Candidates' Night Yuba

Candidates’ Night in D’ville.

This candidates’ night report is all about me.

That’s because most of the candidates were bright enough to learn a lot from the first candidates’ night. It wasn’t as easy to create two graduated scales and simply rate the candidates that way.

Therefore, I’ll provide no pretense at objectivity and simply report the event as I saw it.

The first thing I noticed is how great the Yuba Theater is. There is just something comfortable about the place, and I wondered how it must have been with no electronic amplification, with the actors and other folks shouting out their words. The theater itself has voices when filled with people, a festive murmuring of creaks and squeaks. The curtains are so dark red and rich the color is almost palpable, and they harmonize perfectly with the well-worn wood. It wasn’t hard to imagine the place filled with drunken miners, particularly since there were some drunken miners present. We should never stop thanking the County and the Yuba Theater folks for keeping the place open and alive.

Likewise the county Dems did a great job of organizing, especially for Democrats. Bill Copren was moderator. Folks who know Bill know he can march through a meeting like freaking Sherman, but this was the other Bill Copren, relaxed, mellow, and very humorous.

All things considered, this was a very different candidates’ night from the Republicans and Holy Jesus over in Loyalton. That is not to disparage either the organization or the venue of that first event; it was a test by fire for the candidates beneath the stern gaze of Our Lord and the nonsenseless questioning of the Loyalton Repubs, and it revealed a lot about the candidates. This was altogether a more subtle event. There were a hundred and twenty people present.

I have one significant criticism of last night’s event: the Repubs fed us in Loyalton. The press, in particular, appreciate that, since we generally make a little too much for food stamps, but not quite enough for food.

Not all candidates were present. Van Maddox and Stan Hardeman were unable to attend, and Scott Schlefstein sent a note thanking everyone and explaining he had a situation of a medical nature.

Smart incumbents run unopposed!

Those incumbent candidates running unopposed took the stand. They told all the things they do, and let everyone know it’s good to run unopposed and great to be the incumbent. Two of the candidates are appointees, and this is their first election, but they were still far more relaxed and much less heavily armed than those candidates in combat. Laura Marshall knows the special world of Sierra County taxes better than anyone alive who doesn’t habitually retire. Stephanie Levings is blatantly over-qualified to work in Sierra County but still will. Heather Foster manages the Board of Supervisors and reminds voters they need to register before May 24. Here’s my suggestion: some of these candidates are top drawer, and the rest are not too bad for a county this size. Vote for them.

All candidates spent a lot of time telling us a lot of stuff we don’t remember about what they’ve done in their lives. Go to their websites or read their pamphlets and then think back to how you’ve padded your resumes over the years and decide if any of that will make you vote for one or the other.

Judicial

The judges took the stand first. All judges were much more polished this time and each took a few moments to tell of themselves. They all have a lifetime of law experience.

Ingrid Larson, who has run a lackluster campaign, did surprisingly well, even though she banged out a string of clichés as the statement for her candidacy: she’s "nuts and bolts, cut to the chase and get to the bottom line". I nearly warned her, "one more cliché and I’ll find you in contempt of the press."

Still, Larson brought up some good points, including the fact that she’s been in the county practicing as an attorney for nine years, though she was also a grocer during that time.

I do not consider Ms. Larson a likely winner, which is too bad in a way because she is just quirky enough to be a good judge for this county. She’s simply up against too many people who want it more. Further, though she stressed how being a grocer would make her a good judge, I’m not clear how that would work, beyond stiffer penalties for squeezing the Charmin.

Next up was Prouty. Of all the candidates, he has the best experience for the position. His history includes criminal, family, civil and the "special" civil, child welfare. Prouty is well liked by many court staff in Sierra and Plumas counties. He has a pleasant physical demeanor and his hair is like silver Cool Whip. Prouty went well over time, nearly ignoring TimeKeeper Mckechnie to finish his presentation. Prouty has to be considered a strong contender, even though he hasn’t done well in Prospect reader votes. If we had to guess, we’d expect that Prouty would lose votes to Larson on the West Side.

Archer was the next to make a pitch. Archer is a competent attorney and a hell of a decent guy. He is without pretense and from his presentation he is patient and methodical. He has a variety of practice, and states we should vote for him because of core values of respect, civility, honesty and sincerity. Archer certainly has those things, and they are great in a neighbor and even an attorney, but are they enough to be judge? Larson has practiced law in Sierra County the longest but Archer has been practicing in the area much longer, and he’s worked for many county residents, particularly on the East Side.

