 | No on the recall, but DA needs to mend fences [Times-Standard Editorial] |
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Election Day is Tuesday -- time once again to grit our teeth, study the issues and play a personal part in the free and open democracy we're always talking about as Americans.
You'll find Part 1 of our endorsements below; Part 2 will run Friday. For those who wonder, our choices are made by an editorial board including the publisher, the managing editor, the city editor and others. We bring a range of viewpoints and philosophies to the mix, and usually operate by consensus.
It doesn't matter if you agree with us. Just make sure you go out and put your opinion where it counts -- in the ballot box.
In the meantime, here's our view:
* Measure F, the district attorney recall -- We are maintaining the stand we took months ago: no on the recall. We believe the recall has been unnecessary, expensive and disturbingly divisive. The regular election process should determine whether District Attorney Paul Gallegos keeps his job. A defendant in a case, in this instance, Palco, should not be throwing an incredible $230,000 into a recall designed to remove the prosecutor in that case, the district attorney. It's not illegal, but frankly it smells bad. PL should have its day in court, in the form of a full, open trial, to determine its guilt or innocence in the fraud case brought by the DA.
That being said, we are very concerned over the deep rift between Gallegos and what appears to be a majority of area law enforcement officers, who say he is soft on crime and cite a number of cases illustrating their concerns. The DA, as the county's top law enforcement officer, should have a close, healthy working relationship with investigators, officers and their colleagues. That is clearly not the case, and the current situation augers ill for the safety of constituents Gallegos was elected to serve.
There is a precedent of sorts for the current election. In 1986, challenger Mike Mock, supported by at least four local law enforcement unions, charged that the incumbent DA was soft on drug-crime cases, too reliant on plea bargaining and not aggressive enough overall on prosecutions. That incumbent, Terry Farmer, went on to win the election and, over time, build a solid reputation among local law enforcement.
A difference between 1986 and 2004, however, is that -- at least among law enforcement officials we spoke to as recently as this week -- there's uncertainty among those officials that the ongoing rift can be repaired.
Should our current DA survive the recall, we strongly urge Gallegos to take extraordinary measures to bridge the gap that exists between himself and law enforcement. Here are a few suggestions: meet with police and community members weekly, step back and let the office's able deputy DAs do their job of prosecuting bad guys and putting them away and err on the side of protecting victims and their families.
* Recall candidates -- Remaining consistent with the position we took on the governor's recall, none of the above. We don't feel comfortable in opposing the recall, yet endorsing one of the three recall candidates.
And one more thing. No matter who is left standing on March 3 -- and this is perhaps the most important endorsement of all -- we as a community need to move past the poisonous divisiveness of the last few months and head toward a common future.
There's room for different attitudes, philosophies and viewpoints in Humboldt County, but when you boil it down, we all want basically the same things: a healthy economy, safe communities, good schools, clean air, water and land and a vibrant North Coast culture. Perhaps we can start with that, in crafting our varied visions for the future, and work forward from there on everything else.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Options |  |
|
