News
Carr v. Holmes on KUOW
City attorney Tom Carr and challenger Pete Holmes packed a lot into their 20 minutes on KUOW's "The Conversation" this afternoon, sparring over public disclosure, drug-law enforcement, the city's overturned impound ordinance, and the role of the city attorney itself.
Listening to Carr and Holmes talk, you get the impression these guys can't stand each other: Both men frequently cut each other off, spat out responses in a disgusted tone, and threw around terms like "ridiculous" and "red herring" to describe the points the other was making.
Overall, Carr did a pretty successful job of making Holmes sound like he was uninformed; Holmes, meanwhile, successfully portrayed Carr as a law-and-order conservative.
A few highlights.
From their back-and-forth on the role of the city attorney:
Holmes: I think you need a city attorney who will recognize that the city attorney's office is much more than the city's prosecutor and consequently will avoid the tragedy of building a new jail in Seattle. I think you need a city attorney that has the experience in the complex civil matters that really face the city—someone who will represent the people of the city and not the municipal corporation.
Carr: From a legal standpoint, that's just poppycock. That's not true. I think he's trying to bring politics into the city attorney's office, and that's not the job. Mr. Holmes has no experience as a municipal lawyer or as a prosecutor. ... The concept that you are the general lawyer for the people just won't work.
A good example is the jail. We have known for almost seven years [that the contract between the city and the county to use the county's jail expires in 2013.] And I have reduced the population of the jail by almost 40 percent.
On government transparency:
Carr: I'm very proud of Seattle's record on [transparency]. We get a lot of rhetoric because a Supreme Court case on attorney-client privilege (the Hangartner case , which upheld a broad interpretation of attorney-client privilege—allowing government agencies to withhold documents, for example, that had merely been cc'd to a lawyer), which people don't like ...
The governor appointed me to chair the [state] Sunshine Committee to look at exemptions to the public records act, and I'm very proud of my work on that committee. ... Over the last five years the city of Seattle has paid a total of [just] $82,000 in claims for public records act cases. ... If you look at what we actually do, we do it very well, and I believe as well as anybody in the state.
Holmes: First, you need to keep in mind that the Public Records Act was passed in 1972. At the time, it had ten exceptions. Now, it has more than 300. We have yet to get the repeal of a single one of those 300 exemptions from the sunshine committee ... The notion that the city attorney is an advocate for the right to know under the current regime is ismply incorrect.
On "Operation Sobering Thought," a controversial sting operation that targeted bars for allowing overservice, admitting underage girls, and allowing patrons to enter with guns but did not result in a single conviction :
Carr: I'm very proud of the operation. Before we did Operation Sobering Thought, we'd had shootings in bars . We had situations where we were calling out an entire [police] precinct because we had violence in the bars.
There were three components. Underage drinking, overservice, and weapons in clubs. We went to one bar [with 19-and 20-year old undercover operatives] and they got refused. They got into the next 14. We had over a 90 percent success rate. We had two guns that were allowed in by bouncers after they saw them. ... We had overservice to extent that we had a guy passed out at bar, and he wakes up and is served by the manager. ...
The problem is, when you serve alcohol, you take on a certain responsibility. You don't let minors in, you don't let guns in, and you don't serve people who are so wasted—so drunk—they're passed out.
Holmes: Not a single conviction, not a single plea. Ths was a wasted effort. And I cannot believe that the city attorney is telling your listeners about two guns being confiscated from that operation. One of those guns was from an off-duty Seattle police officer and you continue to cite that as one of the accomplishments. So a bouncer let a known officer through with his gun.
Carr: Peter, if you had any epxeriecne as a prosecutor, you would know that sometimes defendants don't tell the truth. And so, yeah, in his defense, the bouncer claimed that he knew the police officer. And when you say that there were no plea agreements, that's not true. About half of them were were disposed with plea agreements. Before you accuse me you should learn the facts, Peter.