Personally, I don’t think Archer is the judge we need, though if I needed an attorney he’d probably be my pick of the candidates (at least until I wrote this) but the position of judge needs more of a researcher than I think Archer is. I will agree, he’s probably the least pretentious and most down home of the candidates. I expect Archer to do well on the East Side.

Finally Ervin took the podium. Ervin has done primarily civil law, and indeed has been a personal injury attorney, what some like to call an "ambulance chaser." This summons such iconic attorneys as Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons, or Bob Loblaw from "Arrested Development."

But, Ervin’s experience actually gives me pause to consider how it might benefit the county. His legal experience has been helping people. Not everyone who files an injury suit is trying to get something for nothing, if it weren’t for this system of law in our society, corporations would still be putting formaldehyde in milk. Further, personal injury law is the cage fighting of civil law, often similar to working for spec. It often requires a workhorse and a keen researcher to prevail.

Ervin had what I felt to be the most sophisticated approach. He also used a cliché, "one size doesn’t fit all" but he described, correctly, I thought, that a judge needs to be creative, that the law has to be made to fit reality, and a judge has to use the "corners" of the law to fit a small community. Personally, if there was one single thing I want the judge to know, it’s that. The other candidates might know that, but they didn’t express it as well as Ervin.

Ervin has worked hard, and been all over the county. He’s given away beef, has strong ties to Sierra City and an office in Loyalton. Ervin might find votes from the county as a whole.

The candidates were asked about their support of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is an amazing and frustrating tool in California governance, and it particularly annoys legal professionals. County responses to grand juries are often cursory and in some cases the courts stiff the GJ or worse, try to run them. Still, properly used, grand juries are a powerful tool for citizens to correct government. The legal official the Grand Jury must work through if they wish to issue an inditement is the D.A.; however, grand juries are composed of lay people, and the judge is assumed to provide some insight to the jurors.

All of the candidates indicated an understanding of what grand juries do, all noted the GJ's need for guidance and focus. All voiced some subtle concern about what a runaway grand jury can do. Ervin promised the chair of the GJ would have access to him; Archer noted the need for consistency; Prouty clarified the need of education of GJ members and keeping them "focused" (by which we assume he refers to the tendency for lay GJ members to over-step their authority); Larson agreed with educating and keeping them focused and allowed as to how she’s never been on a grand jury.

A question was pitched about the recent "anti-brown person" act passed in Arizona.

It wasn’t a fair question, but it did help separate the sheep from the goats, so I’ll allow it.

Archer said the law was a loud statement. He allowed it wasn’t for him to comment on law in Arizona, but I can’t imagine why not, a law in another state is the perfect opportunity for a judge to have a public opinion which couldn’t prejudice a case. He was modestly clear that such laws might endanger equal protection and spoke against profiling.

Prouty stated that a judge takes an oath to uphold the law, but did not explain how the oath of a superior court judge in Sierra County California forced the administration of Arizona law. He stated serious constitutional issues were involved, and I would have listened if he’d clearly explained what he thought they were.

Larson said she was glad it’s in Arizona and not California, noted that probable cause was at risk, and promised to uphold only California laws.

Ervin, like Archer, noted that people were frustrated by the day’s circumstances. He stated that people are frustrated and when they are frustrated they do unwise things. He, too, noted there were serious constitutional issues, but did not enumerate.

When asked about their criminal, civil and family law experience in the last five years, the candidates said:

Prouty; criminal, civil, family, and CWS.

Larson; civil, but I’ll learn criminal if elected.

Ervin: civil, but he would be a fresh face.

Archer: civil, but before that more criminal.

If there were a "winner" of the judicial event, I’d give it to Ervin. He gave the most sophisticated answers, and I give him credit for having the best "legal mind". Maybe I’m wrong, it might just be the suit. Still, Ervin has worked hard in the county, has strong ties to Sierra City and a sound footing and an office in Loyalton. He might pull votes from all over the county. The candidates are attorneys, they could be expected to speak in public under stressful conditions without fear of "public speaking paralysis" yet Ervin seemed to me to be the most in control of himself and the least affected by the limelight.

I’d have to give him the prize for the night. The ballot box, though, might go a different way.

All of the judicial candidates believe in integrity, honesty, and experience, so we are denied the opportunity to elect a judge who lies, cheats, is a philanderer and has never really practiced law. Denny Crane.

