Candidate Loyalton 2
Rotary Candidates’ Night in Loyalton 100210
A highly opinionated attempt at objective reporting by the Fringe so even-handed nobody should be happy.
The third Sierra County candidates night took place Thursday evening. There were three hotly contested races, and a measure that is dividing the community being discussed; it was a good night for politics.
Two things emerged from Candidate’s night at the Catholic Hall in Loyalton Thursday: 1. The Rotary knows how to have a candidate’s night; 2. Politicians have a hard time doing their work when Jesus is looking on.
Most of the candidates were more polished this time, and they stayed on message better. It was pretty clear that all candidates had spent time learning about key issues.
The event was moderated by Fred Kelley, and moved along fairly briskly.
The Judicial Candidates were first.
The judges. It's wonderful color photos like these that make news on the
internet so exciting.
In his statement, Charles Ervin was clear that he’d been talking with people, asking what they want in a judge. One key thing: they don’t want expensive legal trials. People want justice prompt and fair. He’s had a variety of legal experience and some judicial experience. (His Website is HERE)
Tom Archer discussed his long years of contribution to the community, including his considerable pro-bono work for several local non-profits including the SC Fire Safe and Watershed Council. Mr. Archer has a portfolio of community service, including his current position as a member of the Truckee River Watershed Council. He outlined the wide range of experience he’s had, including family law, land use law, and real estate law. He said voters wanted core values of integrity and honesty. He pointed out that he has remained in business in a small community, which is evidence of people’s confidence in him, and we agree, it is. He also said “I’m a good guy, and honest guy” and indeed, that is the consensus of those in the community who know him. His website is HERE
There were two questions asked seeking the same information: What is most important in a judge, and what do you want to be remembered for?
Archer identified good communications and problem solving in addition to research and knowledge of the law. He wants to be remembered for integrity.
Ervin said a key aspect is to remember that the law is not :”one size fits all”. He wants to be remembered for being accessible, a trusted public servant, innovative and caring.
Question: What do you think of the death penalty.
That was probably the most significant question in terms of how each man would experience being a judge. Their answers seemed somewhat close to each other to this reporter.
Archer allowed that there are certain crimes and certain people for which the death penalty is appropriate, but it would be a tough day, and he would approach it with seriousness and implied dread.
Ervin pointed out that the death penalty is a reality, but pointed out that there should be no reasonable doubt at all. He evidenced recent cases in the news where several death penalty cases in Texas were overturned thanks to DNA evidence. He said it would require that any and all evidence be brought forward, and that in the end human compassion would be part of the judgement.
Question: What about victims?
The question is not a deep one, and makes many false assumptions, but it proved to be the most significant question for the judicial candidates.
To this point it was pretty tight between Ervin and Archer. Ervin tried hard not to seem like a legal geek, and to let people know that he does, indeed, have a deep sense of what the law does to people. Archer was warm and real and has a lot of experience and has made a real contribution to the community.
But this poorly framed question provided Archer with the opportunity to tell us what he doesn’t know. He brought up the case of Lauren Herzog, recently paroled to Susanville, whose 78 year sentence was overturned allowing him out in about eleven years.
Archer stated that it wasn’t judges, it was the parole board who let Herzog out. Don’t blame the judges, it was the parole board.
Here are the two things Archer got seriously wrong:
First, it was indeed an appeals court judge who ruled the murderer’s confessions were obtained under duress. The law insists the cops not be able to beat a “confession” out of a person. The appeals court judge felt the confession might be coerced and overturned three convictions for first degree murder. Instead, Herzog got voluntary manslaughter, 14 years.
Second, Archer revealed he doesn’t understand what happens to his prisoners after they leave his court. Like the judicial, the parole board has to follow the law. Herzog was eligible, there was no reason to refuse, they had to let him out.
Ervin’s answer to the question revealed he understood that the judge can take victim testimony on sentencing in some instances, and that there are channels in place for victims to get help. It was a good answer, and it was correct. In truth, the judge has no obligation to the victim, no purpose of revenge, only justice.
With no further questions, the judicial candidates were excused.
District 5 Supervisors
Karen Rickman spoke about the importance of jobs, but not how she would create jobs from the position of County Supervisor. She insisted she would help small businesses.
Scott Schlefstein spoke of his commitment and investment in the community.
There was a question about the county road at Independence Lake, where The Nature Conservancy has blocked the public from the road.
Karen Rickman responded that it was private property and TNC could do what it wants, a very poor answer; the lands are NOT private lands, they are lands bought with public money to be held in a stewardship position, very different from private property. She also insisted the state paid the county to maintain the road, so it’s a county road and people should be able to travel it, maybe.
