|
|
|
|
Voters hear from local judge, supe candidates |
|
|
Friday, 09 May 2008 |
 Supervisorial candidates (l-r) Butch Hambleton and Marty Fortney (Fourth District) and current 5th District Supervisor Richard Cervantes prepare to answer questions during a candidates forum in Independence on Monday. Independence Civic Club President Nancy Masters, whose group hosted the event, takes notes. Photo by Ken Koerner By Ken Koerner
Register Staff 5-8-2008
Eight men seeking voter approval in June to hold either the office of Superior Court judge or county supervisor faced a sizeable audience and a broad range of questions in the first of several candidate forums scheduled in Inyo County.
Hosted by the Independence Civic Club Monday night, the event drew a packed house that organizers are hopeful is indicative of voter interest in the upcoming primary and in researching where the candidates stand on local issues.
Subjects broached at the initial forum ranged from judicial philosophy to enhancing county revenue.
The prepared questions asked of judicial candidates Tom Hardy, Mark Johnson and incumbent Brian Lamb touched on the effectiveness of juvenile court in Inyo County; whether citizens have adequate access to legal help and the legal system; how a judge might respond in a courtroom when a defendant appears to be poorly represented; and thoughts on each candidates’ judicial philosophy.
The prepared questions posed to supervisorial candidates Butch Hambleton and Marty Fortney (Fourth District), Michael Dorame, Bill Wenzel and incumbent Richard Cervantes (Fifth District) addressed an understanding of the Brown Act and “keeping an open mind” when hearing public testimony; ways to enhance Inyo County revenues; the City of Bishop’s 30 percent cut of Inyo’s half-cent sales tax; and addressing the issue of town water systems, support for the decision to hire an outside consultant to examine the matter and how Proposition 218 relates to water rates.
Independence Civic Club President Nancy Masters welcomed the candidates and the community before turning things over to forum moderator Kammi Foote.
The format was simple: each candidate delivered brief opening remarks, ahead of responding to all four of the questions previously provided to them. The judicial candidates went first, each, in turn, answering the same series of questions posed by Foote.
The supervisorial candidates followed that same procedure, with the additional element of also responding to questions submitted by audience members, following their respective replies to the prepared questions.
In all instances, the order of the speakers was determined with a roll of the dice by each candidate. (Their responses are printed here in the order in which they gave them.)
One question asked of the judicial candidates was, “How do you think the court can help a juvenile offender from becoming an adult offender?”
Assistant D.A. Johnson referenced “the Bully pulpit” that a judge possesses and how that can be used to advantage, and how “trust, respect and fear” should be a part of what a Juvenile Court judge presents to a defendant appearing before them – mentioning the success of programs like “Scared Straight” in delivering a heavy dose of reality to kids. He also noted the importance of getting drugs out of the hands of juveniles and “dragging parents into court” to make them culpable to do a better job of guiding their children.
Private attorney Hardy said “understanding the nuances of each case is critical” and there’s a need to deal with each case on an individual basis. He added that young people must know what consequences will entail, and that “we must know about that juvenile’s background” in reaching judicial decisions.
Lamb addressed his years presiding over juvenile cases and the importance of a judge understanding that “these aren’t your kids, these kids have parents” that may or may not be directing their child toward better choices. He said that “empowering a parent to take charge of raising their child is more effective than any judicial punishment.”
Judicial candidates also responded to the question, “Do you believe that all citizens have adequate access to legal help and the legal system? If not, what can be done to provide wider and better access?”
Hardy indicated his belief that “adequate access to ‘legal help’ and adequate access to ‘the legal system’ are quite different in nature” and should be addressed individually. Hardy said that “Inyo County residents are blessed with easy access to the legal system,” but facing the “personal expense for obtaining legal help can be a hard nut to crack.” He also said that “the court itself can’t give legal advice, outside sources do that.” Hardy did mention that many attorneys, including within Inyo County, offer pro-bono (no cost) legal assistance to people in need of civil cases; but current laws only require that “defendants in criminal cases must be provided an attorney, free-of-charge, if they cannot afford one.”
