County charter updates

Charter change proposals in both Josephine County and Jackson County face well-funded opposition. 

Opponents' ads and signs are everywhere. Their arguments are over-the-top crazy.

The two counties' charter update proposals share a common feature: The opponents predict catastrophe if the proposals pass. The supposed effects of the measures are out of all proportion to reality. The Jackson County changes are modest and incremental. They keep intact the governing structure of a strong administrator paired with an at-large policy-making body that hires and supervises that administrator. The proposals make the policy-making body a little larger and a little less partisan. The opposition ads claim Jackson County is somehow importing Portland. Opponents assert that adding two commissioners somehow requires a major remodel of the courthouse, therefore costing lots more money. And going from three to five commissioners, and paying them half as much, is somehow "Big Government."

Jackson County opposition sign

The Josephine County measures face a similar tactic of claims of doom. Lynda Demsher  was the founding member of Josephine County's charter-change group, the Citizens for Responsible Government. She lives in Grants Pass. Before becoming a high school teacher she worked in Northern California as a journalist.

Demsher

Guest Post by Lynda Demsher

Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG) is still at it in Grants Pass in spite of a force of opposition trying hard to convince voters that Measure 17-116, the proposed Josephine County charter revision, is a sneaky plot by Democrats to take over Southern Oregon and turn it into Multnomah County. This opposition, basically from an extremist group within the Josephine County Republican Party, has also spent thousands of dollars trying to convince voters that Measure 17-116 will grab their guns, stifle free speech and religion, take away parental rights, allow people to run around naked, tax them to their toenails, seize their assets, allow animals to be neglected and end maintenance on the library’s toilets. Of course, none of this is true.

Opposition ad

CRG is being hammered for daring to propose expanding the board of commissioners from three full-time to five part-time members with a stipend. The savings in salaries and benefits would be used to hire a county manager. Apparently this is seen as sacrilegious by the JCGOP, which warns that approving Measure 17-116 will bring down the wrath of God. They also believe county commissioners cannot run from districts, as the charter revision proposes, because then they would be called district commissioners, not county commissioners. Actually only four would run from districts. One would have the privilege of cluttering up the entire county with campaign signs.

Voters  Pamphlet  comment

Josephine County Commission Chair John West must really want to keep his salary and benefits because he’s spent thousands of dollars on negative ads in conjunction with the Josephine County GOP and has helped finance $6,800 worth of voter pamphlet statements against Measure 17-116. His ethics have been questioned concerning this but the State of Oregon tends to let what happens in Josephine County stay in Josephine County. State officials have been warned: If you visit here and mention Measure 17-116 around West, you’d better stand back because he snorts and paws the ground like a bull with a red cape in front of him.

All this is designed to wear Measure 17-116 campaigners down but it isn’t working. They have been raising money, designing ads, distributing signs, holding town halls and meet-and-greets throughout the county, cheerfully sitting at informational tables near outdoor vegetable markets, post offices and Taylor’s in Cave Junction; holding neighborhood coffees, phone banking and canvassing with door hangers. They plan to hold a rally May 11 at noon on the courthouse steps in Grants Pass. CRG’s network of supporters has increased exponentially and events have brought out more positive than negative views of Measure 17-116 across the county.

It is hard to know at this point whether Measure 17-116 will succeed, but it has accomplished something already. Far more people in Josephine County are tuned into their county government and are concerned about its future. In addition, CRG, a non-partisan, grass-roots group of Republican, Democratic, non-affiliated and Independent voters , has demonstrated divisiveness can be conquered by working together for a shared cause. So will collapsing together with a tall one after May 21.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.comSubscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Capital punishment for Dogs

Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor, wrote about shooting her dog in a gravel pit. 

She wanted to look tough.

In 1982 I voted to condemn a dog to be euthanized because it chased some sheep.

I didn't feel tough. I felt bad about it.

Back in the prior century Oregon laws were written in favor of farmers and ranchers, not pet owners. If a dog chased and bit a person, there were incremental steps of fines imposed on dog owners -- not the dog. But if a dog chased livestock, the dog faced the death penalty. 

That was the law when I was a county commissioner in the early 1980s, and that stayed the law through the end of the century. There was no wiggle room, no second chances. 

 
In 1982, I was chair of the Jackson County Board of Commissioners. A county Animal Control Officer had witnessed a mixed breed dog, the pet of a young man, frightening sheep by chasing them around a pasture. No sheep were injured. The exuberant dog was having fun.The owner of the sheep had called the Animal Control Department for help capturing the dog. 

