopular, it would make sense as a candidate to put yourself out there as much as possible, to be as open as possible, and to give the appearance that you as a candidate will operate in an open and transparent manner as possible when you take over the position; anything less and you appear to trying to hide something or are not quite sure of your platform. I am not surprised at Ian Parkinson, just disappointed. I will be voting for Joe Cortez.


Is anyone surprised by Parkinson’s excuse?

He’s already running from the public just like our current sheriff. Same shenanigans, same lack of integrity!

We need a sheriff who will face the public and speak the truth. Clearly, Parkinson is not that man!


Seems to me Cortez is the one with the horrible record of “running from the public”….I can’t even keep track of the departments he has worked for. Let’s talk about his short stays in Brush and Aspen….maybe some “running from the public?” Seems every time it gets hot under the collar somewhere, Cortez bails out.

We need a Sheriff with knowledge of and ties to the community, not someone that is going to run the first time they don’t get their way….(I’m sorry, was that Brush or Aspen?…maybe both!)


Try some facts next time. Poor attempt to smear Cortez.


Lets ask Mr. Parkinson about that…. oh wait… we can’t!

Wonder what he’s afraid of! Hmmmmmm….

Thank you for encouraging me to look up the record of Mr. Cortez.

Mr. Cortez did stay in law enforcement for 36 years!… and he stayed in college long enough to get a degree…

Mr. Parkinson…. how about you? Hello?

My vote now goes to CORTEZ!




Education – or lack thereof – is often quite evident in a debate.


In voting for sheriff, I’d lean toward the candidate with the most transparency, the one who would jump at the opportunity to go head to head with his opponent. Sorry Mr. Parkinson, but I expect more from my future sheriff than you displayed here.

Cortez, if you run the Sheriff’s Department like you’ve run your campaign, then I will be proud to have cast my vote in your favor.


All forums give the opportunity to reach many more voters at a single time than the one on one meet and greet campaign. Clearly he is afraid that he might be asked uncomfortable questions and will forget how he is supposed to answer them. This should be a lightning bolt clue that Mr. Parkinson has so many skeletons in his closet that he won’t be able to keep them stright. Sure puts a chink in the old perceived armour of being the rock solid tough Sheriff that we desperately need.


Not all forums are equal. A controlled Q&A is one thing (depending on the political agenda and ground rules set by the sponsoring group) and a real debate is quite another, where the audience is “allowed” to pose questions. Debates are quite rare.

Parkinson (and his campaign) is insecure, and requires control over the message.


Why did they say that Parkinson has a lead? Lead in What? Everyone I know is voting for Mr. Cortez.

The whole idea of “Business as Usual” (Parkinson) is unacceptable. Joe Cortez is an honest man looking to make things Better. I thought the people were tired of the lies and shady deals….? When did the Winds Change? We need to stand together as voters to change the sheets of this badly made bed.



Brakkk Brakkk, My sorry excuse for a chicken clucking


Not participating speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Want some mashed potatoes with that chicken, Parkinson?

1 2 3