Department of Justice Union Endorses Greg Macpherson for Attorney General

Marc Abrams

[NOTE: The union representing the lawyers who serve in the Oregon Department of Justice, AFSCME Local 1085, the Oregon Association of Justice Attorneys, has just issued this press release. For the record, I serve as Vice President of that union. I will add my personal perspective in another post over the weekend. -Marc]

The Oregon Association of Justice Attorneys announced today that it has endorsed state Representative Greg Macpherson to be the next Attorney General of Oregon.

OAJA is the representative union for non-management Assistant Attorneys General in Oregon, representing approximately 250 lawyers in service at the Department of Justice. OAJA’s membership has a perspective and knowledge unique in the legal and labor communities regarding the scope of work of the Department of Justice and the role of the Attorney General in state government.

Because of the importance of the position of Attorney General to our members, OAJA offered the candidates the opportunity to speak to all Department of Justice attorneys, whether or not OAJA members. Both candidates accepted, were given identical and well-attended forums for their presentations. Each was allowed to make remarks of their choosing. Department lawyers were then given the opportunity to pose questions about all aspects of their goals and experience.

After the candidates spoke to DOJ attorneys, members requested the opportunity, for the first time in OAJA's 14-year existence, to consider a political endorsement. Pursuant to the OAJA By-laws, an OAJA endorsement required (a) a majority of OAJA members returning ballots, (b) a majority of those participating supporting the concept of issuing an endorsement, and (c) regardless of their answer to the question of whether to endorse, a majority of those returning ballots supporting a single candidate. These criteria were met.

The state is fortunate to have two very talented individuals who desire to be its Attorney General. However, in the opinion of OAJA, Rep. Greg Macpherson has the combination of legislative experience and knowledge of Oregon government to get the job done. Rep. Macpherson, who has chaired the Oregon House Judiciary Committee, also has a deep understanding of the nature and functions of the Department of Justice. OAJA is pleased to extend its endorsement and support to Rep. Macpherson.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Marc.

    I've been undecided on this race and this endorsement is very useful for helping me resolve whom to vote for.

  • ben rivers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is a pretty big endorsement. After seeing both speak, they decided that they want Macpherson for a boss. You really can't knock a decision like this. It is pretty telling. Congrats to Greg!

  • RinoWatch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm Shocked!

  • (Show?)

    How do these lawyers differ from the county DAs? Honest question.

  • Harry Wilson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The John Kroger for Attorney General campaign just released this statement:

    John Kroger Receives Strong Support from Department of Justice Staff

    Much of the strong support for the endorsement of John Kroger by the Service Employees International Union Local 503 (SEIU) comes from the staff of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    "In his life and in his campaign, John Kroger has shown a ground-level understanding of what it takes to work for a living, and sometimes struggle, to make ends meet," said Mike Bonner, a SEIU Local 503 member who works in the Department of Justice. "That came across clearly when John met with members of the Justice Local to discuss our concerns. John Kroger's approach resonates well with our members because he's faced tough times and tough situations."

    "I think he'll make a great Oregon Attorney General," concluded Bonner.

    SEIU members met with Kroger early in the campaign to discuss their ideas for moving the office forward, they discussed new strategies for child support enforcement and improving the day-to-day operations of the department.

    John Kroger enjoys strong support from across the labor community. SEIU Local 503 and 49, the AFL-CIO, Former Labor Commissioner Dan Gardner, the Oregon Education Association, the Teamsters Joint Council 37, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 48 and Carpenters Local Unions 247, 711, 1388, 2416, 2154 and 1065 are all supporting Kroger, an award-winning Lewis & Clark Law School professor and a former federal prosecutor. Kroger has received nearly every labor endorsement in the Attorney General's race to date.

    "I am proud to have the support of the working men and women at the Oregon Department of Justice," commented Kroger. "I look forward to working with them as Oregon's next Attorney General."

  • (Show?)

    TJ--

    District Attorneys handle the criminal workload of Oregon. DOJ is almost entirely civil. We have 300 lawyers, give or take. 40 or so, including me, work in Trial, which actually is our defense of civil suits arm. About the same amount handle appeals against the state from our cases and from administrative cases. Well over 100 are in General Counsel, handling the legal side of running the State as a business, including drafting regulations, administrative hearings, advice to agencies. Civil Enforcement is the plaintiff arm of the state, and includes family support enforcement (deadbeat dads), suits against Big Tobacco, and all things in between. Finally, roughly one dozen lawyers are in our Criminal Justice unit, the smallest of the five, and assist DAs in small counties in complex cases, work on gang and other organized crime issues and the like. This is a very compressed list and I apologize to any AAG whose work I've left out!