Under Oregon law, county board of commissioners must hold a hearing to evaluate whether the dog in fact had chased livestock. If so, the dog must be "put down," as the Animal Control Officer put it. The county's legal counsel advised us that the county would face open-ended liability risks if we failed to carry out the sentence. If the dog subsequently chased or killed livestock, or worse, bit and injured and scarred a child, the county could be held responsible. 

Kristi Noem wrote that she was angry with her dog. It had ruined a pheasant hunt by flushing birds incorrectly, and then she brought it to a place with chickens and her dog caught and killed some of them, she wrote. She shot her dog and a goat. She wrote that she hated them both. 

There was no anger at that board of commissioners hearing. We were reluctant and sympathetic. The dog's owner was sobbing and pleading with us to save his dog. It was a good dog and was just having fun, he said. It was his fault, not the dog's. Spare the dog, please.

All three commissioners agreed the law struck a hard balance that reflected the needs and attitudes of an earlier era, when Jackson County had an agricultural economy and vulnerable livestock. The laws seemed antiquated to us. The laws permitted landowners to shoot a strange dog on sight if it was amid their livestock, and the law required a death sentence on a first offense for a dog that caused livestock to run. But the Oregon legislature had had multiple opportunities to change the law and it had not. We voted unanimously to do our duty.

(The dog wasn't "put down." For some reason the dog was not in custody of the Animal Control Department. It was at the young man's house. After the hearing, the dog owner drove straight home and gathered his things and moved out of state, taking his dog with him. The dog was a fugitive. We heard word from the young man's roommate that neither his roommate nor the dog could be located. They disappeared. The county lacked the resources to try to find the "lost dog," so nothing more came of it.) 

I presume Kristi Noem was attempting to signal voters that she was tough-minded enough to be vice presidential material. Joni Ernst had won a senate seat in Iowa by introducing herself as someone who grew up castrating pigs. Iowa voters liked that. Noem was documenting she wasn't just pro-gun on paper. She was willing to use guns to shoot a "bad dog." She is also signaling farm sensibilities appropriate to balance Trump, a symbol of urbanity. Farmers are closer to the source of meat than are city people who think of beef, pork, and lamb as something one buys cut up and packaged in cellophane. Animal death is part of farm life. 

Oregon law changed in this century, along with the economy and demographics of the state. It is still dangerous for a dog to chase livestock, but now there are a series of progressive punishments for the dog owner. A county commissioner now has options of fines for the owner and or letting a dog owner move the dog away from livestock.

 
Kristi Noem's story is more shocking to the sensibilities of urban voters than it would be in the farm country of South Dakota. I hear news and opinion hosts on MSNBC, amazed and mocking her. She shot a dog! Wow! That reflects the cultural divide in the country. Democrats don't "get" rural America, and that is why the precinct where my farm is located -- six miles outside Medford -- votes three to one Republican.

 
Yet Noem handled it poorly, even for a rural audience. Noem was posturing. Americans love their dogs. Dogs are special. If the dog is "bad" then it reflects on the owner. There are hard jobs involving the death of animals that need to be done around farms, but they are done from necessity, not hatred or anger, and not to show off one's toughness to win votes. Farmers bring animals "to market" because raising livestock is a business. Sometimes one culls animals.   

But you don't present yourself as triumphant for shooting a dog you didn't train.

                                            --     --    --

Here is an article on the former state of the law in Oregon. Here is the new law, allowing alternatives remedies if a dog chases livestock.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: 1969

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!"
     William Wordsworth, The French Revolution as it Appeared to its Enthusiasts at its Commencement, 1809

1969

We had discovered a great injustice.

We had clarity. We were sure we understood the situation. Our cause was just and the evil we opposed was so evident to us. The generation in power, having won World War II, was now carrying out an unjust war. They were lying to us. They said the war in Vietnam was in self-defense --dominos -- but they were pursuing a colonial agenda. They were wantonly killing helpless people, dropping bombs and celebrating body counts. It was wrong. And our government was trying to draft us.

Hell, no.

We could protest. The universities were close at hand and complicit, so we protested there. End ROTC! 

Many young people today think they have uncovered a great injustice and a great hypocrisy. The generation in power is allied with a country whose hands are not as clean as they had been taught to believe. Trump is hopeless, but Biden knows better and is participating in the injustice anyway, so put pressure on Biden. Protest at the universities. They are close at hand and complicit. Divest!

