Moorlach: "Why I Voted For Sandra Hutchens"
Posted by: Jubal | 06/11/2008 9:51 AM
This is from Supervisor John Moorlach's "Moorlach report" e-newsletter that just came over the transom. Better late than never, but as Steve Greenhut pointed out, why couldn't he have said all this before the vote to appoint Hutchens? It's not as if Supervisor Norby didn't practically beg the appointing majority to make more than a desultory, pro forma case for Hutchens:
But a couple of John's assertions are simply untethered from reality:
1) "She was not being crammed down our throats by any Board office or interest group" and "She was not pushed by any group of individuals" and "And she did not rely on a power base to get her over the top."
Maybe John was in cloister during the last week and didn't notice the California Women's Leadership Association ferocious lobbying effort on Hutchens behalf. Janet Nguyen and Pat Bates sure noticed it.
2) Sandra is removed from the political machinations in the County.
That statement ignores the overtly political dynamic that led to Hutchens appointment. There's this miasma of phoniness enshrouding the Board majority's decision. People who know better are pretending -- or at least, unwilling to acknowldge -- that Hutchens received the two votes that made her as a result of a political, gender-driven lobbying campaign. Everyone knows it was happening. But few are willing to admit it.
Steve Greenhut posted his response to Moorlach's e-mail here.
UPDATE (6/12/08): I forgot this reason Moorlach stated for supporting Hutchens:
"She was not coached by political consultants."
I suppose that depends on how you define political consultants, including those leading the charge for her in lobbying the Board.
She definitely had PR consultants. On the evening of May 19, Newport Beach-based Echo Media PR e-mailed me a press release entitled "OC's First Female Sheriff?"
It went on to say:
And we're still waiting to hear about those "exciting plans" for changing the jail system.
Why I Voted For Sandra Hutchens
After interviewing both Chief Hutchens and Chief Paul Walters for about an hour and a half each, my staff unanimously felt that Chief Hutchens made an overall stronger impression as a potential Sheriff.
The County would have been well served with either choice. I felt Sandra was the better candidate.
Overall, Sandra is strong and ethical. She will be able to command the respect of the staff of the department and their union representatives. And she will gain the public's trust.
Sandra strikes a balance between being an insider and an outsider. Her varied career with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the nation's largest, provides her with the intricate knowledge of the workings of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, including its jails.I, for one, do not believe the CWLA's offensive had any impact on John's vote for Hutchen's. I strongly disagree with his decision, but O've no doubt he made up his own mind for his own reasons.
Having a total career in the Sheriff's Department makes her keenly aware of all the aspects involved in such an operation and allows her to bring true reform to the jails. She came up through the ranks and worked in the jails as a line staff member to a supervisor to a manager. As much as people have touted the need for jail reform, her experience is far greater than operating a much smaller city jail that cannot be compared to the county jail system. She understands the jails from the bottom up. She fully understands contract city relationships and working with the State's Courts.
She is an expert in Emergency Management and Homeland Security, specialties critical to the position of Sheriff.
By the end of her career she oversaw more employees than Chief Walters does now, which reveals the breadth of her experience.
Sandra is removed from the political machinations in the County.
Although she did not run for the position of Sheriff in an election, she admitted to considering it and applied on the County's website for the position on her own volition. She was not pushed by any group of individuals. She was not coached by political consultants. And she did not rely on a power base to get her over the top. In fact, her friends and colleagues rallied around her once they discovered she was in the mix.
Sandra is unpretentious, unassuming and hands on. This will be a helpful antidote to "America's Sheriff" and the related absentee management-style of the past.
She acknowledges the work of her support staff and is more concerned that others receive the praise.
She has a plan with specific goals and objectives that are quantifiable and measurable. She will strike the balance of acquiring proper data and making appropriate assessments and decisions.
She was at ease during a difficult private interview and confident in her responses.
I felt she had a better position on carrying concealed weapons. Her approach more closely mirrored the current policies and legal standards, which are working well.
She was not being crammed down our throats by any Board office or interest group.
Sandra will do a wonderful job in addressing the culture issues within the department and providing the necessary leadership at the top to restore the shine to this award-winning agency.
With her thoughtful demeanor she will act rationally and thoroughly on turning around the Sheriff's Department. She will not be rash or impetuous.
We have a genuine public safety professional willing to step out of her quiet retirement to address critical issues in the County she calls home.
Once she initiates her action plan and builds a good rapport with the citizens of the County, she will be an incredible candidate for the permanent position.
