The Oregon Secretary of State's office determined that Alyssa Bartholomew's Voters Pamphlet description of her job experience did not constitute a felony misstatement.
I think she mis-stated her job history. She left out the word "Assistant" in describing her job with the county.
I described the problem two weeks ago when the Voters Pamphlet first came out. Alyssa Bartholomew, a candidate for district attorney, described herself as having been "Senior Counsel, Jackson County." That didn't sound right to me, so I made a formal inquiry with the Jackson County Human Resources Department. They wrote back saying her job title was "Senior Assistant County Counsel."
I considered it part of a pattern of resume exaggeration. She also wrote that she had experience "directing" a staff. There was an executive director to do that. She was on its board.
I did not consider these examples of resume puffery to be flat-out, red-handed, black-is-white lies. It was less than that. To my mind these are exaggerations. Fibs. Rounding up. The first of these took place in the part of the Voters Pamphlet where candidates are warned that it is a felony to be inaccurate. That was where she left out the word "assistant."
Bartholomew's response to my request for an explanation was that she was in fact a lawyer, and therefore a "counsel." And she was "senior" to one or more other attorneys and she did significant legal work including during a time when the person with the job of County Counsel, was absent. Therefore she could accurately call herself "Senior Counsel" notwithstanding a job title that called her an assistant to the actual senior counsel.
I referred it to the Oregon Secretary of State's office to see what they thought. Was her description factual, or factual-enough? I learned that their standard leans toward searching if there is any way the words can be construed to be factual. They decided in Bartholomew's favor.
[Y]ou allege Ms. Bartholomew made a false statement in her voter’s pamphlet statement by referring to her previous employment as “senior counsel” instead of “senior assistant counsel”.
To determine whether a statement is false under ORS 260.715(1), the Division asks whether any reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence that the statement is factually correct. The Division has reviewed your allegations and determined that a reasonable inference can be drawn indicating that Ms. Bartholomew held the position she claims in her voters’ pamphlet statement.
The standard the office uses is whether there is any reasonable inference that the statement is correct. That means that we are obligated to stretch to see how we can make both "Senior Counsel" and a "Senior Assistant Counsel" the same thing, at least arguably. Bartholomew made the stretch. I can see the point if I squint a little. Both do serious legal work; she was not always supervised. So, arguably, senior assistants are indeed senior counsels.
But as a voter, and a person who cares about justice, judges, and local courts, I use a different standard than the is-it-arguably-true standard. I use an are-we-being-misled? standard.
Some things are arguably accurate, but are, in fact, sneaky misdirections. Call them fibs. There is gray area in language, so a speaker's intent and its effect on people who hear the message are considerations when judging if something is honest. She had a significant early-career job and her Voters Pamphlet puffed it up a little to give voters an impression of deeper experience and responsibility.
A District Attorney has opportunities every day to put a thumb on the scales of justice and to define ambiguities and gray areas. I don't want a DA stretching to see what she can get away with because it is arguably true when seen in the best possible light. That is what I think we see in her Voters Pamphlet. But the Secretary of State's office made its decision, and they determined she was accurate enough. She is not guilty of felony dishonesty.
I am looking for someone a little more straight-arrow in a DA. Maybe I am naive.
I voted for Patrick Green.
13 comments:
I voted for Alyssa Bartholomew.
I'm not voting for a little kid with limited legal experience.
I agree that she misrepresented her position to voters. It is dishonest, sleazy and corrupt, which seems fairly common these days. It is even worse when the person is part of our legal system. Maybe she is related to Clarence Thomas. Bill ("it depends what the definition of 'is' is") Clinton is another example.
Reminds me of the song from the children's TV program "Romper Room":
"Bend (the truth) and streeeeeetch, reach for the stars..."
However, the song is about children exercising, not lying and cheating.
I found myself agreeing with Peter. Too many Elective positions are being filled by people shade the truth about their qualifications and positions.
I voted for Green.
Perhaps the question on voter’s mind should be, who is the Senior County Council?
Does the assistant council report to them?
How are the Assistant County Council job duties different than the Senior Council?
Inquiring people ought to know before making up their minds?
Perhaps she should be reported to the Oregon State Bar. Bill Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years. He faced other legal sanctions as well.
Although not a lawyer, former Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was expelled from Congress for a variety of misdeeds. He also lied about his qualifications.
Using this standard it seems Wes Cooley didn't do anything wrong.
If I were running for office I would use the job title that HR provides, not puffery.
I do not support this interpretation l, nor do I support her.
We have a psycho running for president and a major political party along with its partisan judiciary doing everything in their power to prevent him from being held accountable. But here we are, quibbling over whether leaving "assistant" out of Bartholomew's job description was criminally deceptive or simply disingenuous.
Curt's endorsement of Bartholomew should be all the guidance anyone needs: Vote for Green.
Weird way of telling everyone you were wrong. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth out of Green.
Curt, Bartholamew was an entry-level prosecutor 20 years ago in another state. Green has at 4 times as much prosecution experience.
Message to anonymous at 2:30. I am not "wrong." The secretary of state's standard is if there is any way to construe something as true, then it isn't a felony, even if the intention was bad and the effect was to deceive.
A DA has a responsibility to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defendant. There might be a witness who states that they have a very different view of things and are "quite sure" they are right and are willing to swear to it. A corrupt DA might decide that since the witness is only "quite sure" and not "absolutely sure" then, arguably, there is no need to bring this witness to the attention of the defendant. The DA might justify to herself that there is no need to waste the defendant's time with a witness that, arguably, would be a waste of time. A person who left out the word assistant knows full well that they are puffing, and then justifying it by thinking through how, arguably, an assistant is really the same thing as the principal. The Sec. of State standard allows that.
My own sense is that Alyssa was fibbing, just little enough not the be criminal, but just enough to give a bit of padding to a resume that is short on leadership and management. So she deleted the "assistant" word and turned what is true, that she oversaw a person who directed a staff, into something not-quite-true, which is that she directed a staff. Oversaw equals directed, sort of, arguably, if a person is willing to exaggerate just a little to buttress her argument.
If I count signs and money, then Alyssa will win. She ran a better campaign, it looks like to me.
But she has revealed herself to be willing to bear false witness to her own qualifications. I read somewhere that that is wrong to do.
Peter Sage
Peter isn’t wrong. Bartholomew’s campaign has been wildly misleading even if her conduct wasn’t technically a crime. If she wins it’ll be interesting when the general public figures out that she hasn’t prosecuted in decades and has never supervised attorneys.
Patrick Green has stated in the voters pamphlet as “handling 10 homicide cases”. This is an outright blatant lie!!! He has “handled” zero. He assisted in one homicide case that went to trial and was handled by chief DA Jeremy Markiewicz before he left to become a judge. Green is stretching the truth to try to show experience that he doesn’t have. Green spent several of his years at the DA’s office assigned to prosecuting marijuana cases for the local law enforcement inter-agency marijuana team.
Post a Comment