G. Whitney Leigh
By G. Whitney Leigh
July 13, 2009
In responding to our post, Defending the Public Defender, Assistant District Attorney Paul Henderson suggests that by exposing the political machinations and fiscally unsound reasoning behind the proposed slashing of the Public Defender’s budget, we are telling a “story”, that does not reflect the “facts.”
Unfortunately, Henderson, for whom we have great respect, addresses few if any of the facts that we raised in our post. Instead, Henderson breathlessly takes issue with multiple arguments neither relevant nor raised.
In our post, we argued that the Board President’s apparent determination to make any restoration of the Public Defender’s budget contingent upon an equal payment to the District Attorney is unreasonable because:
(1) the Public Defender’s budget is dwarfed by the District Attorney’s budget;
(2) the District Attorney has access to numerous outside funding sources unavailable to the Public Defender, including “stimulus” funds;
(3) the proposed budget would impose cuts on the Public Defender greatly disproportionate to those faced by the District Attorney or the City Attorney’s Office.
Henderson does not dispute that any of these facts are true. Instead, he offers a prosaic discussion of the difficulties faced by prosecutors, and rails against those who would devalue prosecutors’ dedication or contributions. These observations might make for an interesting forum discussion. Personally, I think any discussion of the District Attorney’s resources that omits the police department, which provides both an army of investigators and trained, experienced witnesses (wouldn’t it be nice if we could all conduct a direct exam simply by asking “and what happened next”) is fatally misleading.
A criminal defense attorney will always be at a disadvantage when opposed to a DA in a contest of general opinion. Henderson’s post provides an example of why this is so – who exactly wants to be on the side of drug dealing, gangs or domestic violence? The easy public appeal of such arguments has been well known at least since the Willie Horton ads were aired. But this is a sideshow debate, one that our post did not raise. And diverting as it may be, this discourse does not address the fundamental inequities presented by the proposed slashing of the Public Defender’s budget, or the fiscal and practical consequences our City faces if the proposed cuts go through.
One clear example of the distinct severity of the cuts faced by Public Defender – and the impact the cuts will have on the public defenders’ ability to provide services to those who truly need them is shown in the unique sacrifices the public defenders already have made. This year — before the proposed cuts — the Public Defender voluntarily imposed a blanket ten percent salary reduction (in addition to reducing his staff by ten persons). Of the City’s government attorneys, only the public defenders have made such self-imposed cuts. But these attorneys’ willingness to make this unique sacrifice reflects their awareness of the dire situation they face – and the reality that the proposed additional slashing of the Public Defender’s budget will make their work simply impossible.
Public defenders cannot control the number of cases they are assigned. As the Controller’s report found, the Defenders’ felony caseload is 55 percent over capacity – the misdemeanor caseload is 66 percent over the American Bar Association standard. District Attorneys cannot be sued for incompetently representing the City or a victim. But a defense attorney who fails to competently represent a criminal defendant can be sued or disbarred. This reality in part explains why public defenders would choose to cut their own salaries in order to stave off personnel cuts. But as I indicated above, they stand alone amongst the City’s governmental attorney offices for having made this sacrifice voluntarily.
At the end of the day, the “facts” remain undisputed. The City is poised to go forward with severe cuts to the Public Defender’s office that exceed those imposed on other departments – cuts that are both inequitable and unwise.
It is not too late to change course.
The Hunger Site
July 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm
What I also found interesting about Henderson’s piece is that he framed it in terms of being progressive or not, that the litmus test fails unless the outcomes reflect the priorities of the office in which he works.
-marc
July 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Both sides in the budget debate of District Attorney vs. Public Defender have made credible arguments. That’s because both offices are essential to the life of the city, even though each resents the other.
I continue to believe that reasonable compromises could have been worked out if the city had better political leadership coming from both the mayor and the board of supes.
For example, the mayor refused even to meet with Jeff Adachi during the preparation of the budget. This is totally irresponsible behavior for someone who claims to bring “best practices” to city government.
No one should be surprised. The mayor has repeatedly sacrificed substance and follow-through to flash and glitter. He lives for photo ops and doesn’t want to be bothered with the nitty-gritty of negotiations and administration.
At the other end of City Hall, David Chiu, the board prez, has gotten carried away with himself. He has an unfortunate practice of telling everybody what they want to hear, and then making decisions in private that often appear arbitrary when made public.
No one should be surprised. Chiu, a rookie, got to be board prez by playing off the factions of the board’s progressive contingent against each other, and then promoting himself as the answer. He’s a scheming climber who is out for No. 1, David Chiu. It was a tremendous mistake for the progressives to back Chiu over Ross Mirkarimi in the battle for board prez.
Hopefully, some practical intelligence will assert itself somewhere in City Hall, so that a livable and intelligent compromise can be worked out.
Then again, there’s no guarantee.
July 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Avalos losing it?
About the first thing John Avalos did as Chair of Budget was attack Jeff Adachi. You thought that was strange? So did I but today in Rules …
Avalos has a charter amendment to be heard which would add 3 1/2 hours a week to the work schedule of SF firefighters.
Avalos doesn’t show.
Daly is chair of committee and says that he wants to be added as co-sponsor even though Avalos has told him he wants the matter continued.
Daly wants to send the thing to the Full Board.
Chiu says that the last he talked to Avalos that John wanted the work hour increase tabled. He asks Campos how recent his info is.
Campos says that as of this morning Avalos wants to continue it.
They vote to continue it. Daly dissenting.
Then camera stays on Chiu and Campos who rush into the audience where John Hanley and other firefighters have been all along but didn’t speak in public comment.
How about adding 10 hours a week to DA staff w/no additional pay. Like PD’s?
h.