But a couple of John's assertions are simply untethered from reality:
1) "She was not being crammed down our throats by any Board office or interest group" and "She was not pushed by any group of individuals" and "And she did not rely on a power base to get her over the top."
Maybe John was in cloister during the last week and didn't notice the California Women's Leadership Association ferocious lobbying effort on Hutchens behalf. Janet Nguyen and Pat Bates sure noticed it.
2) Sandra is removed from the political machinations in the County.
That statement ignores the overtly political dynamic that led to Hutchens appointment. There's this miasma of phoniness enshrouding the Board majority's decision. People who know better are pretending -- or at least, unwilling to acknowldge -- that Hutchens received the two votes that made her as a result of a political, gender-driven lobbying campaign. Everyone knows it was happening. But few are willing to admit it.
Steve Greenhut posted his response to Moorlach's e-mail here.
UPDATE (6/12/08): I forgot this reason Moorlach stated for supporting Hutchens:
"She was not coached by political consultants."
I suppose that depends on how you define political consultants, including those leading the charge for her in lobbying the Board.
She definitely had PR consultants. On the evening of May 19, Newport Beach-based Echo Media PR e-mailed me a press release entitled "OC's First Female Sheriff?"
It went on to say:
Good Evening,Very grass-roots. No groups pushing her or consultants helping her or anything like that.
As the only woman vying for the position of Orange County's next sheriff, Sandra Hutchens is poised to become OC's first-ever female appointed to the position.
A Dana Point resident, Hutchens is available to discuss:
■ Problems within OC's current jail system, and Hutchens exciting plans for change
■ Strategies Hutchens will pursue to restore public trust in the position of Sherriff
■ Plans for rectifying the current lack of accountability within the system
■ What it means to be a woman in leadership roles within a largely male-dominated organization
■ and more
A headshot is attached. To schedule an interview, please give me a call. I'm available this evening via cell at 714-458-6306. Otherwise, I will give you a ring tomorrow morning to get your thoughts, and discuss this story.
And we're still waiting to hear about those "exciting plans" for changing the jail system.
CATEGORY:
OC Sheriff's Department
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Can you break the long text in paragraphs nex time...it's very hard to read.
Sorry. It was a formatting error on my part.
Good job, John Moorlach, Pate Bates and Janet Nguyen.
Jubal states, "There's this miasma of phoniness enshrouding the Board majority's decision. People who know better are pretending --or at least, unwilling to acknowldge -- that Hutchens received the two votes that made her as a result of a political, gender-driven lobbying campaign. Everyone knows it was happening. But few are willing to admit it."
...Unreal! What "Everyone knows" is that Paul Walters two votes were a result of the inner-circle club in O.C. Republican politics applying their pressure and influence in an attempt to ensure business as usual.
This time, the bullies couldn't "beat the women into submission," so now Jubal and others are crying, "Foul," kicking and screaming because their man was beaten by a woman - the horror! What a total insult to female voters and us men who know better. To say that Sandra Hutchins was voted for just because she is a woman is nothing short of dispicable and gives us all a glimlpse into the mindset of that small group who fancy themselves the "King makers" in O.C.
John Moorlach, with the help of two ladies, Pat Bates and Janet Nguyen, demonstrated to the usual suspects what testicualr fortitude is in standing up for true change in the compromised power structure of Orange County politics. They were lobbied hard to rubber stamp Walters appointment, but in the end chose the better candidate without the taint of Carona's corrupting influence. It's a new day for Orange County.
What we just witnessed by John, Pat and Janet was ethical governance at work (What's best for the County is more important than what's best for a few). That's the way it's supposed to be. Good job, Ladies and Gentleman!
Semper Fi,
Tim
Tim,
It is no secret that the "Hunt" club was pushing for Hutchens because you folks see her as vulnerable come election time. Please spare us all the praise you are heaping on the 3 board members for their vote yesterday.
Where was this praise when none of them, let me repeat, none of them cast a vote for Bill Hunt?
Nice try at turning this into some kind of "Hutchens opponents are misogynists" baloney, Tim, but your spin bears little-to-no resemblance to the reality of how this appointment happened.
As I've already said several times: I wish Sandra Hutchens every success as our new Sheriff. But let's at least be willing to recognize about how this came about instead of pretending gender had nothing to do with it.
but in the end chose the better candidate without the taint of Carona's corrupting influence.
What taint, Tim?
Sean,
You state, "It is no secret that the "Hunt" club was pushing for Hutchens because you folks see her as vulnerable come election time."