Schlefstein calmly presented his evidence. The county dealt with this issue in 1987. He mentioned the State Lands, who issued an opinion letter at that time. He spoke about the county maintaining the road, and not maintaining but still not abandoning a second road.
Question: What would you do to encourage business?
Scott complained about the state, Karen mentioned a special effort to support business. Neither candidate had a real plan, and why should they, since creating jobs is not in any sense the business of the supervisors.
County Sheriff
Tim Standley; a crappy photo from last RCN; the one
from this time was too bad.
Tim Standley looked like a cowboy movie star and spoke as sweetly as a crooner; in my view he had the best presentation of the night, in terms of aesthetics.
He allowed as how he’s been here forever, married his grade school girlfriend, raised kids here in Sierra County.
He said since hard times were here it taskes even more work to provide coverage. He’d be efficient and ask for grants. He said that different areas of the county needed different kinds of law enforcement, and yeah, we all get that.
John Evans is the sheriff, and he looked like the sheriff. Partly in answer to Standley’s remarks, Evans outlined some of the things he’s done in his first term, including bringing in vehicles and assigning a drug interdiction officer. John waxed poetic about capturing a big bunch of marijuana. He suggested organized Mexican crime was involved. He mentioned meth and prescription drugs as being a problem. He talked briefly about forcing deputies to live in the area. He got money from Homeland Security. He’s a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and hasn’t granted law enforcement powers to the Forest Circus. He would, he said quietly, but people don’t want him to. That’s a good boy, John, we don’t want you to, there are enough cops, CHP cops, traffic-stopping fish cops, cops everywhere.
Question for John Evans: What will you do when cannabis is legalized?
This was a chance for John to trot out his stale “reefer madness” routine. Pot makes you lazy, as though people being lazy were somehow the business of cops. It’s a “gateway” drug, which is really not provable, and the evidence is that beer is the true gateway drug. Evans said nothing new, indeed nothing newer than 1980.
To his credit, Evans has moved to excluding medical growers from prison, but one gets the feeling that is because the law has forced him to. He supports the freedom to own a gun, but not the freedom to make choices about how we relax. Worse, Evans is simply demonstrating “belief as affiliation” which means he has based his opinion not on fact, but on his desire to be affiliated with a group. I’m not comfortable with a sheriff who bases enforcement on the basis of his personal bias. I’m not impressed with pulling cops off the street to bust-hump removing an industrial crop from forest lands; if you want to do that, become a logger. The very answer to Evan’s “concern” about pot in the hills is to legalize it and grow it in the legitimate economy.
Still, Evans showed growth. He allowed that if that’s what the voters wanted, that’s what he’d do. Further, this reporter knows of instances where Evans did use compassion and integrity dealing with cannabis suspects, but that fact simply makes his hackneyed repetition of propaganda more untenable. Indeed, only a few moments further into the evening Evans showed that, on the ground, he knows how to make good decisions about cannabis.
But the next question was about a biting dog.
The candidates both gave information: there is an ordinance prohibiting dogs from running. That is true, and it’s an ordinance most dog owners rightfully ignore. This isn’t L.A., this is the country. Not everyone in the county needs to tie their dog. It’s bad for dogs to be confined, though it makes owners feel in control and does give the dog a few extra years of life, but not a dog’s life.
Still, we can’t have dangerous dogs running free to injure people or livestock, and the law provides a means of controlling or killing those dogs, and fining their owners. Both candidates knew the law.
Question: What would you do about giving a permit to carry a concealed weapon permit to someone who uses cannabis.*
Tim: He gave an answer, but it wasn’t clear to me what it was. It sounded like he’d follow the law.
Evans went through a moment of struggle, looked up at the ceiling, and said a very rational thing, given the question: it depends on the person. It is the sheriff’s call that a person who drinks alcohol gets a CCW or a person who is an alcoholic does not. John indicated that he knew how to use his discretion in the matter.
The next question was pure Sierra County: With you guys spread so thin, isn’t there some way you could train citizens to deal with crime? Several folks murmured, and I got the feeling we could get a posse together right then if someone could think of a reason.
But the candidates both became administrators. Tim discourage people from taking on criminals and suggested they be a “good witness” which witnessing might sound like this: I saw him beat the crap out of me and have his way with the wife, and if I’d had a gun I would have blown his liver out his back.
