City Attorney Tom Carr—who’s being challenged for reelection by Pete Holmes, the former head of the city’s Office of Professional Accountability Review Board, which oversees internal police-misconduct investigations—just received endorsements from two former OPA auditors, Terry Carroll and Kate Pflaumer. Pflaumer’s endorsement is somewhat surprising, since she has differed from Carr on issues such as the release of reports critical of the police (and actually endorsed Carr’s opponent, Edsonya Charles, during his first run for city attorney in 2001). Pflaumer was OPA auditor until earlier this year; Carroll was the first auditor for the office, which was created in 1999.
Speaking of long-ago history: Carr’s campaign manager is Cindi Laws, who served on the board of the Seattle Monorail Project, which Carr helped found. On Holmes’s endorsement list: Attorney Cleve Stockmeyer, who served on the SMP board at the same time as Laws.
who cares
who cares
Carr is a pig – wonder what he traded to get these people?
Hmmmmm. Well, Holmes did out perform Carr in the donations category.
This is a pretty important race – our strategy for prosecuting low-level misdemeanors and demanding that non-violent offenders get jail time is one of the reasons why were stuck on this jail issue. I don’t think we are really the kind of city that intended to end up building jails and closing schools. Sure wish we could get some real transparency and real dialogue going on our puritanical prosecutions.
City Attorney is not a place you want a crusader.
Peter Holmes, while on the SPD OPA Review Board, repeatedly overstepped his legal authority and also attempted to release information to the public that was not only illegal to release but would have opened the city up to massive liability.
Had his information been true he would have been protected by that but Holmes refused to release it without indemnification from the city. Indemnification that Carr’s office wisely refused to grant. Tom Carr was protecting the city from liability (his duty), Holmes was playing a cheap, illegal, political stunt.
I know Tom Carr and am not a huge fan but we just got a bunch of law-evading politicians out of office, I don’t want to put more in.
The fact that the previous OPA Auditors (also overseeing OPA, not protecting SPD) only adds to the argument that Holmes is a crusader not someone who wants to do the job correctly for the people who are paying him.
I pay enough taxes already, I refuse to pay more to cover the politically intended misdeeds of a rotten candidate!
Agree, Carr is a pig. For me, that means the othwr guy gets a chance.
You lawyers are too wordy and can’t see a clear path. Don’t vote for a pig … all you low life real voters.
I had breakfast with Tom Carr this morning.
Look, even today, the Monorail rules Seattle.
Too bad the electeds hate the Voters.
@5
OPA’s reports, by my reading (at least the little bit that is available to the public, there’s more in the secret FOIA-proof vault somewhere) don’t contain confidential information.
Can you be specific with facts to back up your assertions? First, name one time that the oversight committee overstepped or named an officer? Do the City’s Attorney’s written opinions of the oversight boards reports would back you up?
What information did the oversight board incorrectly or illegally release? Specifics, please.
Where would this liability you reference come from, anyway? An unnamed officer that was not identified and therefore not harmed? There was an early report that the board did release (indemnified). It contained no confidential information (contrary to your claim). Suits were not filed.
Your argument is that Carr refused indemnification not to thwart transparency, but because the document contained false information and would open the city up to liability. Yet, Carr’s own office released that very report (accusing Holmes of the misdeed) and it has not been found to be incorrect, nor did it result in liability.
On Carroll, you must remember that he led the Mayor’s Police Review Panel and identified 29 changes to the accountability structure. That confirmed the accuracy and relevance of the oversight board’s work and made no mention of crusading, overstepping legal authority, liability due to the oversight committee, lying, inaccuracy, cheap political stunts, law-evasion, or not doing the job corrected or political intention. I hardly think a man of his integrity would fail to investigate and address the serious infractions contained in your accusations.
One man’s crusader is another’s careful, intentional performer. The board did their job. I think there were some uncomfortable truths, though.
So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, my assessment of your post is simple: specious.
Consider this: open government, with true accountability has some great upsides. One is that transparency brings some monetary savings. For example, reduced lawsuits by citizens, less legal time defending those suits, and in a little irony – less money defending the effort to NOT be transparent. Other upsides are better p/r, better respected forces, and the like. But THE most important think that comes from true transparency (and therefore accountability) is that the police themselves are safer. Public is safer, too. It’s a constant balancing act to protect the public, protect the forces, and protect the city.
Cleveland Stockmeyer is a clown, a terrible advocate and a worse lawyer. If he’s the best that Peter Holmes can get, that itself is very telling. Tom Carr isn’t perfect, but he is a reasoned, articulate, careful thinker who is a good balance to the Mayor’s Office and their quick draw action.