I do not trivialize my earnest sincerity in 1969, nor the earnest sincerity of young protesters today. I am acknowledging it. There is nothing trivial about the passion of young people to be part of something great and good, nor indignation over the hypocrisy of their elders, nor of the blossoming power of young adulthood, nor of springtime. I was there.

Everything was new and exciting. I was healthy. Women found me attractive. I was letting my hair grow longer. I could get a red fist silk-screened on a T-shirt for free at a table in Harvard Yard.  A size-medium T-shirt fit comfortably, and I wore it to classes. I was sure that the pressure we were bringing on Nixon would end the war soon. We were changing the world. It was springtime and warm after a long, long winter. Best time in my life.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com  Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Giuliani: Life in Bankruptcy

The news was that Rudolph Giuliani would pay a big award to the women he defamed.

It isn't that simple. 

He lives well and spends money like before. He may die rich. His victims wait.

It must have seemed easy and risk-free for Rudolph Giuliani in the months after the 2020 election. Make a couple of  election workers -- Black, female, poor, unknown -- into villains. Tell the world they stole the 2020 election. Name them. Point them out. They were "nobodies" and Rudolph Giuliani was a world-famous lawyer. 

They are not nobodies. Their names are Ruby Freeman and Wandrea "Shaye" Moss. Giuliani defamed them intentionally and repeatedly. A jury found that Giuliani did them an enormous wrong. 

I asked Conde Cox whether Giuliani would ever pay a price for his actions. Cox is a commercial and business disputes lawyer. He is an expert in bankruptcies. He has been a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court for 29 years. He is the immediate past president of the Federal Bar Association—Oregon Chapter. For many years he has been rated a Thomson-Reuters "Super Lawyer" in the field of business bankruptcy. He carries out his national law practice from Ashland, Oregon.

Conde Cox

Guest Post by Conde Cox

When a company or individual files Chapter 11, all attempts by creditors to collect debts must stop because of the “automatic stay” imposed by Section 362 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. 

Rudy Giuliani filed Chapter 11 to protect his assets from seizure by his creditors, mainly the two Georgia women who only days before the bankruptcy filing obtained a $146 million judgment against him. Most Chapter 11 cases are filed to get the automatic stay against foreclosure, asset seizure and all other creditor-collection actions. For example, Texaco did the same thing to stop Pennzoil (which had a $10 billion judgment against Texaco) from using the judgment to seize Texaco’s assets. 

Although the automatic stay restrains the actions of creditors, there are very few constraints imposed upon the activities of the debtor for the first year or so. For example, the debtor may continue “to operate in the ordinary course of business.” The only constraint on his financial activities is that he can not use “cash collateral” and that he cannot conduct business “outside of the ordinary course.” In this case, there is no cash collateral, thereby allowing him to spend the approximately $40,000 every month that he collects from his monthly Social Security check, his monthly pension income, and from his regular withdrawals from his IRA accounts. The court will likely approve his use of that unencumbered cash to pay for “personal care,” household utilities, and care of his mother-in-law, considering them “ordinary course of business.” Outside the ordinary course would include such things as luxury trips, gambling, investment in some new business, or hush money payments to porn stars. This could continue for a year.

Encumbered assets, such as his townhouse (on which there is a mortgage), cannot be sold without court approval. If it is sold, the sales proceeds cannot be spent, even in the ordinary course of business.

A few months after filing the Chapter 11 case, the court will examine whether the debtor has made progress in a “plan of reorganization.” In most cases, during the year or so between the date of filing Chapter 11 and the date the plan becomes effective, the debtor can spend his unencumbered cash in the ordinary course of business.

Whether or not Giuliani plan is confirmed will depend on whether creditors would get more than they would if he fully liquidated his assets. Individual debtors can keep “exempt assets,” which generally means Social Security, pensions, IRA accounts, and some of the equity in their home. The amount of such protected home equity and other exempt property (motor vehicles, personal household assets, etc.) varies greatly from state to state. In New York, where Giuliani resides, the maximum residential homestead exemption is $150,000, which means nearly all the equity (minus that $150,000) in his Manhattan townhouse will eventually become available for creditors. 

If a plan is not confirmed in the next year or so, the bankruptcy court could dismiss the Chapter 11 case.That would permit creditors to go back to seizing assets, or, more likely, convert the case to a liquidation under Chapter 7. In Chapter 7, a bankruptcy trustee” can sell all non-exempt property he owns and creditors can be paid. He would then receive a bankruptcy discharge of all dischargeable debts. But the $146 million intentional tort/fraud-based judgment would likely not be dischargeable, which means Freeman and Moss could start chasing Giuliani again. Debts arising from the intentional tort of defamation cannot be charged in bankruptcy.