Evans also didn’t encourage citizen self help, but he did suggest that if you want to defend yourself, you should seek training. He admitted this is a “no retreat” state, which means you can defend yourself, though California does not (of course) allow the kind of response that many other states do. In California you have to demonstrate that you saw imminent danger and responded only with enough force to deter the danger. This reporter suggests the 10mm or the .45 ACP as a good deterrent.
Still, Evans wasn’t encouraging people to let fly at shadows and encouraged the more eager in the crowd to educate themselves on the law and use good judgement.
Deterrent: the Glock 20 in 10mm
With that, the Sheriff candidates were off the hot seat. In fairness, the candidates for Sheriff had the hardest questions, and for them, crowd pleasing answers are more difficult. A supervisor or city councilperson can say they’re for jobs and almost no one will complain, but the sheriffs faced both law-and-order nuts and civil rights nuts (Don Russell and I sat together) and there simply were no answers to please everyone. I’ll remark that both candidates are pretty good cops and would do as much as possible to assure fair and competent law enforcement to the county. I wouldn’t want to lose either Standley or Evans to another county. Nothing in the evening changed my view that John has done a pretty good job and shown a lot of growth, and we’ve invested this much time in him, we should re-elect him, but Tim Standley would make a very interesting sheriff. In our county the sheriff works a beat, too, but the job is mostly administrative: keep the bills paid and the cars running, keep the department out of court, and try to get a bunch of independent and heavily armed guys to work in cooperation with each other and the community.
Loyalton City Council
Brooks Mitchell was present, running unopposed for a short term. Incumbent Mike Hudson is running for one of two seats, and is facing a challenge from retiring County supervisor Pat Whitley and new comer James Beard; however, Hudson did not appear.
The candidates introduced themselves:
Pat Whitley wants to deal with the budget, the most clear and useful thing the council can do.
Jim Beard wants to be a representative, tell him what you want and he’ll vote that way.
Brookes wants to see Loyalton vital again, with businesses and people working.
There was a question about the pool. It was a no-win question, since there is no way Loyalton can support a pool, and there is no way voters will approve the pool.
Whitley insists the town needs a pool, but is realistic that the current pool is too expensive.
Jim Beard agreed, the pool is great, he wishes his son could swim in Loyalton.
Brooks continues to misunderstand the “Loyalton Pool Vote” and says the pool supporters were cut off at the pass.
No one shined on this issue because no one has the courage to admit the pool is a no-go for a town of 800 people.
Question on Measure C:
Brooks: we need more jobs, but it isn’t going to be easy.
James Beard: I’m not familiar enough to say. (Beard gets points for the most honest answers of the night.)
Whitley: Kids are important but some people simply can’t afford more taxes.
Question: How will you make up the $90,000 deficit?
Brooks: We’re spending more than we are bringing in; maybe it’s time to cut everything 10% right across the board, except for fire and police and other services the city provides.
Whitley: I’ll have to look at the budget more closely; the city is incorporated and should stand on its own feet.
Beard: He’s never been involved in politics but he knows the budget has to be balanced.
Quick review: no matter who wins, they’re in for a tough time. The current council was beat up for trying to do the right thing on the sewer and with the Prop 40 money. Let’s see what changes.
Measure C:
Measure C was the hot ticket for the night.
Stan Hardeman took the stage for “yes on measure C. ” He is the superintendent of schools and so on. He explained the process whereby the Board of Education did an assessment of the school buildings. They received assessments from numerous sources including the insurance company. During a fire-marshal’s assessment, the FM actually closed a classroom. Hardeman noted that all the buildings need help, none of them are properly insulated or have adequate glazing. He stated that the heater in the D’ville school is ready to tank and that it costs $130,000 a year to heat the school, whereas new zone heating in the Loyalton school costs only $40,000 a year to heat.
The process included a consultant. When the process was completed it was determined that the schools need $12 million to be brought to great shape, but could be maintained legally as school buildings for $5 million. He stated that it was his job under the law to make sure the buildings were safe. The Board decided the only thing to do was to ask the voters for a bond to meet the minimum needs of the schools.
Hardeman is probably a good administrator; he has the loyalty of his staff even though he had a hard time to win his seat running unopposed**. He may not have been the best person to describe the need for Measure C. He acted like he’s explained it all before, and as though the voters should just trust that he and the Board are doing what is best. He was not compelling, even though the facts of his presentation indicate we need to fix our schools.
Enter Dave Roberti, who was smooth, jovial, composed. He explained things patiently and even provided numbers . Had the event been over the seat of Superintendent of Schools instead of Measure C, Mr. Roberti would have a new job today.
