Good Day For Hutchens; Embarassing Day For Board of Supes
Posted by: Jubal | 06/10/2008 2:07 PM
I arrived back at Casa de Jubal a while ago from the historic Board of Supervisors meeting that accomplished two firsts: the first time in county history the Board of has appointed a Sheriff, and the OC's first woman Sheriff.Obviously, it was a good day for Sheriff-designate Sandra Hutchens. There's no question in my mind Santa Ana Chief Paul Walters was the better choice, but Hutchens is the one who garnered three votes. Since she's going to be the Sheriff, it's in Orange County's interest that she succeed, and I hope she'll successfully meet the challenges ahead.
On the other hand, it was an embarrassing day for the Board of Supervisors -- or rather, the three who voted for Hutchens. I urge readers to watch the online archive video of the vote when it's available later tonight. Peggy Lowe and Steve Greenhut have already recorded their observations on this sham.
The mantra during the sheriff selection process was this was an opportunity to make a merit appointment and take the politics out of the Sheriff's office.
Yet, ironically, the Board majority today made a completely political selection -- and went into contortions attempting to evade public accountability
They Are Women, Hear Them Roar
The reality, which no one really likes to say out loud, is this was a gender-driven appointment. When Sandra Hutchens made the final cut with Walters, the California Women's Leadership Association geared up to lobby for Hutchens. That wouldn't have happened if Hutchens had been a man, and if CWLA hadn't mobilized I've no doubt it would have been a 4-1 vote for Paul Walters.
But mobilize the CWLA did and rolled through Supervisors Bates and Nguyen like German Panzers through the Ardennes Forest. And instead of a defiant "Nuts!" they cried "Uncle!"
Score a big win for the CWLA, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking Bates and Nguyen cast their votes out of a conviction Hutchens was better qualified to be Sheriff than Walters. In my opinion, they were simply unable to withstand the CWLA's intense lobbying effort.
The Silence of the Lambs
One of the most striking aspects of the vote was reticence with which Bates, Nguyen and Moorlach chose Hutchens.
Supervisors Chris Norby and Bill Campbell articulated compelling, well-reasoned and thought-out reasons why they considered Walters to be the better candidate. They strongly believed in their choice and weren't afraid to voice their reasons.
Moorlach, Nguyen and Bates, in contrast, were practically mute. Janet didn't provide any insight into her support for Hutchens. In fact, she had more praise for Walters. Pat Bates strained credulity by contending Walters and Hutchens were exactly even in their qualifications, and then tossed out the fig-leaf of "regional policing experience" as a rationale for her vote.
John Moorlach, who is rarely at a loss for words, gave no explanation of his support for Hutchens until after her appointment was a fait accompli. Even then, all he really said is his office got a lot of calls and they ran 50-50 between Hutchens and Walters.
Let me put it this way: if the Supervisors had been arguing their case before a jury, it would have been a unanimous verdict for Walters -- that's how weak Moorlach, Bates and Nguyen's arguments (if they qualify as such) were.
Now, if a Supervisor is proud of the choice they've made for Sheriff and the reasons for which he or she made that choice, they should have no compunction about explaining them to the public. And since this is the single most important appointment any of these Supervisors will make, they owe it to the public to give their reasons in that open forum.
Lord knows Supervisor Norby tried valiantly but vainly to extract some reasons from them. He practically begged them to try and persuade him. Their refusal to oblige him in the slightest speaks volumes.
Three Short Straws
The hinkiest part of the whole charade was the attempt to select the sheriff via a secret straw vote.
Chairman John Moorlach first voiced his desire to have a straw vote prior to a formal vote -- which Norby promptly ignored and made a motion to appoint Paul Walters, which was seconded by Bill Campbell.
Then, Janet Nguyen, reading from a prepared statement (what a shocker) called for having a straw vote in which the supervisors wrote their choice down on a piece of paper at the same time and handed them to the Clerk -- as if this were the Final Jeopardy round, and not the Board of Supervisors. Apparently, she was so confident in the correctness of her choice that she wanted to voice it in secret.
Pat Bates chimed in that this was a terrific idea.
Not that the three of them had worked this out ahead of time or anything.
But why a straw poll?
A non-binding straw poll would make it clear Hutchens had the votes, and hopefully lead Campbell or Norby or both to be team players and make it unanimous.
Otherwise, you have an official 3-2 vote -- meaning Bates, Nguyen and Moorlach would each be the deciding vote for Hutchens. And if this appointment goes south, then each of themm would be on the hook.
With a 5-0 vote, everyone -- and therefore, no one -- is at fault. That's especially helpful to say, Janet Nguyen, when she explains to the police chiefs and elected officials in her district why she voted against their preference for Sheriff.
All in all, today's Board vote was one of the most embarrassing displays of political wimpiness I have seen in a long time.
So congratulations again to Sandra Hutchens. Best of luck to you.