    Harry Wilson, who just posted regarding John's labor support, is on John's staff. Harry should note that although SEIU has endorsed John, the local in DOJ has not independently endorsed and it is simply impossible to determine what support either candidate had from the DOJ SEIU unit. SEIU at DOJ represents the classified staff, not the attorneys.

  • Dylan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a Kroger supporter, I have to admit this hurts.

  • (Show?)

    Can you give any of the back story behind why, for the first time in its existence, the OAJA decided to wade into the political fray? Seems like at least a few folks must've felt unusually strongly about the decision. Maybe it's me, but it seems strange for this group to make an endorsement, since they're going to have to work pretty closely with the winner, whoever that may be. If Kroger wins, they'll be fortunate that he doesn't seem like the vindictive type...

    [Note, though I'm a Kroger supporter, I'm not trying to question the validity of this endorsement. It seems far more thought out than most and I think will and should carry a great deal of weight with those who are on the fence. I'm really just genuinely curious about how it came about.]

  • (Show?)

    Nate--

    A fair question, and one that I will address in the "perspective" post I'll follow up on this one with. I'd like to keep my political analysis of what motivated our members a bit separate from this, the "official" post sanctioned by OAJA.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I definitely find this interesting, but I am a bit skeptical (any response is greatly appreciated).

    If your union has only been around 14 years, it's not surprising you've never endorsed, since Hardy was elected when your union had been around just two years, and he's been the incumbent ever since. This is your first significant chance to support a candidate. Is there any reason you refused to endorse Hardy in previous elections?

    Second, I might be wrong here, but based on the way you describe voting for an endorsement, only 50%+1 of your members has to return a ballot, and only 50%+1 of those returning a ballot have to be in favor of endorsing. That basically means you can endorse if only 25% of your members want to actually do so. Considering you made your members answer who they would choose -- even if they chose not to recommend having an endorsement -- you could essentially end up with 13% of your members saying, "We want to endorse, and we choose Greg." It's really not clear how many of your members actually wanted to endorse Greg.

    Lastly, and this is completely anecdotal: I have a few friends who work at DOJ and heard both John and Greg speak. They told me that most people were disappointed with both candidates but for different reasons. They told me neither candidate seemed to really understand what the AG's role was, at least from the AAGs' perspective. If that's true, I'm rather surprised the union felt a desire to endorse at all.

  • (Show?)

    thanks for the detailed reply, Marc. It was really helpful. I was guessing at a civil/criminal split; looks like I was right. If you're of a mind that criminal response needs a boost at DoJ as I imagine many DAs do, you'd be backing Kroger. If maintaining a primary focus on civil action is where you live, perhaps Mac is your man.

    Maybe we can discuss it more in the followup. Tx again for the quick lesson.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>"... OAJA endorsement required (a) a majority of OAJA members returning ballots, (b) a majority of those participating supporting the concept of issuing an endorsement, and (c) regardless of their answer to the question of whether to endorse, a majority of those returning ballots supporting a single candidate. These criteria were met."</h2>

    Sounds like a double majority rule here (and more). I wonder if they are against the general public having the same double majority for themselves?

    Harry

    ps that other Harry who previously posted is just that

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, I guess I should have written a bit more. Consider the following scenario: let's say 200 of your members return ballots (that's 80% of your membership), and 120 (60% of total votes) favor Macpherson.

    Then 80 people (40% of total votes) favor Kroger. But let's say 80% of those who favor Kroger (that's 64 people) favor endorsing. That's 64 who say, "We want to endorse, and we choose Kroger."

    Then 60 of Macpherson's supporters say they want to endorse. That's 50% of his support out of 120.

    So what are we left with? Well, 104 voters supported the idea of endorsement. That's 52%, so it's enough to create an endorsement. BUT, out of the people who actually supported a candidate AND wanted to endorse, Kroger actually had a higher number.