Lamb commented on how “even moderate-income, educated people don’t feel competent inside the world of courts and feel perplexed due to the cost of legal counsel.” Lamb indicated that he has often presided over cases in which someone is appearing “pro per” – that is, without legal counsel and therefore acting as their own attorney. Lamb stressed that while it can be a frustrating circumstance for a judge as well as for the unrepresented party, “I can only make certain people do understand that I can’t help them; but that I will listen to them carefully in the presentation of their case.”
Johnson reiterated a sense about the question’s complexity, agreeing also about the significance of “everyone having access to the court system and an equal opportunity for fairness.” He pointed out that even in a criminal proceeding, where the defendant has been provided a public defender at no personal cost, there may still be something of a disadvantage inherent in a situation where someone with a $500-an-hour private attorney – who is entirely focused on a single client’s case – is going up against a public defender who may be juggling a more daunting, overall caseload. Johnson noted that our remote location means fewer viable options for those without the means to retain an attorney; explaining that in larger cities, huge law firms do a lot of pro-bono work, which is not available here. He also mentioned how university law school students in populated areas frequently provide legal help to those without the means to pay for it themselves.
Another question posed to these judicial candidates was, “If you observed a person in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation?”
Lamb described this as “a test question for judges, in terms of how they see their role in judicial proceedings.” Drawing on a sports metaphor, Lamb noted that “judges are umpires, calling the balls and strikes,” and are not advocates for either party in a case before them. Lamb said that he has called attorneys into his chamber, “to inquire about their preparations in the case and to suggest focus be brought to proper areas.” He said his approach to such a situation in a child-custody case may demand a different tack, acknowledging that when he has felt that a child’s welfare may be at risk due to inadequate counsel, he has “made the choice to appoint an attorney to represent that child, at the court’s expense, to protect the child’s interests.”
Johnson drew the distinction between civil and criminal cases, in terms of legal representation. He noted that if an appointed lawyer in a criminal case isn’t providing “a competent defense, it is a judge’s responsibility to take what steps are necessary to ensure that defendant does receive fair legal representation.” This same latitude is not mirrored in a civil case, he said. “It’s not enough that a judge disagrees with an attorney’s approach in a case, it must be severely incompetent conduct” before changes could be enacted. Johnson also noted that “in our small county, I know the defense attorneys well and if I feel compelled to do so, I can bring them into chambers to ask questions about their representation.”
Hardy, the final respondent to the query, began by saying, “This is perhaps the unluckiest question to face answering last, because both Brian and Mark answered it well.” His initial comment conveying his agreement with what had just been said, Hardy went on to note that it’s “best for the working of the courts to have only quality attorneys present; but it’s not always to be found.” Hardy addressed a judge’s option for bringing both attorneys into chambers and asking pointed questions about the proceedings; but also stated, “In my experience over the years in Inyo County courtrooms, it would be fair to say it would be very rare to see such a situation.”
And so it went, from question to question, response to response. In each instance, the individual answers included some shared perspectives among the candidates, as well as some of their differing reasoning also being conveyed.
Following a short break, the five supervisorial candidates got their turn at the podium.
A question fielded by those candidates was, “What ways do you see to enhance the revenues of the County of Inyo?”
Hambleton spoke about “fully supporting our chambers of commerce,” noting their expertise in marketing area resources. “We’ve got to get them the money they need,” he said. He also mentioned the “land releases” being a crucial aspect of potential economic development, and “getting behind launching the Carson Valley-Colorado railroad project,” as a major new tourism draw for the county.
Fortney also mentioned the key element of land-releases; and how rising fuel prices may demand looking at revenue sources independent of tourism, including resource development like geothermal and mining that are currently prohibitive to undertake due the “huge black dot” over Inyo County that “blocks firms from attempting such development.”
Dorame offered his thoughts related to seeking a combination of efforts and approaches, including “having to spend public funds differently;” proactive development of the Eastern Sierra airports; maximizing chamber of commerce resources with county funding; replacing county vehicles as that comes up with more efficient hybrid versions; and echoing the upside of the board of supervisors sustaining the effort to breathe life into the Carson Valley-Colorado railroad project.
Wenzel followed up with his thoughts about a determination to attract more businesses to the county, like manufacturing, pointing out that would bring “multiple levels of jobs along with it;” enhancing the present and future tourism potential in the wake of rewatering the Lower Owens River in south county with new fishing and boating options for visitors to the area; and doing “everything possible to support small businesses.”
