Sue Horne, who is running for county assessor, has reponded to the voluntary candidate’s question posted here over the weekend, joining Rolf Kleinhans and Keith Royal. Thanks Sue.
Question:
Why is one of your biggest campaign contributors a Grass Valley Mobile Home park?
“Forest Springs Mobile Home Park is owned by the Tucker family. The Tuckers have lived in Nevada County for 40 years. The Hornes and the Tuckers have been friends and connected since the late 1980′s when our children became classmates. Our oldest son and our daughter continue to be close friends with the Tucker boys and daughter. Several of the Tucker family members live in the South County.
“The Tuckers have been financial supporters of mine for several of my races. They have supported me because we have shared values, and they have expressed to me that they appreciate my ethical and effective leadership and my conduct as a public servant. They believe that I have the executive management skills necessary to best lead the Office of the Assessor.
“I would like to address the conflict of interest issue as it relates to financial contributions. Without contributions from supporters, only candidates who would be able to afford to self-finance would run. It takes money to get your message out effectively as a county-wide candidate. Contributions are an expression of free speech and indicate the level of support in a community for a candidate.
“This contribution information is disclosed through the reportable financial reports so the public has knowledge of who the candidate is receiving support from. My Assessor campaign has received over 100 contributions from a broad and varied spectrum of primarily local businesses and individuals, not from out of county interests.
“I am acutely aware of the potential appearance of a conflict of interest in regard to valuing any individual property (particularly campaign supporters) and that is why as Assessor, I would take the advice of our interim Assessor, and I would not pen my signature to any individual field report. I will closely monitor the field work and review disputed reports, however, I believe as a public servant, your service is to be above reproach.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
This is a very reasonable response to the question Jeff P. asked More importantly, Horne acknowledges the difficulties inherent to running both a campaign, and the assessor’s office. I only hope that others seeking County office have a similar awareness that what they do needs to be transparent and “above reproach.” I did not have that impression from the statements made by the two other candidates responding to your Jeff’s questions.
I think a demonstrated commitment to transparency and the integrity of an office like that of assessor is more important than who you voted for in the last presidential election.
Thanks for the response candidate Horne!
It’s great to see candidates that are willing to talk to the community in advance of the vote.
“t’s great to see candidates that are willing to talk to the community” – Ditto. Thanks to Horne, Kleinhans and Royal for engaging.
Sorry, but I still don’t see how either of the candidates have the qualifications for this office. Very likely I will choose to not vote in this race rather than for the lesser of two evils, whover that may be.
Jon,
I think that the problem with these County offices in the first place is that the first qualification is willingness to subject oneself to the electorate. Most assessor-types are unwilling to do this. (Certainly I am not ready to put myself through that wringer). This is why I think that technial positions like this should be appointed, not elected.
In the absence of such a reform though, I guess we are stuck choosing between two people whose primary qualification will “willingness to raise money” and conduct a campaign. It is also a truth that in our electoral system, as Sue Horne indicates here, contributions are “an expression of free speech and indicate the level of support in a community for a candidate”. This is the system we have now, not the one we may wish for. At least Horne is aware that this carries a potential for a conflict of interest, and will not pen her name to a report individually. In this context, I hope that her employees will have some type of civil service protection so that they can be independent, too. Kleinhans does not acknowledged this conflict of interest in his statment to this blog.
Like you, I have occassionally chosen to abstain from such local contests. I will probably choose to abstain from the Sheriff’s race, where Royal is running unopposed. Like Kleinhans, Royal seems oblivious to the nature of conflicts of interest, and how this relates to his job as sheriff. But abstaining in the bigger picture is not much of a statement, is it? It is a very quiet thing to do which is frankly not much noticed by anyone.
Great response Ms. Horne and thanks for the commitment on not signing off on campaign donors property valuations.
Just an aside, there is an alternative to receiving donations from potential conflict sources and self financing elections. It is public financing of elections.
Tony,
When I look upon myself in the mirror I usually smile and sometimes laugh. Overall I’m pretty happy with myself. I’m not seeking to be noticed by anyone whether I choose to vote in a race or not. I cannot in good conscience vote for either of these two candidates. How about paying the winner based on their experience? That would be truly fiscally sound. I don’t believe either of the candidate would be running if that was added. Sue’s statement that donations to her campaign being an expression of free speech and shows a level of support in her community is just ridiculous. A ‘level of support’ from those that have expendable income in these trying times equates to an overall community approval?
Jon,
I think we should engage the system as it is, and try to change it to something else. In a small way both of us are doing this publicly on this blog. I suspect both of us would be agreeable to some type of limits on money in politics is a good thing, too. But this is not the question on the table.
My guess is that we probably both agree on the inherently corrupting power of money in local (and national) politics, particularly when it comes to jobs requiring trained professional judgment like that of assessor, sheriff, superintendent of schools, county recorder, treasurer, tax collector, etc. But, as the rules are written now, the first criteria for selection is a willingness to withstand the rough and tumble of an election. And as the rules are written now, this requires money for them to get their message out. It requires this even before the professional qualifications you write of.
As you point out, this is a reason to abstain from voting. I like it that you are abstaining “loudly” by posting comments here! Perhaps someone will notice, and the position will be made an appointive one instead of elective.
I like this place! Agreed Tony. Thanks again Jeff for providing the forum for intelleligent discussion.
Hmm, intelligent discussion is good too.