Local GOP hears DA candidates offer their sides
James Faulk The Times-Standard
04/14/2006 05:01:00 AM PDT
EUREKA — Scores of Humboldt County Republicans heard two Democrats battle for the title of Humboldt County District Attorney Thursday night at OH's Townhouse.
The forum, put on by the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee, featured a broad range of questions posed both by the crowd, as well as a bevy of local attorneys.
During the debate, challenger and deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman tried to pin his boss and incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos down with accusations of poor leadership and bad decisions.
Gallegos, meanwhile, defended a record that he said has seen crime drop substantially across the board while dealing with budget cuts and staff reductions.
While the occasional barbs were cast, light moments dotted the hour and 15 minute exchange, such as when one questioner recognized the irony of two Democrats speaking before a crowd of mostly Republicans.
“Which of you is the least Democrat?”
The office of District Attorney is non-partisan.
Dikeman started the evening off with a salvo that attacked Gallegos' initial lack of experience and what Dikeman claimed was his relative lack of success since.
Gallegos doesn't understand how to recruit and keep attorneys, and he doesn't understand how to work with the other branches of government, Dikeman said.
He touted his Vietnam service and his long career as a prosecutor, saying he wanted to put his talents to work to make Humboldt County a safer place to live.
Gallegos said in the three years he's been in office, crime has dropped while his department has dealt with staffing cuts and budget constraints. He also said he's worked to modernize an office that used to keep its records on index cards.
Violent crime has gone down and prison commitments have gone up, he said.
“I'm proud of what we've done,” he said.
The candidates barely differed on some questions, such as how to treat the prosecution of marijuana cases given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision that federal law supersedes state laws on the drug.
Both also agreed that there is no need for a police review board, but for differing reasons.
Gallegos said that as long as there is distance between the District Attorney's Office and area law enforcement agencies, then the office could be trusted to play an oversight role.
That's why the district attorney has to be independent, he said.
Dikeman agreed there was no need for such a board, because there are various mechanisms in place to make sure that police officers play by the rules. But he later scoffed at Gallegos assertion of distance, and said his boss was out of touch with the area's rank-and-file cops.
One of the biggest differences of the night came in each candidates assessment of the fraud case that was brought by the office against Pacific Lumber Co.
“We have evidence that they committed fraud,” Gallegos said. If not, there never would have been a case, he said.
Dikeman said the issue was originally brought forward by a special interest group, and that the office's own investigative team had concluded there was no fraud, only negligence.
“And yet they filed (the case) anyway,” he said.
Another question asked if it was normal for a District Attorney's Office to pursue such long and expensive civil cases.
Gallegos stood by the Palco suit and his choices.
“It is important and it would be wrong to not prosecute a business because it is expensive and time consuming,” he said.
Dikeman said that if an office has the resources, then absolutely.
But he questioned Gallegos' priorities in a time of tight budgets, saying that the incumbent promised to make violent crime his top priority but immediately put the office's highest paid attorney at the head of a new economic crime unit.
***
Listen to audio from debate
Download mp3s
Part 1 :: Part 2 :: Part 3 :: Part 4 :: Part 5
Watch Video (link is no longer active, but the video was available online for a long time)
No comments:
Post a Comment