Cervantes offered his thoughts about increasing tourism from Europeans, stating how effectively that is working for the Death Valley Chamber of Commerce. He also noted that the “solar-day rating” of southern Inyo County is the highest in the U.S. and should lead the county to being more open to “alternative energy development,” in the form of huge solar-collector sites and geothermal production. He further said that as mineral prices continue to escalate, “with gold going for $1,000 an ounce,” mining may be poised for a resurgence in the county.”
Also asked of the supervisorial candidates was, “Explain your understanding of the Brown Act. What personal measures do you take to keep an open mind when hearing public testimony?”
Cervantes opined that “I love the Brown Act; the defining criteria within the Brown Act harkens back to the vision of our founding fathers when shaping our government.” He went on to quote passages from the legislation, providing his summation that “the people’s business must be conducted in public – no back-room deals, no secret deals.” He said, “information from the public is important to the board of supervisors,” continuing on to remind those present that meeting agendas are publicly posted and meetings are open to public participation. He closed with the advice, “The Brown Act is there for you – use it for your advantage.”
Hambleton summarized his understanding of the Brown Act as being “primarily written to protect your (the public) right to attend public agency meetings, be present for votes taken and to provide the opportunity for public comment to be heard.” He also said, “I believe the best thing I can do to hear public testimony is to read everything available on the topic ahead of that meeting, so I can ask appropriate questions and be prepared to make good decisions.”
Fortney provided his Brown Act reference point as deriving from “years of Department of Fish and Game committee hearings, all of which were conducted under the Brown Act; so I’ve been living with it for years and it’s pretty simple.” Addressing the second part of the question, Fortney said, “As to listening, I always try to keep an open mind, making good judgments based upon the best information available – and remembering that it is possible to move forward through compromise.”
Dorame spoke about his years holding elected office leaving him “intimately aware of all of the Brown Act’s particulars,” mentioning that following his attendance at a multiple-day seminar on that law he was called upon to deliver a seminar on the Brown Act to others. As for his stance on maintaining an open mind, Dorame said, “I listen carefully, take a great deal of notes, learn a lot beforehand, ask relevant questions and offer those speaking a lot of respect. It’s important to remember that it’s not easy for everyone to be called upon to speak publicly.”
Wenzel defined his understanding of the Brown Act as “giving us (elected officials) parameters as to what we can do and what we can’t do and to make it possible for the public to see what’s going on.” In terms of his open mind approach, he said, “I try not coming to conclusions ahead of time. I like to sit down and really take it all in.”
After one more short break in the action, a few questions from the still-attentive audience were presented by the forum’s moderator.
Included were the topics of how significant is maintaining the viability of Southern Inyo Hospital for south county residents (all the speakers agreed it was very important); and what stance did the candidates take on “wilderness protection and creating new wilderness areas?”
The wilderness issues also reflected a shared perspective, though with some divergent perspectives being expressed.
Cervantes opined that Inyo County has “more than enough wilderness, what we need is broader access options for the many visitors we wish to attract.”
Fortney indicated he believes that “wilderness must be protected, but that ‘new’ wilderness needs greater evaluation.”
Hambleton recalled “one of the excuses early on” from the U.S. Forest Service was that “we have to designate wilderness areas because we don’t have sufficient resources to manage these tracts of land.” But, he noted, “sure enough, we ended up with more wilderness designations, and the USFS ended up with even fewer people assigned to this area.”
Wenzel acknowledged some “personal conflict” in this area, noting “my Heinz 57 issue encourages the white part of me to say, ‘Yeah, we ought to be able to use those lands,’ and the Native American part of me is saying, ‘You people don’t know how to manage these lands, we ought to lock it off.”
Dorame explained that “wilderness is almost like a disease that keeps spreading – by the time that a land-use study has been completed, the area being studied has reverted back to some state of wilderness, with overgrown roads and such.” He concluded with the opinion “those lands belong to the American people and we ought to have more latitude in being able to use it wisely.”
A full four hours after the candidate forum had begun, all the statements had been made and all of the questions had been answered. A League of Women Voters, Eastern Sierra forum followed Tuesday evening in Lone Pine, with another scheduled tonight in Big Pine.
District 2 Supervisor candidates – incumbent Susan Cash and Ted Gardner – will appear at a forum next week in Bishop.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 25 June 2008 )
|
|
|
|