    Instead of Kroger winning because he had a higher number of people who favored endorsement AND favored him, he loses because more people favored Macpherson overall, even though fewer of his supporters actually wanted to endorse.

    I guess I want to know the voter breakdown and why you think this is an acceptable voting system.

  • Misha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe wrote: "If you're of a mind that criminal response needs a boost at DoJ as I imagine many DAs do, you'd be backing Kroger. If maintaining a primary focus on civil action is where you live, perhaps Mac is your man."

    I think this analysis is incorrect. Almost all of the DAs -- who are, by and large, a generally conservative bunch -- endorsed Hardy Myers in 2004, even though his Republican opponent was running much the same kind of tough-on-crime campaign that John Kroger is running today. The DAs have been enthusiastic supporters of how Hardy Myers has run the DOJ. As Hardy's 2004 campaign manager, I often heard from local DAs how appreciative they were of the support they received from Hardy's staff -- without having their toes stepped on. Many of them described Hardy as an ideal AG.

    My guess is that Kroger received the support of so many DAs largely because they felt a sense of kinship with a former prosecutor who has supported tough-on-crime measures like mandatory minimum sentences. Kroger may also have done a better job courting the DAs individually than Macpherson did. If that's the case, then Kroger rightfully earned those endorsements with a well-run campaign.

    And, obviously, the reason why Kroger has received so much labor support generally is because of Macpherson's votes on the PERS reforms.

    None of these points are meant to denigrate Kroger's endorsements from the DAs or from labor. I just think the narrative torridjoe has offered to explain the endorsement is incorrect.

  • (Show?)

    I think the analysis that Kroger is running any kind of "tough on crime" campaign is pretty inaccurate too, certainly in terms that the GOP uses to mean "crime." They mean black people doing drugs and robbing people, not white people doing designer drugs and robbing their stock holdings or polluting their backyards.

    I would also add that it's not inconceivable that, having seen Hardy Myers do next to nothing in criminal areas in 2004, the DAs have found someone who will elevate the criminal justice office beyond the tiny, ineffectual group it is now.

    Having spoken at length with Kroger a number of times, I wouldn't discount their approval of a shift in focus from the invisible office that it is today.

  • (Show?)

    Just a quite note on the voting -- OAJA is not going to release the breakdown, but I will assure those doing the math that the bare majority of a bare majority of a bare majority, while theoretically possible, did not occur.

    As to "double majorities," I have personally opposed them in public elections, but many unions and political parties have more stringent requirements precisely to ensure that their membership is comfortable with the process. That was the logic here.

    As to why we have never endorsed before, I was not there that entire time, so I can't speak to the history. This was, however, the first time the membership in significant numbers requested the opportunity.

  • getreal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Look, this isn't really that hard to understand.

    There is a reason why the DOJ attorneys decided, for the first time in their history, to endorse a candidate. I mean really - who doesn't get it?

    If Kroger was even nominally acceptable to the DOJ lawyers, they would have played it safe. The fact is this guy scared the shit out of them. They saw what he was all about: a hyper-ambitious Spitzer-wannabe who figures Oregon is a podunk enough state that he can rise through the political ranks quickly, as a crusading AG, and get back to DC in higher office.

    Just another east-coast second stringer trying to dupe us into voting for him. Haven't we seen enough of this?

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a former DOJ attorney, I can appreciate the OAJA support for Macpherson. Although Kroger also has strong credentials, in my view Macpherson has a better grasp and understanding of the role of DOJ here in Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    "Just another east-coast second stringer trying to dupe us into voting for him. Haven't we seen enough of this?"

    Thanks, Mrs. Macpherson. We like your son, too.

  • Misha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe wrote, ". . . certainly in terms that the GOP uses to mean "crime." They mean black people doing drugs and robbing people, not white people doing designer drugs and robbing their stock holdings or polluting their backyards.

    Actually, torridjoe, Kroger's message about fighting crime and combating meth is strikingly similar to that of Hardy's Republican opponent in 2004.

    Again, this is not a criticism of Kroger's message. But your efforts to distinguish his tough-on-crime agenda is incorrect.

  • Frank Carper (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marc,

    Thanks for posting this. While I didn't otherwise know Blue Oregon had simply been a dumping ground for press releases, this is helpful information I look forward to the mentioned follow up thoughts.