After liquidation of all of his non-exempt assets, their creditors get their prorata share of the liquidated assets. For example, if the total creditor claims are $200 million, and if there is $20 million in total post-liquidation cash, that would leave a 10% payout for creditors. Freeman and Moss would eventually receive about $14 million on their $146 million judgment. They could try to collect the unpaid balance from Rudy for the rest of this life (and against his estate after he passes.) 

There are no “public defenders” for debtors in bankruptcy cases. Giuliani's lawyers have an “administrative priority” right to be paid first, ahead of all other creditors. Bankruptcy courts scrutinize closely all fee requests filed by the lawyers.

Giuliani will probably try to drag this case out, avoid dismissal, avoid conversion to Chapter 7, delay proposing a plan, and delay implementing a plan, (because payments to creditors must begin when the plan is confirmed.) Possibly his prostate cancer will kill him before judicial process from Georgia does.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

1968

     "To every college president, I say: Remove the encampments immediately, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all of the normal students who want a safe place from which to learn."

          Donald Trump, at a rally in Wisconsin this week.

I've seen this movie. 

It's a coming-of-age story mixed with politics. The movie ends badly, with the election of Trump. But the students don't know that yet.

I feel lost in time travel back to my college years when I watch the news of campus unrest. Columbia University erupted in the spring of 1968, my freshman year of college. What happened at Columbia happened at Harvard the next two years, in the springs of 1969 and 1970. The universities went through a cycle of protests, police, and disruption. The political outcome apparent by the end of 1968 should have discouraged the anti-war protests of subsequent years, but it had the opposite effect. Young activists learned that the world paid attention to campus disruption and that it moved the scoreboard of public affairs 

Alas, it scored points for the opposite team. 

I was more an observer than a participant in the political turmoil. I loved my classes. I was there to learn things from books, not from observing direct political action and reaction. My mistake. I thought classmates who occupied the administration building were hurting the cause of ending the war because the people whose opinions mattered thought students at fancy schools were spoiled brats. I got that right.

Freshman year, age 18

I was usually "clean for Gene," with short hair and no beard. I recognized that "long hair hippie freaks" irritated old people over 30. 

The demonstrations on university campuses today bring into focus the different perspectives of the generations. The holocaust shaped the view of people my age. European Jews were victims, so of course Israelis are fearful and bellicose. Young people grew up seeing a strong, modern, prosperous Israel with nuclear warheads and U.S. military and economic support. Jews in America hold positions of power, prestige, and wealth. They interpreted Israeli behavior toward Palestinians as some version of Jim Crow, with Israel the oppressor. That's what they saw, not the history I saw.

I am serene about university disruption. Young people supporting Palestine are sure they are fighting for justice and the good guys, so they organize protests. There is no surprise here. College students have the passions of young people. My hope is that college administrators can keep protesters from breaking things that cannot be repaired easily. They should try to keep the warring factions separated, but disagreement and strife is part of life. 

Below are images from The Oregonian newspaper, from damage at Portland State University this week.

Students will see vandalism of their school and many of them will feel angry that their spaces have been invaded. They will learn in a way one doesn't learn from books or lectures how counterproductive some kinds of political messaging can be. People learn from the stupidity and misdeeds of others.

University administrators should try to chill out the rich alumni who are offended by what they see and hear. Assure them that they are seeing leadership getting training and experience, and that the students' views will change with time, experience, and world-weariness. Change is slow, and humans are a flawed experiment of nature. Tell those angry alumni that in 50 years some of these campus leaders will have founded great businesses and they will be the trustees and benefactors of the university. They are the future. Just wait. Meantime, realize that this is a memorable part of their college experience. They are paying for this, right along with their classes, the libraries, the sports teams, and the late-night bull sessions in their dorms. 

I am not serene about the politics of campus disturbances, though. I saw what happened in 1968. The old school Democrat -- Hubert Humphrey and now Biden --  takes a middle path and urges people to make peace. That includes the parties at war and the people on campuses. They don't. Too many of the disputants think their side is just and the situation is dire. Biden cannot help but look irresolute and helpless because he will be unable to bring peace and order. If the Middle East were solvable it would have been solved. It will be an open seeping wound in world affairs, and students will observe it and protest. The Republican -- Nixon and now Trump -- says he would restore order with tough, no-nonsense police power and military force. He said he sides four-square with the powerful side in the war. Trump, like Nixon, says that he will bring an end to the war. The public, tired of the disorder, elects the Republican. If Democrats cannot bring peace and order, then let a strong man bring order through victory. Meanwhile it will give an overdue spanking to those coddled student troublemakers. 