He stated that the plan to pay back the bond would break the county and her people, and most of all, would require our children and grandchildren to pay back the loan. He raised the specter that the people of the county would still be paying on the loan in 30 years, when the repairs to the schools were obsolete, causing children and grandchildren to pay off the old bond and have to raise money for a new bond, or new schools. He raised the specter of Sierra Valley District Hospital.
He also said there were alternatives, funds they could get instead of going deep into debt.
As Roberti spoke with clarity and ease (lemme have an “Amen!) Hardeman got so red in the face you could feel the heat in the back of the room.
When he could speak he choked out that Roberti’s numbers were wrong, that the assessed valuation would rise, not fall, and that you could only get those funds Roberti referred to if you had already passed a bond. One understood that there was much more to the issue than Roberti made it seem but Hardeman was not able to clearly tell us what.
The discussion sputtered out, lacking anywhere to go, and the words that ring the loudest are those from Roberti: get the facts before you vote for this.
Stan Hardeman makes his pitch.
At the Table: Measure C
But, we aren’t going to get the facts, are we? We’re tuckered out and busy, and the facts include page after page of numbers. Instead, we’re tempted to accept the fact that the well spoken Mr. Roberti, MSF (Mighty Smart Feller) has already done that, we don’t need to.
Pardon my use of profanity, but this issue is a bullbitch. We are mostly individually and collectively broke. The bond will place a $33 dollar (or more) assessment on every $100,000 of value; who the hell can afford that, even though there is a mixed blessing of our property values going down? If things go wrong in California (how could that happen?) we really could be saddled with this debt forever.
One of the worst aspects, and probably the one that motivated Roberti, is that land owners will suffer the most. Don’t be confused, owning land doesn’t make you rich in dollars, particularly with Sacramento as Sultan. It does pile up a lot of debt, though. California ag continues to take hit after hit, with the Department of Water Resources and the Fish and Game and taking old diesel trucks off the road, and one thing after another that just makes the agricultural way of life a luxury in California. Now, this new tax? Is there no other way?
There really doesn’t seem to be any other way. Do we want schools in our county?
There has never been the money to properly fix the schools, and so long as they kept the rain out, no one felt the needed to spend money on them.
Here are the facts: school buildings are like any commercial building except the law has higher standards. They are expensive to own and maintain. If you defer upgrading the facilities for 30 years, then you’ll have 30 years of catching up to do.
Frankly, I’m terrified of more taxes. The ends barely meet now, and I’m afraid that if one more straw is added the whole camel will collapse. I receive no direct benefit from improvement in our schools. But, I’m probably going to support Measure C. Even though it might eventually become like the hospital.
I’m going to do this because a community without children is a community without a future. Are we still really a county if we have to ship our kids an hour each way to another county to school? Are we going to trust every parent to home school their kids? Do we want any Sierra County kids in college?
Even red-faced and stammering, Stan convinced me. My heart is, in every sense, with Mr. Roberti, and his argument is terrifying and heavy with merit, but Hardeman’s also a very smart guy, his description rang with the truth we’ve come to know in these hard times, in the truth Loyalton learned over it’s sewer. It costs a lot, more than we can imagine, but if we’re going to be a civilized community, we have to spend the money.
Besides, the outcome is a crapshoot; the economy might turn in a way that would make paying the debt off easier. Maybe Loyalton will get a train and a golf course and we’ll all be Gottrocks. Probably those wonderful things won’t happen, but probably neither will the most dire possibilities.
Either way, if we are to demonstrate that we have hope for the future, both for our children and for the economic depression, we need to swallow hard and vote “yes” on Measure C.
Will Measure C pass? We have an old population in the County and not many families, who tend to vote for school bonds. Ordinarily, particularly in hard times, you can count on voters to turn down new costs.
However, recent polls show that Californians are willing to accept new taxes for schools, but not for cops or prisons. That alone indicates our hopes are greater than our fears.
It is too close a contest to call, but my hunch is it will pass.
Epilogue
Riding home in the car with Don Russell, enjoying the smell of the autumn night and not so much the smell of Russell three hours after eating at Los Dos Hermanos (a smell I’ve come to think of as “chili schnapps”) we discussed the candidates. Being perpetually disappointed by humankind, we were a properly disappointed, but at the same time, things could be worse. At least people showed up, they interacted, they talked about things we all care about. It’s what we enjoy most about democracy (representative republicanism).
*There was a sidebar conversation and I missed the actual asking of the question.
** Hardeman got less than 95% of the vote. Heather Foster, running unopposed for Clerk Recorder got over 99% and even the district attorney, Larry Allen got over 97%. How do you piss off more people than the DA?