    Unfortunately for Macpherson, if I were John Kroger, I would use this to my advantage. You see, Macpherson seems to be offering business as usual. If I were a rank and file attorney, that would be great to know and I too would support Macpherson.

    If folks are looking for someone not coming directly from corporate law who will work for the benefit of all Oregonians, this endorsement would further steer me to support Kroger.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with Frank when he says this:

    You see, Macpherson seems to be offering business as usual. If I were a rank and file attorney, that would be great to know and I too would support Macpherson.

    This endorsement is like the status quo voting for the status quo... to keep the status quo.

    Many of us feel that there needs to be some changes in the way things are done in the AG's office and DOJ. Changes can be worrisome for those who are already working there.

    Legislative and government experience is great - but courtroom and criminal experience is very important. Even if you're mostly just overseeing other employees, having experience in what they're working with is important. I certainly wouldn't hire a manager who hadn't done a good chunk of the work his or her employees would be doing.

    I'm also really tired of all this stuff about Kroger being from outside the state. There are plenty of us here who are from outside the state - that's not a bad thing. Also, while Kroger did practice law on the east coast, he's from Houston, Texas and is a Texan like myself.

  • (Show?)

    Jenny--

    I personally think that's been one of the canards of this campaign: that one candidate is for change and the other isn't. It's also incorrect to assume that those in a system fear change in a system. How many times have progressives argued for candidates with government experience by saying "who better knows what's wrong that one on the inside?" I think both candidates provided our members with a detailed and significant description of the changes they envisioned. If you believe DOJ lawyers fear change, you haven't spoken with many of us! It's also absolutely wrong to assume that AAG decision-making was centered on how our day-to-day lives might change. To the contrary, almost all of what I heard related to the role of the institution relative to the people of Oregon.

    As to the changes you'd like to see in DOJ, can you state what they are? I think a lot of folks do not understand that each position is specifically approved by the legislature. The AG operates within those constraints. In addition, most of what we do is mandated by statute or by necessity. We need to defend lawsuits, draft regulations, etc. None of that is surplus, and any change would almost certainly need to be added on, which is fine, but requires legislative approval, which the GOP withheld while in control.

    As to having experience in what the employees an AG will oversee are doing, far more AAGs do non-trial work than trial work. Although I work in the Trial Division, I disagree that being a trial lawyer is a necessary precondition to being a good attorney general (nor is it a bad thing -- I don't see any specialization as having a benefit or detriment).

    However, I agree the nativism is irrelevant. But, of course, I speak as one who moved here from New York and was elected to office four years later, so on that point, I have a bit of a bias!

  • (Show?)

    "Actually, torridjoe, Kroger's message about fighting crime and combating meth is strikingly similar to that of Hardy's Republican opponent in 2004."

    Misha, you'll have to show me the Republican opposing Myers who made the FIRST cornerstone of his "fighting crime" program to be treatment. I don't buy it. And I bet that Republican would have favored Mannix's initiative, which Kroger doesn't.

    His message of fighting crime is: the last guy never made fighting crime in his office a priority; I will. I agree with that message.

  • (Show?)

    "As to the changes you'd like to see in DOJ, can you state what they are?"

    Behave as the people's lawyer, not just the state's lawyer. Prosecute deadbeat parents. Lay down injunctions on serial polluters and maybe even charge them with crimes of negligence. Take the lead on consumer protection. Step out in front and defend the legal choices made by Oregonians at the ballot.

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Misha, I have known you for a few years and have a lot of respect for your opinion but you are 100% wrong about Kroger and "tough on crime." When Republicans talk about being tough on crime, they mean locking people up and forgetting about them - however, if you actually listen to what Kroger says, this is not what he is talking about. Kroger's "tough on crime" is organizing state resources to go after organized crime, while expanding drug treatment for those who need it. For you to claim that a liberal Democrat is no different from some very conservative Republicans is misleading and unfair. There is a way for liberals to be tough on crime, and Kroger wants to move Oregon in that direction.

  • Valkyrie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe:

    First, a disclaimer: I have been a lawyer at DOJ for almost 20 years, through 4 AGs. And I was one of the founding members of OAJA.

