At Jill Clark's request, I am forwarding her response to my analysis of her challenge to Judge Thomas Wexler. (She also provided an attachment consisting of a Star Tribune article, but this list does not accept attachments.):
Jordan Kushner Golden Valley ----------------------------------- Hey Jordan Kushner! Jill Clark here. I got your email with your thoughtful questions about my candidacy and challenge of Judge Wexler. As you likely know, in 1993 the Minnesota Supreme Court found racial bias embedded in all parts of the criminal justice system in Minnesota, from charging to pleas, to sentencing. That Report articulated 2 types of bias: 1) outright individual acts of bias; and 2) systemic bias (embedded in the policies and procedures of the court itself). I am out to tackle both. Modern corporations have adopted "zero tolerance" policies for bias. Should we expect less from the Courts? I have talked to people, like you, who have had a good experience with Judge Wexler. But I have talked to more people who have had a bad experience with Judge Wexler, and point to bias. After a judical candidates forum at the Urban League a black woman told me she had been offended by Wexler's reference to "blacks and other poor people." When I was driving in Brooklyn Park today I saw a hand-painted sign stuck on the side of the road that read, "NO to Judge Wexler". Attorneys and parties who have appeared before him have told me they are vigorously advocating for me (or against him). Let me first tell you a bit about Wexler's comment made in my presence in January 2002. I was representing a black immigrant in a criminal action. We arrived for a probable cause hearing, but Wexler refused to hear it saying he was busy. We talked a bit and then out of the blue he said, "[t]his is not the first black person to appear in my courtroom. If we allow these people to bring these motions, they will clog the system." He then followed it with another similar statement. (You wondered whether he had ruled on a discrimination motion; he never did. If you want more details about our motions in the criminal case, I'm happy to oblige.) I found Wexler's statements and meaning to be very clear. Imagine if a Human Resources director in a private corporation said, "this is not the first black person to apply for a job here; if we allow these people to apply for jobs here they will clog the system." That would be seen as smoking gun evidence of discrimination. In early campaign materials Wexler denied making the January 2002 statement, but his later materials appear to justify it, rather than flatly deny it. His justification is efficiency of the system. Unfortunately, I have learned that in Hennepin County criminal courts, "efficiency" concerns can have a devastating impact on justice. Modern industry knows that you can't sacrifice quality for speed. We need to get our priorities straight in the justice system. The Courts are supposed to be the watchdog of individual rights. Judges should never be so concerned about efficiency that they deny rights to those who come to court. It is not enough that judges are fair one case at a time. As pubic servants, they must actively work to improve the overall administration of justice. I have lots of ideas which I will discuss in detail if you want. Your email said something about an earlier accusation against Wexler, but I'm not sure I know the reference. Are you referring to the 1991 complaint to the Board of Judicial Standards that Wexler made a racially derogatory remark? Or the 1993 complaint to the Judicial Standards Board that Wexler sexually harassed a court reporter and public reprimand? I attached a document that contains StarTribune article about these complaints, and one about Wexler's low rating by attorneys (21st out of 24 judges). You also mentioned that Wexler is endorsed by certain lawyers. You might be interested to know that some lawyers endorsed Wexler before they knew I was running against him. Some who learned I was running would not endorse him. And one told me, "he's a sitting judge, I have to call him back." I think attorneys are scared to say no to a sitting judge. I know they are afraid of speaking out against bad judical conduct, and I think that's another thing that has to change. After a screening interview I was endorsed by Minnesota Woman Lawyers (I am the only challenger they endorsed in Hennepin County). It's clear to me that people want change in the courts. I want to provide people with an alternative to Judge Wexler. Not just because of his unjudicial conduct, but because of my affirmative commitment to equality. I am willing to stick my neck out there and fight the tough systemic issues. When I learned that attorneys had more depression than any other field of work, I organized the Depression Task Force in 1998 and got funding for a non-profit that provides mental health and chemical dependency assistance for lawyers. When I started that project many lawyers told me not to talk about depression in the legal community. By the end lawyers and judges from all over the state were thanking me for raising the issue. I would like to help move the legal/judicial community from a place where everyone shrinks when the word "bias" in the courts is mentioned, to one where thoughtful dialogue leads to creative solutions. Thanks for asking the questions. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more. Jill Clark _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
