I walked out of the meeting thinking, wow, that was great! The mixture of Republicans and Democrats really worked in this setting, unlike the attempt a few nights ago by the Clear Lake Tea Party. One thing was pretty clear, party affiliation doesn’t seem to play much, if any, difference in the thought processes of these candidates. When one of the candidates was asked that very question, the most he could come up with is that the Democrats are more “progressive” because they all actively sought the endorsement of the GLBT crowd and not a single Republican did. He pointed out that there are a large number of homosexuals in Houston – perhaps there are but I fail to see the relevance.
The Participants
The two Republican candidates that participated were Joel Grandstaff and Anthony Magdaleno. The Democrats were Steve Herskowitz and Brad Morris. Each of these men presented themselves well and are obviously passionate about both their profession and their candidacies. Fortunately, all have participated in the Judicial Q&A; you can read their responses by clicking on their name below.
Republicans:
Democrats (via Off the Kuff):
The Format
Each participant was allowed to give an opening statement. After that, the moderator, Larry Lane, asked a series of four questions, using the common practice of rotating who would answer first. After that, each candidate was allowed to ask one candidate a specific question. Then, the floor was opened up to the audience for questions and three were asked. In this round, it was pretty much open to whomever wanted to answer. Finally, each candidate was allowed to give a closing statement.
The Questions
First Question: What does the candidate think about the idea of “specialty courts”?
Mr. Lane asks the question:
{mp3}kwtps_judicial-forum_specialty-courts{/mp3}
Mr. Grandstaff followed by Mr. Magdaleno:
{mp3}grandstaff_magdaleno_specialty-courts{/mp3}
Second Question: What qualities set you apart from the other candidates?
Mr. Lane asks the question:
{mp3}kwtps_judicial-forum_sets-apart{/mp3}
Mr. Grandstaff followed by Mr. Magdaleno:
{mp3}grandstaff_magdaleno_sets-apart{/mp3}
Third Question: Should lawyers that will/might appear before a judge be allowed to contribute to the campaign?
Mr. Lane asks the question:
{mp3}kwtps_judicial-forum_contributions{/mp3}
Mr. Grandstaff followed by Mr. Magdaleno:
{mp3}grandstaff_magdaleno_contributions{/mp3}
Fourth Question: How would you enhance the efficiency and increase the throughput of the 311th?
Mr. Lane asks the question:
{mp3}kwtps_judicial-forum_efficiency{/mp3}
Mr. Grandstaff followed by Mr. Magdaleno:
{mp3}grandstaff_magdaleno_efficiency{/mp3}
I didn’t find the candidate to candidate questions interesting and as a general rule, I’m not a fan of questions from the audience, so I skipped those.
The Closings
{vimeo}9149208{/vimeo}
{vimeo}9148234{/vimeo}
The Conclusions
First, the Kingwood Tea Party Society continues to host first rate events and Republican Precinct Chair Larry Lane is a fine moderator. About the only thing I would change is to have some type of time keeping system – lawyers are pretty good at filibustering. The attendance was great, I’d put it at 40 voters plus a dozen or so candidates.
Second, these are all serious men and I learned a lot about them and the family courts. It is easy to see why the courts should not be a part of a partisan electoral system. But as Mr. Morris said, this is the system we have been given from our grandfathers and it isn’t going to change anytime soon. I would have no problem voting for either Mr. Herskowitz or Mr. Morris, based upon this forum.
The Controversy
I’d be remiss and not tell the whole truth if I left this out. Notice that I started out by saying that all candidates were “supposed” to have been invited. I thought it odd when I didn’t see Donna Detamore’s name on the candidate’s table, so I asked and was told that all candidates were invited. Although all of the candidates are working hard, I doubt any of them attend more events than Ms. Detamore. I just assumed that she had a scheduling conflict.
Turns out that wasn’t the case, according to Ms. Detamore. When I arrived home, I put a short note on Facebook that I had just attended a great forum for the 311th. Ms. Detamore contacted me the following morning, asking about the forum and saying she knew nothing about it. There was no scheduling conflict, she could have attended.
A few minutes later, she sent a message telling me that she had looked KWTPS Facebook page and noticed that “Eric Zuleger” was the administrator. Turns out that she represented Mr. Zuleger’s wife in a very nasty, three year long divorce. In fact, Mr. Zuleger had mentioned a protracted divorce as one of the reasons they wanted to put forth a forum like this. In addition, Mr. Grandstaff was the Amicus for the children involved in the divorce.
Alarm bells ringing, I called Larry Lane and asked him. He was quite surprised and told me he would check it out. A couple of hours later he called back and said that yes, every candidate had been invited and that was that. He gave me Mr. Zuleger’s phone number so that I could verify.
I did speak to Mr. Zuleger. He is emphatic that he did invite all candidates but couldn’t remember if he emailed or called Ms. Detamore. He called back and told me that after reviewing his notes, he found that he left voice mail messages for her on 1/22 and 1/29. Ms. Detamore insists that is not the case, both dates are Fridays, and her office closes on Fridays at noon.
I’ll leave it up to you to determine the truth here. Like I said, I was surprised that Ms. Detamore would miss a golden opportunity like this.