CATEGORY:
OC's Next Sheriff, The 5th Floor
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
To borrow from a running Rush Limbaugh joke, I guess Hillary isn't the only one with a testicle lockbox.
Amen, Jubal!
Bates/Moorlach/Nguyen didn't exactly run from their support of Hutchens, but they sure didn't want to talk about it.
The straw vote charade was idiotic to be sure, but at the end of the day, I think the Supes made the right choice between the two finalists.
For people making the "right choice" they sure didn't want to talk about it.
Kudos to you Matt for this piece!
This whole charade was a sham and the silence exhibited by the 3 Hutchens supporters speaks loudly.
Janet has once again turned her back on the wants and desires of the very folks she claims to represent. She ignored pleas from the law enforcement officials, elected officials and most of the residents of the first district with her vote today.
Way to go all you folks that helped Janet or sat on the sidelines and let her have a cakewalk of a reelection. It's gonna be a long 4 years before we can take her out.
I think there is a parallel to the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, which pitted an especially well qualified and experienced candidate (Clinton/Walters) against a newcomer and outsider who represented change (Obama/Hutchens). In both cases the candidate that was most representative of dramatic change--a desire for a fresh start--won. (Full disclosure: I wrote a note to the BOS supporting Paul Walters).
I can't speak for why the supervisors were so silent on Hutchens - she certainly has outstanding qualifications for the job. This was an unusual situation in which there were two outstanding candidates, but not equal. For me, I think the reasons to select Hutchens begin with the fact that she is not an orange county political insider. her independence will be very important to a sherriff's department that for as long as I can remember has been plagued by favoritism, 'old boy networks and political power plays. Not that Paul Walters necessarily would do the same -- but given the history of the department I think a new face with no baggage is the best choice.
Second, the policing issues in Santa Ana are a lot different from those throughout the county. I think it's better to have someone who has a larger point of reference than just one city.
Third, the county jail is a lot bigger and more complex than running a relativly small city jail. hutchens has experience in this area that Walters can't match.
I like Paul Walters, I voted for him when he first ran against Carona and I hope he will stay in Santa Ana. And, frankly, this isn't a lifetime appointment. If Walters, or any of the other candidates want to run when Carona's term is up -- more power to them.
Bates & Nguyen voted for Police Chief Hutchens for the historical value of advancing a woman. Incorrect thinking, but understandable.
The question is why Moorlach? You are right Jubal, an explanation would have been helpful. Now we are all left to our come to our own conclusions. Is it possible Moorlach wanted a Sherriff who he could defeat in 2010? Having been unable to advance his candidate, why not vote for the one defeat? Its unlikely the public will be as enamored with the 'woman factor' as the Supervisors. It will be interesting if Moorlach, who historically witholds endorsements until they are meaningless, comes out early on the Sherriff race in '10.
Orange County has turned into a microcosm of the United States, where, it would seem voters want mediocrity in positions where leadership is needed. Like Obama on the left and McCain....on the left, Hutchens was not appointed because of her experience. Nor was it because of her proven track record of service. No, Hutchens was appointed because of her gender.
I hope that voters in Orange County deliver an abject lesson the the board this next voting cycle. They need to be shown what happens to politicians who forsake the will of the people in order to forward their personal, self-serving agendas....
Tim Hirota
Santa Ana
Tim,
If Paul Walters got the nod, would it have been because of his gender?
No Fred. It would have been because he is more qualified than she is.
No one, with a straight face, can honestly say that Sandra Hutchens would have been appointed today is she were a man.
I am in shock. The most conservative OC Board of Supervisors has made an affirmative action appointment for sheriff. Unbelievable.
Cassie DeYoung, call your office.
Today was a train wreck. Where is the transparency? The promise that we are going to conduct the selection in the open was a joke. There was the same intrigue, lobbying, and backroom deals as always. Heck folks wanted to pass around a piece of paper to write down their votes so they didn't haven't discuss their public votes in public.
However this will be a historic day......not because a female sheriff was appointed but because the Board of Supes acted like the biggest bunch of bozos since the bankruptcy.
Jubal, you shouldn't carry water for "liberaloc" blogger Sean H. Mill.
Sean H. Mill's anti-Nguyen bias is totally blatant! He's been blogging for weeks for Hoa Van Tran and now he's already made Jose Solorio in 2012 his one-man battle cry!
Supervisor Nguyen suggested that the board members cast their vote by ballot so that their votes would be simultaneous - so that no supervisor could cue off of the previous votes of a role call.
Simple. Transparent. With every supervisor writing their name to their vote.
It was clear that Supervisor Norby's aggressive motion made from the outset disrupted Chairman Moorlach's intended procedure.
Most in the audience seemed to think that the fix was in and that there was a script that the supervisors would be reading from.
It's almost humorous to read that some people are upset that the supervisors voted their conscience and didn't coordinate their votes and their motions.
What I saw was a board that was conducting their business in public - and that's what it should be all about. Once the vote was done and a majority was established, why would the three in the majority go on to each explain their votes at length? The issue was already decided and it was time to move on with a lengthy budget meeting ahead of them.