    Like many people who criticize what DOJ does or does not do, you don't have all the facts. Prosection of deadbeat parents is done by local DAs. The same is true of criminal environmental prosecution. If they need and want assistance, they ask for it from DOJ, just as they can with any other prosection. But about half of DOJ's employees are involved in Child Support enforcement, working directly with parents. Our financial fraud division is one of the best and most effectiove ion the country. Oregon has had a leading role in the tobacco litigation, and DOJ is taking on the federal government's refusal to allow states to have stronger greenhouse gas standards.

    All of that being said, what DOJ is able to do is dependent on resources. The same is true of other agencies. If folks want more environmental enforcement, they need to support legislators and legislation that provides more resources for investigators and enforcement folks at DEQ, and more money to DEQ so it can pay DOJ to do the necessary legal work, because that is how the system is funded. So the attorneys at DOJ know that the ability to expand the mission and do more for the people of Oregon is dependent on working with the legislature to get additional resources. Much of the DOJ support for Greg Macpherson is the result of the belief that he can produce those additional resources.

    I do need to gently prod Marc, though. While the majority of DOJ's work is civil, the Appellate Division defends all appeals from criminal convictions, both direct appeals and collateral challenges. There are also a number of lawyers in the Trial Division who defend criminal conviction against collateral challenges. And the Criminal Justice Division is directly involved in prosecutions, assisting the District Attorneys throughout the state (and on occasion, acting as the District Attorney when one of them is unable to serve). The organized Crime units and Criminal Intelligence units also provide support for the DAs and for police agencies. So DOJ is intimately involved in criminal prosecutions as well.

    Because of the sheer scope of the work that DOJ is mandated to do, there is no way that any one individual could be acquainted with all of it. We have specialists in areas where specialists are needed. But an AG does need to have a working knowledge of state government, of DOJ's role, and the legislature's role.

    Those of us at DOJ are not interested in the status quo. The question is who can best create the circumstances that can bring change about.

  • Justice Lawyer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Amen, Valkyrie. I am no longer at DOJ, but worked there for many years, also through many AGs, and have great respect for the agency and its attorneys.

    Kroger's supporters are understandably disappointed by the OAJA vote, but it is not an excuse for public employee bashing, however veiled that bashing might be. This was a courageous vote, and the Justice attorneys should be commended, not accused of being invested in the status quo.

    To me, the remarkable thing is not what a short time Kroger has been in the state -- rather, it's how long he has been here without doing anything substantive for the environmental or labor causes he now claims to support. His labor union endorsements are not due to anything he has ever done for labor (as far as I am aware, he has done nothing). He got those endorsements simply because he did not work on the 2003 PERS legislation.

    As for the environment, hey, doesn't Kroger work at Lewis & Clark law school? The law school that has its own environmental law clinic? I have asked whether Kroger has ever worked at that clinic, or indeed had anything whatsoever to do with it, and the answer was "no." Doesn't that seem odd?

    So what exactly has Kroger done during his years here in Oregon? I mean, other than take a few months off to work on a couple of Enron indictments (the merits of which have been discussed elsewhere), and even then he didn't stick around for the actual prosecution. Anyone who has read Kroger's law review article "The Politics of Crime" can have no doubt that his brief involvement with the Enron case was politically motivated.

    It is so easy to make big promises, especially when you haven't had the experience of actually governing or a record of doing anything, good or bad. I deeply respect my former DOJ colleagues for their willingness to take a stand in this campaign. More power to you, guys.

    And as for Kroger's supporters, what say we leave the public employee bashing to the Republicans, okay?

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In my view, the OAJA endorsement is a very important one. As a former DOJ attorney, I highly respect my former colleagues and know that this vote was not taken lightly. Those who have yet to make up their mind should consider this endorsement favorably toward Macpherson and ignore the unfortunate comments made by some Kroger supporters against DOJ attorneys. Such comments have no place in a responsible discussion about the AG race.

  • (Show?)

    "Prosection of deadbeat parents is done by local DAs. The same is true of criminal environmental prosecution. If they need and want assistance, they ask for it from DOJ, just as they can with any other prosection. But about half of DOJ's employees are involved in Child Support enforcement, working directly with parents. Our financial fraud division is one of the best and most effectiove ion the country. Oregon has had a leading role in the tobacco litigation, and DOJ is taking on the federal government's refusal to allow states to have stronger greenhouse gas standards."