A highly opinionated attempt at objective reporting by the Fringe so even-handed nobody should be happy.
The third Sierra County candidates night took place Thursday evening. There were three hotly contested races, and a measure that is dividing the community being discussed; it was a good night for politics.
Two things emerged from Candidate’s night at the Catholic Hall in Loyalton Thursday: 1. The Rotary knows how to have a candidate’s night; 2. Politicians have a hard time doing their work when Jesus is looking on.
Most of the candidates were more polished this time, and they stayed on message better. It was pretty clear that all candidates had spent time learning about key issues.
The event was moderated by Fred Kelley, and moved along fairly briskly.
The Judicial Candidates were first.
The judges. It's wonderful color photos like these that make news on the
internet so exciting.
In his statement, Charles Ervin was clear that he’d been talking with people, asking what they want in a judge. One key thing: they don’t want expensive legal trials. People want justice prompt and fair. He’s had a variety of legal experience and some judicial experience. (His Website is HERE)
Tom Archer discussed his long years of contribution to the community, including his considerable pro-bono work for several local non-profits including the SC Fire Safe and Watershed Council. Mr. Archer has a portfolio of community service, including his current position as a member of the Truckee River Watershed Council. He outlined the wide range of experience he’s had, including family law, land use law, and real estate law. He said voters wanted core values of integrity and honesty. He pointed out that he has remained in business in a small community, which is evidence of people’s confidence in him, and we agree, it is. He also said “I’m a good guy, and honest guy” and indeed, that is the consensus of those in the community who know him. His website is HERE
There were two questions asked seeking the same information: What is most important in a judge, and what do you want to be remembered for?
Archer identified good communications and problem solving in addition to research and knowledge of the law. He wants to be remembered for integrity.
Ervin said a key aspect is to remember that the law is not :”one size fits all”. He wants to be remembered for being accessible, a trusted public servant, innovative and caring.
Question: What do you think of the death penalty.
That was probably the most significant question in terms of how each man would experience being a judge. Their answers seemed somewhat close to each other to this reporter.
Archer allowed that there are certain crimes and certain people for which the death penalty is appropriate, but it would be a tough day, and he would approach it with seriousness and implied dread.
Ervin pointed out that the death penalty is a reality, but pointed out that there should be no reasonable doubt at all. He evidenced recent cases in the news where several death penalty cases in Texas were overturned thanks to DNA evidence. He said it would require that any and all evidence be brought forward, and that in the end human compassion would be part of the judgement.
Question: What about victims?
The question is not a deep one, and makes many false assumptions, but it proved to be the most significant question for the judicial candidates.
To this point it was pretty tight between Ervin and Archer. Ervin tried hard not to seem like a legal geek, and to let people know that he does, indeed, have a deep sense of what the law does to people. Archer was warm and real and has a lot of experience and has made a real contribution to the community.
But this poorly framed question provided Archer with the opportunity to tell us what he doesn’t know. He brought up the case of Lauren Herzog, recently paroled to Susanville, whose 78 year sentence was overturned allowing him out in about eleven years.
Archer stated that it wasn’t judges, it was the parole board who let Herzog out. Don’t blame the judges, it was the parole board.
Here are the two things Archer got seriously wrong:
First, it was indeed an appeals court judge who ruled the murderer’s confessions were obtained under duress. The law insists the cops not be able to beat a “confession” out of a person. The appeals court judge felt the confession might be coerced and overturned three convictions for first degree murder. Instead, Herzog got voluntary manslaughter, 14 years.
Second, Archer revealed he doesn’t understand what happens to his prisoners after they leave his court. Like the judicial, the parole board has to follow the law. Herzog was eligible, there was no reason to refuse, they had to let him out.
Ervin’s answer to the question revealed he understood that the judge can take victim testimony on sentencing in some instances, and that there are channels in place for victims to get help. It was a good answer, and it was correct. In truth, the judge has no obligation to the victim, no purpose of revenge, only justice.
With no further questions, the judicial candidates were excused.
District 5 Supervisors
Karen Rickman spoke about the importance of jobs, but not how she would create jobs from the position of County Supervisor. She insisted she would help small businesses.
Scott Schlefstein spoke of his commitment and investment in the community.
There was a question about the county road at Independence Lake, where The Nature Conservancy has blocked the public from the road.
Karen Rickman responded that it was private property and TNC could do what it wants, a very poor answer; the lands are NOT private lands, they are lands bought with public money to be held in a stewardship position, very different from private property. She also insisted the state paid the county to maintain the road, so it’s a county road and people should be able to travel it, maybe.