Supervisors:

District 5 Supervisorial candidate Scott Schlefstein was unable to make the event, which left three candidates. The Dems treated them all the same, and when they approached the table Peter Huebner sat, and Karen Rickman sat next to him like a rose between thorns, leaving Sloan to sit on the other side of her. Thus, any fistfights or gunplay between Huebner and Sloan was avoided.

There was still plenty of action, though.

The judicial race is peopled with gentlefolk. The supervisor and sheriff races are more spirited.

Todd Sloan is, by any measure, an interesting person. Listening to his history, one comes to appreciate what a busy guy he’s been. He campaigned for Prop 13 in Northern California, he’s been a news editor, a professional auctioneer, a cop, and was the chair of the Sacramento joint Chamber of Commerce, and is a licensed pilot.

One wonders why, with all this experience, he speaks such wild nonsense about government.

At a time when the rest of the state is realizing that term limits didn’t accomplish what was hoped, Sloan wants to limit Huebner’s term because he’s given nearly 12 years of excellent service.

Sloan feels he has the personality to set the Forest Service straight on a few things. At one point he said the Forest Service "needs to be dealt with."

He isn’t way wrong in spirit, we all feel that way. But, Sloan forgot to look on a map and see how big the Forest Service is and how small Sierra County and even Todd Sloan is.

To be sure, Sloan says a lot of things that are easy to agree with. This time he was clear that he supported government jobs and he understands the county would disappear without them, but he has in the past expressed a sentiment a lot of people agree with: government jobs aren’t enough, we need private sector jobs.

The problem is, Sloan has quit or won’t attend those groups which provide the networking the county needs.

Times are very hard, Sierra County is only a tiny part of a big world. You can’t simply become a supervisor and be a blowhard and expect things to get better, it’s been tried before, not that long ago.

Getting anything for the county takes hard, patient work.

Karen Rickman spoke next. Rickman knows public finance, and finance in general. She did not have to face her opponent, Scott Schlefstein, but was polished and ready. She spoke about her ability to work with others and her skill with complex governmental systems. She believes she brings a record of proficiency and professionalism to the job.

Rickman’s contest with Schlefstein has been a tough one; some feel Schlefstein has had an advantage because he is a writer and speaks fairly well. Rickman made good use of her time, making a strong case for her experience in government. However, it is not known how many District 5 voters were present in the Yuba Theater that night.

Huebner spoke last. He has a demonstrable record serving the county, including his membership of numerous committees. He’s a volunteer firefighter, serves on the county Fire Safe and Watershed Council and has been very instrumental in getting the fuel needed for the Cogen plant. Huebner has been a hard worker to keep the county networking with other small counties.

Question: how to deal with decisions which anger district supporters but are in the best interest of the whole county?

Rickman: education; she would educate her district to the greater need. Good answer.

Huebner: do just as he’s always done. His district is so large, including Verdi and bits around Loyalton as well as Sierra City, that he has to consider the whole county.

Sloan: we have a real problem with solid waste. The discussion has been put off until after the election, but etc.

Question: what have you done to volunteer in the last 2 years?

Huebner: Lions club, Fire Department, Fire Safe Council, and so on.

Sloan: He retired from several committees.

Rickman: Helped with Rotary picnic, Sierra County Health Coalition.

The question was asked, what would you do or have you done to improve economic viability?

Sloan would hog-tie the Forest Service and make them cough up something good for the county.

Rickman would engage the community, as with the Prop 40 money.

Huebner was able to point to things he’d done. He has worked to develop and maintain the Downieville bike race and worked to support tourism. His contributions to our biomass supply have ensured at least 50 jobs with the Cogen plant and associated industries.

Closing statements:

Huebner: I’ll continue to work for you as I always have.

Rickman: Sierra County has tough times ahead, but she’s up to the challenge.

Sloan: (tears down Huebner’s ad, bringing boos from the audience; complains about "SP" meaning, we think, SPI, Sierra Pacific Industries. Again, he’s right, but again, look at the map.)

The race between the District 2 incumbent Peter Huebner and challenger Todd Sloan was indicated by the amount and quality of applause. There is no way to know how Verdi voters would vote, but Huebner has helped the fire department there and is known by residents. Sloan would have had to burn a lot of gas to make up the difference there. Sierra City voters were represented in the Theater, and their response is clear: Huebner is going to get another term.