That's the spin of Walters supporters like you. Like I said in a different posting, Bill Hunt never would have ran against Carona if he had been ethical and honorable. Bill has no political ambition; he stood up on behalf of his Department and ran for Sheriff to try to put an end to the culture of corruption in Carona's administration. He WILL NOT run against Sandra Hutchins if she's conducting herself ethically in leading the Department. That's not his style; that's not his ambition.
"Where was this praise when none of them, let me repeat, none of them cast a vote for Bill Hunt?"
There was none, I was madder than hell and I let them know it (did you NOT see my comments?). But, I was not surprised. There were no illusions that Bill was going to get the appointment or even one vote.
Tim
Jubal,
The "taint" is the backroom deal cut between Walters and Carona regarding the endorsement/support in exchange for hiring his son. Insted of doing the right thing by distancing himself from that kind of temptation, he gladly cut a deal with the devil and lied to me about it all along the way.
When Paul Walters compromised in that moment, everything he might have ever stood for as a professional law enforcement officer came crashing down. A Chief of Police - or any peace officer for that matter, has to have integrity above reproach. They wield too much power over the public to accept anything less - EVER.
Tim
Sorry, forgot to type my name in the last one.
"He WILL NOT run against Sandra Hutchins if she's conducting herself ethically in leading the Department. That's not his style; that's not his ambition."
Tim,
I thought Bill Hunt already announced his intention to run in 2010. Am I mistaken?
I agree with you regarding Carona and that is why I voted for Bill Hunt in the last election.
It is strange to hear that Paul Walters, who clearly has never been part of the OC Republican establishment, has morphed into the GOP establishment candidate. I'd be curious to read about that chain of events. By the way, Tim, it's really weird to simultaneously play the sexism card and refer to Supervisors Bates and Nguyen with the archaic term, "ladies." Get with the program. Try using words such as "disenfranchised." It puts you in the right century.
Sean.
Hunt said that durning the interveiws when it was asssumed that Walters and Martin were the top contenders. Hunt has no reason to run against Hutchins. The Supes have cleaned the house.
Sean,
You're partly right. When asked IF he was appointed would he run for re-election in 2010? (All the candidates were asked pretty much the same question). He responded, "Yes."
Tim
Steven,
You and I can have a cigar with something nice to chase it and I will gladly fill in all the blanks for you until it's crystal clear.
Regarding my "archaic" English: I was rasied to be a Gentleman and I try real to be one - for example, I still open and close doors for all disenfranchised female types as often as possible. When I employ the term "Lady or Ladies," it is done so with the highest respect. Some traditions and etiquette should not be so quickly dismissed just because the femanazis say the times have changed.
I still believe there are some women out there who LIKE being treated like a Lady.
Tim
Tim:
I'll take you up on that offer at Kelly's sometime. I already owe Frank a cigar, so it's on me. Glad you're still a gentleman.
The "taint" is the backroom deal cut between Walters and Carona
regarding the endorsement/support in exchange for hiring his son.
Ah yes - the famous backroom deal for which you have never produced a single shred of evidence.
Some "taint."
Tim,
You are disingenuous at best. Everyone within Station 18 knew Hunt wanted to become sheriff. And if your premise is true, that Hunt only desired to run because of the systemic misfeasance within the department, why is he still pursuing the office of sheriff? Are you implying Anderson is a criminal? Are you implying that Hutchens is going to be corrupt as well?
Kinda destroys your Hunt argument, does it not???
Jubal,
Do you REALLY think that I believe you don't know what went on there? A couple of folks you know actually helped arrange the deal! The "taint" is a well-known fact within the law enforcement commmunity.
Can you confirm to me that Paul Walters is NOT a witness in the upcoming Carona trial?
Tim
Although I do agree with Tim that if Hutchens is a successful Sheriff -- and let me emphasize again that I hope she is -- then Hunt will not run in 2010.
Musing,
That's some stretch there, buddy!
Tim
Tim:
The only person from whom I have heard about this alleged "deal" is you. The only substantiation you provide is "it is well known" that it happened.
Tim,
I guess I should feel complimented since your are the king of stretch. But your being crowned king of stretching will be your only coronation. You just ain't the mover & shaker to which you aspire.
Are you denying that Hunt made his 1800 plans known well before Carona was exposed? Are you denying that Hunt was furious of the heir apparent Jaramillo interloping???
Tim Whitacre on June 3rd regarding Sandra Hutchens:
"Not that an out of towner from L.A. who didn’t say one thing about the corruption while it was going on here, is anymore deserving of the appointment. She did get the expected PC female votes which was not surprising, but to even be seriously considered for something you didn’t give a damn about less than a year ago, totally baffles my mind."