Schlefstein calmly presented his evidence. The county dealt with this issue in 1987. He mentioned the State Lands, who issued an opinion letter at that time. He spoke about the county maintaining the road, and not maintaining but still not abandoning a second road.
Question: What would you do to encourage business?
Scott complained about the state, Karen mentioned a special effort to support business. Neither candidate had a real plan, and why should they, since creating jobs is not in any sense the business of the supervisors.
County Sheriff
Tim Standley; a crappy photo from last RCN; the one
from this time was too bad.
Tim Standley looked like a cowboy movie star and spoke as sweetly as a crooner; in my view he had the best presentation of the night, in terms of aesthetics.
He allowed as how he’s been here forever, married his grade school girlfriend, raised kids here in Sierra County.
He said since hard times were here it taskes even more work to provide coverage. He’d be efficient and ask for grants. He said that different areas of the county needed different kinds of law enforcement, and yeah, we all get that.
John Evans is the sheriff, and he looked like the sheriff. Partly in answer to Standley’s remarks, Evans outlined some of the things he’s done in his first term, including bringing in vehicles and assigning a drug interdiction officer. John waxed poetic about capturing a big bunch of marijuana. He suggested organized Mexican crime was involved. He mentioned meth and prescription drugs as being a problem. He talked briefly about forcing deputies to live in the area. He got money from Homeland Security. He’s a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and hasn’t granted law enforcement powers to the Forest Circus. He would, he said quietly, but people don’t want him to. That’s a good boy, John, we don’t want you to, there are enough cops, CHP cops, traffic-stopping fish cops, cops everywhere.
Question for John Evans: What will you do when cannabis is legalized?
This was a chance for John to trot out his stale “reefer madness” routine. Pot makes you lazy, as though people being lazy were somehow the business of cops. It’s a “gateway” drug, which is really not provable, and the evidence is that beer is the true gateway drug. Evans said nothing new, indeed nothing newer than 1980.
To his credit, Evans has moved to excluding medical growers from prison, but one gets the feeling that is because the law has forced him to. He supports the freedom to own a gun, but not the freedom to make choices about how we relax. Worse, Evans is simply demonstrating “belief as affiliation” which means he has based his opinion not on fact, but on his desire to be affiliated with a group. I’m not comfortable with a sheriff who bases enforcement on the basis of his personal bias. I’m not impressed with pulling cops off the street to bust-hump removing an industrial crop from forest lands; if you want to do that, become a logger. The very answer to Evan’s “concern” about pot in the hills is to legalize it and grow it in the legitimate economy.
Still, Evans showed growth. He allowed that if that’s what the voters wanted, that’s what he’d do. Further, this reporter knows of instances where Evans did use compassion and integrity dealing with cannabis suspects, but that fact simply makes his hackneyed repetition of propaganda more untenable. Indeed, only a few moments further into the evening Evans showed that, on the ground, he knows how to make good decisions about cannabis.
But the next question was about a biting dog.
The candidates both gave information: there is an ordinance prohibiting dogs from running. That is true, and it’s an ordinance most dog owners rightfully ignore. This isn’t L.A., this is the country. Not everyone in the county needs to tie their dog. It’s bad for dogs to be confined, though it makes owners feel in control and does give the dog a few extra years of life, but not a dog’s life.
Still, we can’t have dangerous dogs running free to injure people or livestock, and the law provides a means of controlling or killing those dogs, and fining their owners. Both candidates knew the law.
Question: What would you do about giving a permit to carry a concealed weapon permit to someone who uses cannabis.*
Tim: He gave an answer, but it wasn’t clear to me what it was. It sounded like he’d follow the law.
Evans went through a moment of struggle, looked up at the ceiling, and said a very rational thing, given the question: it depends on the person. It is the sheriff’s call that a person who drinks alcohol gets a CCW or a person who is an alcoholic does not. John indicated that he knew how to use his discretion in the matter.
The next question was pure Sierra County: With you guys spread so thin, isn’t there some way you could train citizens to deal with crime? Several folks murmured, and I got the feeling we could get a posse together right then if someone could think of a reason.
But the candidates both became administrators. Tim discourage people from taking on criminals and suggested they be a “good witness” which witnessing might sound like this: I saw him beat the crap out of me and have his way with the wife, and if I’d had a gun I would have blown his liver out his back.