The parts are cast. A script is written. It could go something like that, again. This movie may be a remake.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Part Two: Jackson County District Attorney

Oregon publishes a Voters Pamphlet where candidates can describe their qualifications. 

It is best to be strictly honest. 

It is the law.

Close readers of Rogue Valley Times articles profiling the candidates for Jackson County district attorney noticed a tag at the end of one of the candidate profiles, that of Alyssa Bartholomew:

I am guessing the reporter discovered what I had noticed a few days prior. Alyssa Bartholomew's Voters Pamphlet described her occupational background as "Senior Counsel, Jackson County".

"Senior Counsel, Jackson County" was a title unfamiliar to me. I contacted the county's Human Resources Department and asked for the dates of her employment and her job titles. They reported this:

Hello Mr. Sage, 

We have received your email. 

 

Alyssa Bartholomew worked for Jackson County from 2/5/2007-1/30/2009 and her job title was Sr. Assistant County Counsel. The job description for this position can be located on our website at https://jacksoncountyor.gov/departments/administration/human_resources/job_classifications.php#outer-2027.

 

Thank you,

"Senior Assistant County Counsel" sounds like a significant job she could be proud to report accurately. But in the Voters Pamphlet she left out the word "Assistant" and turned it into "Senior Counsel."

A reporter writing a campaign profile might feel comfortable using a Voters Pamphlet biography as a reference. After all, the Voters Pamphlet rules show a bold-type warning that any statement must be truthful. In fact, a false statement here is a felony.

I wrote Bartholomew 10 days ago asking for an explanation for how the word "Assistant" got dropped from her job experience. I said it was a terrible place to be careless or dishonest. She responded. She said she didn't explicitly say she was the County Counsel.

As you’ve noted, my voter’s pamphlet entry says “Senior Counsel, Jackson County”. Counsel is a general term for attorney or lawyer. In some employment contexts, the term “attorney” is used, i.e. the City Attorney’s Office. In others, “counsel” is the job title. An example of that is a corporate setting, i.e. corporate counsel, general counsel, etc. Jackson County uses the title “counsel” for its attorneys. I was a senior counsel at Jackson County. The lead attorney for Jackson County is called “County Counsel.” I did not state I was the County Counsel, nor did I seek to mislead anyone to think I was.

She went on:

I served in the wake of the dismissal of the attorney serving as County Counsel. This action elevated those of us who remained on staff to senior positions. This all took place before Pay Equity, a transformative piece of legislation passed in 2017. In Post-Pay Equity Oregon, job titles are much more specific and positions are more rigid in their scope. When I worked as an attorney for Jackson County, especially in the absence of a County Counsel, employees were expected to address the needs of the county, and my colleagues and I were honored to do so.

I consider her Voters Pamphlet entry misleading. A reader would infer a more senior role than the one she had. Maybe, arguably, it wasn't an outright lie. Maybe she was just describing a job function she felt she performed. It wasn't explicitly said to be her official job title, and she just created her own description of her work and posted that. We just got the wrong impression. 

I see a pattern. Further down in her Voters Pamphlet biography she wrote: "As president of the OCDLA [Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association] she oversaw multi-million dollar budgets and directed a large staff." Is that exactly true? Well, she was on the OCDLA board. The organization had an executive director. Arguably, as a board member, she "oversaw" a multi-million dollar budget. That is what boards do: oversee. But she said she "directed" a large staff. Executive directors "direct" staff. Board member don’t "direct staff," not unless they are undermining and circumventing their executive director. 

I can understand district attorney candidates wanting to show that they held senior positions and carried out senior management responsibilities. Bartholomew is making the case for herself. Some readers may think I am nitpicking. Don't politicians lie to us all the time? Isn't this all just a bit of harmless resume puffery?

I don't want to be guilty myself of "rounding up" and exaggerating in my criticism of her. Bartholomew makes the case that "Senior Counsel" wasn't a job title, even if it looks like one. Maybe, through the executive director, she can legitimately say she "directed" staff because the executive director was the board's agent. Maybe we weren't lied to. I don't think her Voters Pamphlet biography is felony-level inaccurate. We just read what she wrote and draw the wrong, somewhat enhanced, conclusion about her qualifications. 