Tim Whitacre today, June 11, 2008:
"This time, the bullies couldn't "beat the women into submission," so now Jubal and others are crying, "Foul," kicking and screaming because their man was beaten by a woman - the horror! What a total insult to female voters and us men who know better. To say that Sandra Hutchins was voted for just because she is a woman is nothing short of dispicable and gives us all a glimlpse into the mindset of that small group who fancy themselves the "King makers" in O.C."
Tim has a strange way of distorting his views to achieve his goals. Within one week Tim labeled Sandra Hutchens as nothing more than a PC vote and today he is insulted by those who say the same thing. AMAZING!!!!!
Let's also not rewrite History Tim. According to Frank Mickadeit's column Bill Hunt claimed he met with Mike Carona and had secured his endorsement for Sheriff. Why on earth would he have done that if he though Carona corrupt? It was only after Carona decided to pursue another term that Hunt decided to label him as corrupt. It's okay to admit that Bill wanted to be sheriff Tim. There's no shame in that, but don't try to mislead people into believing it was for benevolent reasons rather than personal ambition. The hypocrisy of that claim is what's alway turned me off to your candidate.
Musing,
You need to change your screen name because you are AWOL in the fact department. Besides which, as I have said before, bashing Hunt is so faux pas. It's like for some creepy reason people out there continue to carry around their bag of tricks when it comes to Hunt's assessment of Carona. It seems to me Carona is going to the big house. Why not let it go?
Hey Green. Just saw your post. There again is just another assumption. That is, that Whitacre speaks for Hunt. It just ain't so. Could be however, that Whitacre, "after talking" to a few people, found out what Hunt really thought and Hunt later said it himself to Peggy at TBuzz. Good investigative technique though.
Rocket, I've seen Tim speak to the board of supervisors (on demand video) on Bill Hunt's behalf. He's also complained rather vehemently about Bill not being selected into the final round during the sheriffs selection. I don't claim that he's Bill's official spokesperson but he sure acts like it.
Rocket,
I am not bashing Hunt. I am refuting Tim. See the difference??? In fact, I have lauded Hunt for pursuing his dream of becoming Sheriff, a goal he set for himself long, long ago. Tim, on the other hand, desperately wants to reign kingmaker. He'll stop at nothing short of his goal, even if he has to disparage others to get there.
BTW, others have spoken out about Carona before Hunt. Hunt merely used it as excuse to run against Carona, albeit wholly unprepared.
Fatc is there are 2000 plus deputies within Station 1800 who'd love to become 1800. The difference??? They understand the difficulty of unseating a sitting sheriff.
Now, back to Tim. Should we take him at his word that if Hutchens is suitable for 1800 that Hunt will not run again???
Poor Tim, kingmaker denied!!!
There must be another way Tim can achieve legitimacy!!!
Musing is 10-7
Tim, how's this for irony...
From the OC Register..."Behind her is supporter Ronald Cedillos."
Hmmm, wasn't he "behind" another OC Sheriff as well?
And how about Fred "Daughtry" Armendariz? Wasn't he associated with a former OC Sheriff?
And what about the warm embrace from non other than jefe Mario Rodriquez? I think he wears the "inner-circle club in O.C. Republican politics" crown with great pride. He's equally proud of "applying their pressure and influence in an attempt to ensure business as usual." Just ask him, he'll tell you about his last trip to the White House and his political victories.
I know it "taint" much, but I wonder if Scott Moxley will have anything to say about these strange ironies?
Oh the Irony,
First it was the sleaze campaign, then CWLA and now these guys? She's been on scene maybe a week and there will always be the opportunists out there. Hutchins is very smart so I think she will be able to sort things out.
10-8
That was me at 6:39
I am not sure about Rodriguez and Armendariz, but Ron Cedillos publicly cut all ties with Carona years ago and was very concerned about how Mike was conducting himself. He recognized corruption long before any indictment. In my opinion, if Ron gives her a thumbs up, that is good enough for me.
Anonymous
Thank you, you’re absolutely correct. I stopped associating with Carona and Company a few months after his FIRST election. In Fact, the campaign records will reflect that I contributed to his opponent in his second election. I suspected what everyone else figured out years later.
Ron Cedillos
PS To “Oh The Irony” in three posts above, you make it sound like three Latin guys carried Carona to victory all by themselves.
Carona didn't have an opponent in his second election.