The race for District 5 is tougher to gage, and I won’t even guess. Rickman has recommendations from many government people, Schlefstein counts as supporters judges and the PI Group, the largest group of private investigators in the world. Both are demonstrably bright, hard working people. I know people in the district who swear Rickman is going to enjoy an easy victory, and others who say they know almost enough voters to be sure it will be Schlefstein. In Prospect voter polls Rickman has won, but the great majority of voters haven’t been eligible to vote in District 5. Rickman enjoys strong support outside the District, but Schlefstein is philosophically closer to many in the district. This is a race to put money on, if you like the thrill of the field.

Sheriff:

The race for sheriff is a lively race. John Evans, the incumbent, has been the target of criticism from the other two candidates, as is typical. He can scarcely criticize them, since they have not yet been sheriff.

Evans spoke first, making a bad choice to talk about "pound for pound the best sheriff Sierra County has ever had," one of his ad slogans which was shortened to "the best sheriff" which no one can claim as long as Lee Adams is alive.

Evans spoke about Tim Standley and John Fatheree, his challengers, and stated they were both good cops and good family men. He said he’s worked with Standley for 20 years and Fatheree for 10. He spoke about the problems of the deficit, $250,000 which arose when the substation was built. He talked about how hard times and government cut backs have made it difficult to do the training and hire the staff he’d like. Still, he referred to the many things he’s accomplished, which are found in this newspaper; the link is on the front page.

Standley was next. He had benefited greatly from the first event, and he was more confident and perhaps better dressed. He stated he’d worked as a miner and logger before becoming a deputy. He’s only worked in Sierra County, and only ever wants to work here. He stated that morale was a problem in the department and the black and white cars cost too much.

Fatheree was a cop in the Air Force and after working 10 years in Sierra County he left to work in Plumas. He is a changed cop after being in Plumas, where there is more training. He complained about the extra money for the black paint on the cop cars, and stated he was running to return the SCSO back to its former state.

Then some questions seemed to be aimed at Evans:

How would you foster a cohesive team and better morale?

Fatheree: Sheriff sets the tone, and gets buy-in from the team. Generally it seems he believes that if he acts in a professional and efficient manner, others will, too.

Standley: He agrees with Fatheree. If he were elected he would go to each team member.

Evans: Morale is an issue, and he doesn’t have the support of the all deputies that he’d like, but he is working all he can. He isn’t a desk jockey, he works too. The budget makes it hard. It’s easy for others to say what they might do, but only he has been the sheriff.

Next Question: What are the 2 biggest problems for law enforcement?

Standley: Alcoholism, meth, domestic violence and theft.

Evans: Meth is actually down thanks to Detective Fisher, since the department is cracking down on crank. Prescription drugs are a big problem because everyone has them.

Fatheree: Drug use, illegal Mexican pot grows, prescription drugs use, lack of drug education in the schools, theft which needs more visible deputies.

Last Question: What steps have/will you take to standardize service levels for residents and visitors?

Evans: There is a Standard Operating Procedures manual to ensure continuity. Alleghany and Verdi are far away.

Fatheree: Will bring training to SC.

Standley: Sheriff’s office is short staffed, he’d hire the approved position.

The Tally:

Evans is the incumbent, and has been putting in a lot of boot time meeting people. His signs are everywhere. The most damning accusations against him are that he squandered a few thousand bucks of grant money on badges and paint, he hasn’t hired anyone, and he hasn’t been giving the training he should have been. He has been short funded.

Fatheree is very professional, and seems to have more of the deputies supporting him. They’re just a few people, though, not enough to get him elected. He has also been putting in time with residents, and he has managed to put up a sign alongside most of Evans’s signs. He’s obviously happy in Plumas County, though, and not everyone is sure they want a more efficient, more military sheriff’s office. Many people I’ve talked to assume the deputies will be unhappy under Fatheree, too.

Standley is an enigma. He is running against Evans for many of the same reasons Fatheree is, but his candidacy is more likely to take votes from Fatheree than from Evans. It isn’t hard to imagine Standley as sheriff, and a good one. In this race, he simply doesn’t have a clear enough platform or the physical presence of the other two candidates.

I’m going to call the race for Evans. If this were the first race for both Fatheree and Evans, I might have called it for Fatheree, but Evans simply hasn’t been a bad enough sheriff to be fired, and there is the general feeling Fatheree would find the job harder than he thought, and in four years he might well sound like Evans sounds now: there isn’t enough money, and not enough people, for everyone to get trained as we’d like.

Good luck to everyone, and much respect for having the courage to put yourselves out there and run for office.

Let’s see what happens!