Holmes: They were off-duty police officers.
Carr: Peter, they were all police officers. We send in undercover officers. That's the way you do undercover operations.
Listening to Carr and Holmes talk, you get the impression these guys can't stand each other: Both men frequently cut each other off, spat out responses in a disgusted tone, and threw around terms like "ridiculous" and "red herring" to describe the points the other was making.
Overall, Carr did a pretty successful job of making Holmes sound like he was uninformed; Holmes, meanwhile, successfully portrayed Carr as a law-and-order conservative.
A few highlights.
From their back-and-forth on the role of the city attorney:
Holmes: I think you need a city attorney who will recognize that the city attorney's office is much more than the city's prosecutor and consequently will avoid the tragedy of building a new jail in Seattle. I think you need a city attorney that has the experience in the complex civil matters that really face the city—someone who will represent the people of the city and not the municipal corporation.
Carr: From a legal standpoint, that's just poppycock. That's not true. I think he's trying to bring politics into the city attorney's office, and that's not the job. Mr. Holmes has no experience as a municipal lawyer or as a prosecutor. ... The concept that you are the general lawyer for the people just won't work.
A good example is the jail. We have known for almost seven years [that the contract between the city and the county to use the county's jail expires in 2013.] And I have reduced the population of the jail by almost 40 percent.
On government transparency:
Carr: I'm very proud of Seattle's record on [transparency]. We get a lot of rhetoric because a Supreme Court case on attorney-client privilege (the Hangartner case , which upheld a broad interpretation of attorney-client privilege—allowing government agencies to withhold documents, for example, that had merely been cc'd to a lawyer), which people don't like ...
The governor appointed me to chair the [state] Sunshine Committee to look at exemptions to the public records act, and I'm very proud of my work on that committee. ... Over the last five years the city of Seattle has paid a total of [just] $82,000 in claims for public records act cases. ... If you look at what we actually do, we do it very well, and I believe as well as anybody in the state.
Holmes: First, you need to keep in mind that the Public Records Act was passed in 1972. At the time, it had ten exceptions. Now, it has more than 300. We have yet to get the repeal of a single one of those 300 exemptions from the sunshine committee ... The notion that the city attorney is an advocate for the right to know under the current regime is ismply incorrect.
On "Operation Sobering Thought," a controversial sting operation that targeted bars for allowing overservice, admitting underage girls, and allowing patrons to enter with guns but did not result in a single conviction :
Carr: I'm very proud of the operation. Before we did Operation Sobering Thought, we'd had shootings in bars . We had situations where we were calling out an entire [police] precinct because we had violence in the bars.
There were three components. Underage drinking, overservice, and weapons in clubs. We went to one bar [with 19-and 20-year old undercover operatives] and they got refused. They got into the next 14. We had over a 90 percent success rate. We had two guns that were allowed in by bouncers after they saw them. ... We had overservice to extent that we had a guy passed out at bar, and he wakes up and is served by the manager. ...
The problem is, when you serve alcohol, you take on a certain responsibility. You don't let minors in, you don't let guns in, and you don't serve people who are so wasted—so drunk—they're passed out.
Holmes: Not a single conviction, not a single plea. Ths was a wasted effort. And I cannot believe that the city attorney is telling your listeners about two guns being confiscated from that operation. One of those guns was from an off-duty Seattle police officer and you continue to cite that as one of the accomplishments. So a bouncer let a known officer through with his gun.
Carr: Peter, if you had any epxeriecne as a prosecutor, you would know that sometimes defendants don't tell the truth. And so, yeah, in his defense, the bouncer claimed that he knew the police officer. And when you say that there were no plea agreements, that's not true. About half of them were were disposed with plea agreements. Before you accuse me you should learn the facts, Peter.
Holmes: They were off-duty police officers.
Carr: Peter, they were all police officers. We send in undercover officers. That's the way you do undercover operations.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