    I do know all this things--mostly because Kroger laid them out during our interviews. Both of us are aware how much manpower is assigned to child support, the problem is that Oregon still has one of the lowest capture rates in the nation. Further, there is no one that I see auguring for a repeal of the ridiculous idea that nonresident child support paid to TANF families goes back to TANF instead of the family, minus 50 bucks. There's bodies, it won't neccessarily take a huge infusion of new resources (and that's what Kroger has said), but a rededication of focus and an attempt to try what has worked in other states. Oregon was indeed a leader in the tobacco settlement; why has it not advocated for the better use of that money, and stronger local prosecutions of tobacco for things like SNUS marketing or fire safe cigarettes (which thankfully the Leg managed to do last year?) And how great that we're fighting the feds on greenhouse standards; why aren't we prosecuting serial polluters in our own state?

    Thanks for your information, but I'm not clueless about the DOJ.

  • Misha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A-Rab,

    As I stated repeatedly above, my point was not to denigrate Kroger's positions, his campaign, or his endorsements. Reread my first post, above. My point was to say that those like torridjoe who want to view this election as change (symbolized by the DA endorsements) versus the status quo (symbolized by the OAJA endorsement) are incorrect.

    More of the DAs endorsed Hardy Myers in 2004 than have endorsed Kroger this year. And I would venture to speculate that if Hardy had chosen to run for a fourth term this year, he would have received the same endorsements again. The DAs as a group have been very approving of Hardy's work as AG.

    By the way, Hardy was also endorsed in 2004 by every law enforcement organization in Oregon (the police officers, the fire chiefs, the correctional officers, Crime Victims United, etc.), except for the state police. These are, by and large, conservative organizations that often decline to endorse incumbent Democrats and many of which refused to endorse Hardy in his 2000 reelection bid. But all of these organizations had high praise for Hardy's work on law enforcement. Again, I would guess that if Hardy had decided to run for a fourth term this year, all of these organizations would again have backed him.

    Having said that, one might ask why many of the DAs chose to endorse Kroger over Macpherson. I offered three guesses: first, I suspect they felt a sense a kinship with him as a former prosecutor; second, this kinship was probably confirmed by the tough-on-crime message on which Kroger has based his campaign; and third, he probably worked harder than Macpherson to court the DAs individually. None of these are bad things. I'm just saying the DA endorsements don't mean what torridjoe (and others) seem to think they mean.

    It's also possible that the DAs objected to one or more positions that Macpherson has taken as chair of the judiciary committee in the legislature. Of course, Kroger is in a uniquely privileged position by not having any record to defend.

    So -- I'll grant that Kroger's tough-on-crime message may have a softer edge than the classic Republican position. Again, my point was never to denigrate Kroger or his positions. But the fact is that Kroger has taken some tough-on-crime positions, like support for mandatory minimums, that may have been particularly appealing to the DAs, particularly in light of his experience as a former prosecutor.

  • Misha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe wrote, "Thanks for your information, but I'm not clueless about the DOJ."

    Weren't you the one who didn't understand the difference between DOJ attorneys and the DAs? (See your comment above, Apr 11, 2008 3:42:35 PM.)

  • (Show?)

    Thanks to Valkyrie for the clarification on the Appellate branch, which I forgot to note, and on the CJ work, which I did. Regardless, my point was only that the work of DOJ, by statute, by design, and by exstence of the DAs, is overwhelmingly CIVIL. TJ, thanks for your continuing honest inquiry. FYI, the child support division you mention is not attorneys. And that body dwarfs the number of attorneys, but attorneys in the Civil Enforcement Division DO also do "deadbeat dad" work; that is not only DAs.

    What I would suggest to you is simply that, if you want a change in the mission of the DOJ, it is (a) as much in the hands of the Legislature as it is the AG, (b) not something that should be done at teh expense of the current and valid mission, and (c) should not be assumed that AAGs re opposed to any particular change. I've certainly not seen evidence that my fellow are "small 'c'" conservatives.

  • (Show?)

    "Weren't you the one who didn't understand the difference between DOJ attorneys and the DAs? (See your comment above, Apr 11, 2008 3:42:35 PM.)"

    Yes, did you take "not clueless" to mean "omniscient?" There is a pretty wide traffic lane between knows nothing and knows everything, I think.

connect with blueoregon