Evans also didn’t encourage citizen self help, but he did suggest that if you want to defend yourself, you should seek training. He admitted this is a “no retreat” state, which means you can defend yourself, though California does not (of course) allow the kind of response that many other states do. In California you have to demonstrate that you saw imminent danger and responded only with enough force to deter the danger. This reporter suggests the 10mm or the .45 ACP as a good deterrent.
Still, Evans wasn’t encouraging people to let fly at shadows and encouraged the more eager in the crowd to educate themselves on the law and use good judgement.
Deterrent: the Glock 20 in 10mm
With that, the Sheriff candidates were off the hot seat. In fairness, the candidates for Sheriff had the hardest questions, and for them, crowd pleasing answers are more difficult. A supervisor or city councilperson can say they’re for jobs and almost no one will complain, but the sheriffs faced both law-and-order nuts and civil rights nuts (Don Russell and I sat together) and there simply were no answers to please everyone. I’ll remark that both candidates are pretty good cops and would do as much as possible to assure fair and competent law enforcement to the county. I wouldn’t want to lose either Standley or Evans to another county. Nothing in the evening changed my view that John has done a pretty good job and shown a lot of growth, and we’ve invested this much time in him, we should re-elect him, but Tim Standley would make a very interesting sheriff. In our county the sheriff works a beat, too, but the job is mostly administrative: keep the bills paid and the cars running, keep the department out of court, and try to get a bunch of independent and heavily armed guys to work in cooperation with each other and the community.
Loyalton City Council
Brooks Mitchell was present, running unopposed for a short term. Incumbent Mike Hudson is running for one of two seats, and is facing a challenge from retiring County supervisor Pat Whitley and new comer James Beard; however, Hudson did not appear.
The candidates introduced themselves:
Pat Whitley wants to deal with the budget, the most clear and useful thing the council can do.
Jim Beard wants to be a representative, tell him what you want and he’ll vote that way.
Brookes wants to see Loyalton vital again, with businesses and people working.
There was a question about the pool. It was a no-win question, since there is no way Loyalton can support a pool, and there is no way voters will approve the pool.
Whitley insists the town needs a pool, but is realistic that the current pool is too expensive.
Jim Beard agreed, the pool is great, he wishes his son could swim in Loyalton.
Brooks continues to misunderstand the “Loyalton Pool Vote” and says the pool supporters were cut off at the pass.
No one shined on this issue because no one has the courage to admit the pool is a no-go for a town of 800 people.
Question on Measure C:
Brooks: we need more jobs, but it isn’t going to be easy.
James Beard: I’m not familiar enough to say. (Beard gets points for the most honest answers of the night.)
Whitley: Kids are important but some people simply can’t afford more taxes.
Question: How will you make up the $90,000 deficit?
Brooks: We’re spending more than we are bringing in; maybe it’s time to cut everything 10% right across the board, except for fire and police and other services the city provides.
Whitley: I’ll have to look at the budget more closely; the city is incorporated and should stand on its own feet.
Beard: He’s never been involved in politics but he knows the budget has to be balanced.
Quick review: no matter who wins, they’re in for a tough time. The current council was beat up for trying to do the right thing on the sewer and with the Prop 40 money. Let’s see what changes.
Measure C:
Measure C was the hot ticket for the night.
Stan Hardeman took the stage for “yes on measure C. ” He is the superintendent of schools and so on. He explained the process whereby the Board of Education did an assessment of the school buildings. They received assessments from numerous sources including the insurance company. During a fire-marshal’s assessment, the FM actually closed a classroom. Hardeman noted that all the buildings need help, none of them are properly insulated or have adequate glazing. He stated that the heater in the D’ville school is ready to tank and that it costs $130,000 a year to heat the school, whereas new zone heating in the Loyalton school costs only $40,000 a year to heat.
The process included a consultant. When the process was completed it was determined that the schools need $12 million to be brought to great shape, but could be maintained legally as school buildings for $5 million. He stated that it was his job under the law to make sure the buildings were safe. The Board decided the only thing to do was to ask the voters for a bond to meet the minimum needs of the schools.
Hardeman is probably a good administrator; he has the loyalty of his staff even though he had a hard time to win his seat running unopposed**. He may not have been the best person to describe the need for Measure C. He acted like he’s explained it all before, and as though the voters should just trust that he and the Board are doing what is best. He was not compelling, even though the facts of his presentation indicate we need to fix our schools.
Enter Dave Roberti, who was smooth, jovial, composed. He explained things patiently and even provided numbers . Had the event been over the seat of Superintendent of Schools instead of Measure C, Mr. Roberti would have a new job today.