Still, her Voters Pamphlet biography makes me uncomfortable. I prefer a straight-arrow district attorney who is scrupulous about presenting the evidence without bending it to make a misdemeanor into a felony. Bartholomew probably has adequate experience for the job she seeks, even if it is overwhelmingly doing criminal defense, not prosecution. She didn't need to exaggerate, but she did.

I won't be voting for her. Her opponent is Patrick Green.

[Note: I have invited Bartholomew's campaign to write a guest post or in some other way to share her point of view directly.]

[Update: Sign your comments. People with complaints or suggestions for or against Bartholomew or Patrick Green, must sign their posts and include contact information so that I can verify your identity. Thanks.]

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Guest Post: Who should be Jackson County's next district attorney?

The district attorney recommends Patrick Green.

Patrick Green

How would I possibly know if a candidate for district attorney was good at prosecuting cases? How would I know if a DA candidate would charge the right people with the right crimes? How would I know if a DA candidate would do a good job managing the DA's office?

I wouldn't. So here's what I do.

I pay attention to the opinion of people in the best position to know -- in this case the incumbent district attorney. I consider her a credible source. She has good word-of-mouth support from the attorneys I know and she has been re-elected several times. 

I also look at the campaigns of the candidates. Those measure campaign activity and resources, which is an indirect signal of community support. Bigger campaigns are better. But campaign size doesn't do a good job signaling fitness for offices like judges and district attorney office. Those jobs aren't about representation. Those roles require a professional skillset. So I look at job experience. I also notice who presents themselves with clarity and integrity in campaign literature and ads. I consider campaign behavior a signal of how one might act when in office.

Today is part one, a recommendation by the incumbent. 

Coming soon is part two -- job experience and whether each campaign presents it with clarity and integrity.

Guest Post by Beth Heckert

Heckert

Patrick Green vs. Alyssa Bartholomew: Recommendation Patrick Green

The Jackson County district attorney position is not often a contested election. It really is an important position in our community, so I feel strongly that voters need to make an informed decision. I have served as your district attorney for 12 years and have been a prosecutor for 36 years in Jackson County. The position is nonpartisan and decisions that are made by the district attorney’s office should not be political.

I have worked with both candidates; seen how they interact with individuals and how they handle themselves in court. Patrick is my chief deputy. He runs the office in my absence. He has been a prosecutor in my office since 2016. He has handled the most complex cases, including murder cases, domestic violence and other violent crimes. He has dedicated his career to being a prosecutor and serving the community in that capacity. 

His opponent, Alyssa Bartholomew, has been a public defender since 2005, working for Southern Oregon Public Defenders. She took a break from her job as a public defender and worked for Jackson County as a Senior Assistant County Counsel from 2007 - 2009. Being a public defender is a very noble profession. The system doesn’t work unless you have good competent attorneys on both sides. However, they are separate and distinct occupations. She has never prosecuted a criminal case in Oregon. You cannot simply be a defense attorney one day and the next be an experienced prosecutor, ready to lead the office. Also, to my knowledge, Alyssa has never held a position that required supervision skills. The Jackson County district attorney’s office is the largest law firm in the county, with 22 attorneys and 32 support staff.

There is a significant unanswered question that I have not heard Alyssa Bartholomew address. She will have a conflict with cases involving her previous clients. How will those cases be handled if she becomes the elected district attorney? Who will prosecute those cases? After she announced her candidacy, she was appointed to a murder case and many other cases. This issue will be a complicated one for the office. I don’t want to see victim cases delayed while this is sorted out.

Alyssa Bartholomew has also applied to become a Jackson County Circuit Court judge and the Medford municipal judge over the last few years. I sat on the governor’s panel of local attorneys to interview the judicial candidates. Alyssa stated to that group that being a judge was her passion. Maybe it is, but passion is important in this position as well. There have been four Jackson County district attorneys since 1968, and none have sought a judicial position. The district attorney should not be a stepping-stone to other positions.

If Patrick is elected, on day one, he will hit the ground running. There is no learning curve. He has supervised attorneys and staff in the office; he has helped manage our budget; he has prosecuted cases. He is familiar with all our staff from advocates to attorneys. 

Patrick Green is a dedicated prosecutor who has worked tirelessly for victims in our community to get justice. Patrick has support from law enforcement. He has already proven that he works collaboratively with community partners to improve the criminal justice system. Patrick has the qualities that I believe are the most important to the district attorney's office into the future: dedication, passion and experience.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]