Chiefs are appointed by an elected Mayor so in practical terms there is little difference. In Indiana, most Sheriffs are from/patrol rural areas. Where Chiefs/Mayors are city folk. City folk are much more anti-gun than rural folk. For the most part, Sheriffs (all local elected officials) are a reflection of the area they were elected from.
Having been a Governmental appointee, and dealt with both elected officials and other appointees, I can assure you the elected officials are much more concerned with public sentiment than are appointees. What recourse do the voters have to get rid of an appointee? Appointees are usually appointed or confirmed by a board. How many office holders would have to be voted out to make any changes to appointees. I am from a rural area. Things may be different in the urban setting. However, I am sure the concepts would be the same.
Well, having the "privilege" of working under a Sheriff before getting merged into a city department and now working under a Chief I can tell you that the Mayor keeps the Chief on a short leash when it comes to politically motivated issues. At first, the merged department was under the control of the Sheriff then, eventually, it was given over to the Mayor. We still had a Chief that answered to the Sheriff and now he answers to the Mayor...what is the difference?