He stated that the plan to pay back the bond would break the county and her people, and most of all, would require our children and grandchildren to pay back the loan. He raised the specter that the people of the county would still be paying on the loan in 30 years, when the repairs to the schools were obsolete, causing children and grandchildren to pay off the old bond and have to raise money for a new bond, or new schools. He raised the specter of Sierra Valley District Hospital.
He also said there were alternatives, funds they could get instead of going deep into debt.
As Roberti spoke with clarity and ease (lemme have an “Amen!) Hardeman got so red in the face you could feel the heat in the back of the room.
When he could speak he choked out that Roberti’s numbers were wrong, that the assessed valuation would rise, not fall, and that you could only get those funds Roberti referred to if you had already passed a bond. One understood that there was much more to the issue than Roberti made it seem but Hardeman was not able to clearly tell us what.
The discussion sputtered out, lacking anywhere to go, and the words that ring the loudest are those from Roberti: get the facts before you vote for this.
Stan Hardeman makes his pitch.
At the Table: Measure C
But, we aren’t going to get the facts, are we? We’re tuckered out and busy, and the facts include page after page of numbers. Instead, we’re tempted to accept the fact that the well spoken Mr. Roberti, MSF (Mighty Smart Feller) has already done that, we don’t need to.
Pardon my use of profanity, but this issue is a bullbitch. We are mostly individually and collectively broke. The bond will place a $33 dollar (or more) assessment on every $100,000 of value; who the hell can afford that, even though there is a mixed blessing of our property values going down? If things go wrong in California (how could that happen?) we really could be saddled with this debt forever.
One of the worst aspects, and probably the one that motivated Roberti, is that land owners will suffer the most. Don’t be confused, owning land doesn’t make you rich in dollars, particularly with Sacramento as Sultan. It does pile up a lot of debt, though. California ag continues to take hit after hit, with the Department of Water Resources and the Fish and Game and taking old diesel trucks off the road, and one thing after another that just makes the agricultural way of life a luxury in California. Now, this new tax? Is there no other way?
There really doesn’t seem to be any other way. Do we want schools in our county?
There has never been the money to properly fix the schools, and so long as they kept the rain out, no one felt the needed to spend money on them.
Here are the facts: school buildings are like any commercial building except the law has higher standards. They are expensive to own and maintain. If you defer upgrading the facilities for 30 years, then you’ll have 30 years of catching up to do.
Frankly, I’m terrified of more taxes. The ends barely meet now, and I’m afraid that if one more straw is added the whole camel will collapse. I receive no direct benefit from improvement in our schools. But, I’m probably going to support Measure C. Even though it might eventually become like the hospital.
I’m going to do this because a community without children is a community without a future. Are we still really a county if we have to ship our kids an hour each way to another county to school? Are we going to trust every parent to home school their kids? Do we want any Sierra County kids in college?
Even red-faced and stammering, Stan convinced me. My heart is, in every sense, with Mr. Roberti, and his argument is terrifying and heavy with merit, but Hardeman’s also a very smart guy, his description rang with the truth we’ve come to know in these hard times, in the truth Loyalton learned over it’s sewer. It costs a lot, more than we can imagine, but if we’re going to be a civilized community, we have to spend the money.
Besides, the outcome is a crapshoot; the economy might turn in a way that would make paying the debt off easier. Maybe Loyalton will get a train and a golf course and we’ll all be Gottrocks. Probably those wonderful things won’t happen, but probably neither will the most dire possibilities.
Either way, if we are to demonstrate that we have hope for the future, both for our children and for the economic depression, we need to swallow hard and vote “yes” on Measure C.
Will Measure C pass? We have an old population in the County and not many families, who tend to vote for school bonds. Ordinarily, particularly in hard times, you can count on voters to turn down new costs.
However, recent polls show that Californians are willing to accept new taxes for schools, but not for cops or prisons. That alone indicates our hopes are greater than our fears.
It is too close a contest to call, but my hunch is it will pass.
Epilogue
Riding home in the car with Don Russell, enjoying the smell of the autumn night and not so much the smell of Russell three hours after eating at Los Dos Hermanos (a smell I’ve come to think of as “chili schnapps”) we discussed the candidates. Being perpetually disappointed by humankind, we were a properly disappointed, but at the same time, things could be worse. At least people showed up, they interacted, they talked about things we all care about. It’s what we enjoy most about democracy (representative republicanism).
*There was a sidebar conversation and I missed the actual asking of the question.
** Hardeman got less than 95% of the vote. Heather Foster, running unopposed for Clerk Recorder got over 99% and even the district attorney, Larry Allen got over 97%. How do you piss off more people than the DA?