Well done, they did the right thing.
Congratulations Sandra Hutchens, you'll make a great sheriff!
It was a tough decision for the Supervisors. The Walters supporters had knocked out anyone they thought could compete with their candidate, namely Martin or Anderson, in the first round. They thought the game was over. The political stunt backfired. It seemed, how would you say; too political. Once the supervisors whittled it down to two candidates which did not include Martin or Anderson it became a "anyone but Walters" race. I am not taking away anything form either candidate when I say the public wanted a clean break from the past. Sandra Hutchens was that clean break. She is sharp, bright and well qualified for the job. Her best political connections were that she had none.
My hats off to all the candidates who jumped into the ring. Especially Jack Anderson who did a great job running the department during this tough time. Congratulations Sheriff Hutchens.
Warlock needs an outsider that won't stand up for the toops as he takes away their promised pensions and continues to increase the ones he will collect as a supervisor. He's the Tricky Dick of Orange County, Coconutz!
Two of the three males on the Board voted for Walters. Was that because he is a male? There seems to be a double standard. I guess Supervisor Moorlach is the only one who can't be accused of sexism.
Get off Walters was teh better choice. Hutchens worked the jails as a Deputy, Sergeant, and Lieutenant. She knows more about the jails then Walters ever will. Walters is an interim chief who runs a bed and breakfast tyope jail. Like Norby said, it s a city jail, not a COUNTY jail. Many more things are intertwined in a county jail. State inmate tranpsort and so forth. Walters jail is for sentenced inmates of less then a year and the arresttes. See what your not use to in OC, like in LA. All cities have their own jail. They book into it, and then transport to COUNTY. Hutchens is far superior to walters. Who not to mention is in financial ruins of debt.
The choice has been made, the half-life to the mootness of these discussions is rapid.
However, your dismissal of the Santa Ana Jail as a bed-and-breakfast is just plain ignorant. it is much more than that. many of the prisoners stay much longer than that. And there is a big difference from simply working in a jail and building a state-of-the-art one from the ground up, and with creative financing to boot.If you have to rely on halt-truth and untruth to advance your candidate, you don;'t have a very strong case to begin with.
The less qualified candidate got the job because she is a woman. That's the political reality of what happened yesterday, so own up to it.
I wonder why Paul Walters failed to get the Marshalls, LAPD, and Riverside jobs and various Sacramento appointments he lobbied for. I figure its the background check every time, or sexism!.
Spine transplant:
Cassie De Young? I voted for Bates (and even volunteered for her) rather than Cassie, because of Cassie's awful "Terrible Tunnel" campaign.
Bates has me regretting it, big time. But De Young? I'd rather that she have run against Harkey.
No, I take it back. Then Harkey might have run for BOS. We're safer with her very far away.
But then, Harkey will come back one day (like Bates did). And she'll run for something. BOS? Congress? No, Mimi has dibs on that.
That's it. I'm moving to Del Mar with the Del Martians.
Jubal, yes some of the inmates stay there longer. They house misdemenaor inmates who are sentenced. Big Deal, it's a bed and breakfast compared to county jail. Deal with it. So Hutchens got the job because shes a women, Hmmm you are referring to the two female votes for her. So are we to assume, Walters got votes because he is a male. And if he had benn give the nod, would it be because he's a male. Since the two males voted for him. Your statemtns are foolish and realize one thing, Walters had big issues in his background, and he is not s superior canandiate to Hutchens. Santa ana has waht 300 officers or maybe less. Come on, small time compared to what Hutches commanded.
Hutches will not be beat in 2010, everyone will rally around her. Walters will be like 70 by then, Retire enjoy yourself, oops he cant' he's a financila wreck. It's over, move on. Hutches comes froma more progressive department then walters, bigger, more invovled with contract cities, county jails, politics and so forth. No comparison.
Rich:
Drag your straw man over to the post I wrote today.
So, tell me Rich. Did you see Walters' background report? If so, how? If his background is what you think killed his appointment, why did Moorlach say nothing about it when challenged by Norby? Why did Norby and Campbell continue, steadfastly, to support Walters? If something detrimental came up in his background investigation he would have lost their support. C'mon and admit it, you don't know what you are talking about, do you?
to Jim Ringheimer As someone who has worked for the Sheriffs Depratment for over 20 years ANDERSON did a TERRIBLE running the Department as far as Rank&File was concerned. He only did everything he could to please Moorlach and S**** Rank&File. Thankg Goodness we have someone who has Leadership ability something Anderson was Severly lacking. Good riddance
To Fred Smoller:
No. it would not be "gender" if Walters had been selected. It would have been "more qualified".
The problem here, as with "affirmative action", racial quotas, etc., is that "qualified" has nearly nothing to do the decision.
Last time I checked (with The Constitution), choosing a person BECAUSE of their gender does NOT mean "equality". It means that that white male (in Walter's case) was discriminated against.
Tim