|
By Ken Koerner
Register Staff 5-3-2008
In an unprecedented move, and with close to half its membership abstaining from participation, the Inyo County Bar Association has taken a “no confidence” vote on Superior Court Judge Brian Lamb.
The vote, cast by secret ballot between April 7 and April 28 by ICBA members, passed by a 13.8 percent margin – or three votes.
The results of that balloting have been made public a little more than four weeks ahead of the election that will determine whether Judge Lamb retains his position on the Inyo County Superior Court bench.
Reaction from Lamb, who learned of the press release when contacted for a response, was that the “whole thing is regrettable.
“The bar association never asked me to come to speak with them or to address any possible concerns that were being expressed in regards to me,” Lamb said. “I think the bar association has allowed itself to become politicized in this action. As a past-president of the bar association – right up until the time of my election as judge – I’d say that I’m more hurt than angered by what has happened.”
Thus far, there has been no specific information provided as to how the vote was initiated. When contacted, ICBA President Suzanne Rizo declined comment on the subject, other than to say that “the press release was accurate.”
The press release, issued Thursday afternoon, states only that a motion was made and passed during the ICBA’s April 7, 2008 meeting directing the president and secretary/treasurer to conduct a secret ballot of all members of the Inyo County Bar Association and release the results to the press by May 1, 2008.
The secret ballot, the release goes on to confirm, asked the following question to its active members, “Do you, as a member of the Inyo County Bar Association, vote ‘no confidence’ in judicial officer, Brian J. Lamb?”
A “no confidence” vote was defined to mean, the association’s release explains, a bar association member lacks confidence in Lamb as a judicial officer.
As of April 28, 2008, the conclusion of the balloting period, the ICBA stated the results of that ballot are as follows: eight members voted “no confidence;” five members voted against “no confidence;” and 10 members abstained.
The ICBA also quantified the vote tally in the following terms: 34.8 percent of members voted “no confidence;” 21.7 percent of members voted against “no confidence” and 43.5 percent of members abstained from voting one way or the other.
Lamb explained that his review of this “unprecedented” balloting’s results “indicate that virtually two-thirds of the members wanted nothing to do with this.”
“I’ve never heard of a bar association taking a ‘no-confidence’ vote on a sitting judge,” said Lamb. “I’ve known of bar associations ranking candidates, or endorsing a particular candidate, but I’ve never heard of anything quite like this.”
The two men challenging Lamb in the upcoming June election, attorney Tom Hardy and Assistant District Attorney Mark Johnson, agreed with Lamb’s perspective as to this matter’s uniqueness, but felt there was merit to the vote having been conducted and its results released.
“Obviously, I’m running against Judge Lamb because I believe there are issues with the manner in which the court’s affairs under his jurisdiction are being handled,” Johnson said. “However, my understanding from people present (at the April 7 ICBA meeting) was that they had information that the public may not possess and they had a responsibility to share their perspective.”
Hardy’s perspective essentially mirrored that of the other challenger.
“Basically, the results indicate that a significant number of those bar association members that regularly appear in court before Judge Lamb do not have confidence in the performance of Judge Lamb,” Hardy said. “In my experience, a ‘no confidence’ vote is not something that often happens; so I think this is a statement by people who appear with cases before Judge Lamb’s court that they simply do not have a level of confidence in his handling of the matters before him.”
Neither Hardy nor Johnson was reluctant to acknowledge their support of the situation.
“From a personal point of view, this is a clear indication that there needs to be a change come June 3,” said Hardy, “and I sincerely believe that the bar association felt an obligation to make public their perceptions of how the court is operating now.”
Johnson also said the vote was not a political ploy.
“My perception is people (ICBA members who voted ‘no-confidence’) felt there was a duty to acquaint the public with the issues that resulted in this ballot,” said Johnson, “and this ballot’s result suggest this wasn’t done for political purposes to benefit any one candidate running as a challenger to Judge Lamb.”
Lamb said that it’s clear by the “whole structure of how this process was set-up, that it was done to generate publicity.”
“There was a concerted effort by two, longtime members of the bar association – who are not supporters of my campaign – to advise the bar association this was not in the highest interest of the bar association,” said Lamb. “This was done in a way that it could only produce a negative declaration. It certainly wasn’t fair to me.”
What will be fair to all three of the candidates seeking voter support at the polls will be the candidate nights being hosted in the coming days by the Independence Civic Club and the League of Women Voters, Eastern Sierra.
The structure of those public forums are strictly defined by a determination that each and every candidate – be they running for the office of judge or county supervisor – will have an entirely equitable opportunity to share their positions and their credentials with the voters that will be in attendance.
The complete schedule and format details for all of those candidate forums appears on A-1 a separate article devoted to those events.
|
