Topic: How's the Prosecuting Attorney Doing?

[Lepard LLC]

It just feels to me like you have an agenda about Hooper, something I read you wrote somewhere.. Therefore it does make you look biased, and not the ideal person to hold the debate. Then again she doesn't come here and defend herself, so you know what I always say, "People don't come here who have something to hide." Not saying she does, but in my opinion it seems strange. I know I'd be in here defending myself if I were attacked. Then again I can just ban them LOL..

I've known Mrs. Hooper for a very long time both professionally and socially, so I'm not just someone "on PCW".  Even if I was, I'm still a voter and it should matter.

[darrellmaurina]

Let's give Jeff credit... he took on Deborah in court defending someone accused of robbing the Lion's Den store and defeated a sitting prosecutor who has been a lawyer almost as long as Jeff has been alive. That should carry some weight. No matter what somebody thinks of the current prosecutor, it shows that Jeff is able to try and win cases against somebody who has been a lawyer for a long, long time.

I had someone ask me a question yesterday about this.

No, I am not making a public endorsement of Jeff Thomas, or for that matter, Kevin Hillman or Wayne Gifford or any other local candidate for any office. I don't get involved in supporting or opposing local candidates barring extreme cases. The Deborah Hooper situation is one of those cases where, as part of my work, I have seen things for the last four years that the general public needs to know about and which cannot be allowed to continue.

Accused criminals have walked free in this county with smiles on their faces because of Deborah Hooper's errors. Want proof? Remember the arson case from a few years ago where the accused arsonist's defense attorney asked the state fire marshal why he didn't take pictures, the state fire marshal said he did, the surprised defense attorney asked where they were, and the state fire marshal pointed to Deborah Hooper and said he gave them to her? After something like that, there wasn't any choice; the jury had to be dismissed, the case had to be started all over again, and dozens of man-hours of firefighters and law enforcement personnel who had driven to Rolla to testify were all wasted for no reason whatsoever except that Deborah Hooper lost key evidence. Fortunately, the state fire marshal kept copies.

Unfortunately, that is not an isolated case. I believe, given her track record of the last four years, that any of her three opponents would be an improvement.

My public challenge to Mrs. Hooper stands. If she, as the sitting prosecutor, can find any law enforcement officer in Pulaski County willing to publicly endorse her and do a sit-down, on-the-record interview with me about why that officer supports her work as prosecutor for the last four years and deserves to be re-elected, I'll interview that officer in-depth and in detail on why that officer believes she is doing a good job.

There are less than eight weeks until the primary election. The clock is ticking on that offer. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

[Waynesvillian]

I had someone ask me a question yesterday about this.

No, I am not making a public endorsement of Jeff Thomas, or for that matter, Kevin Hillman or Wayne Gifford or any other local candidate for any office. I don't get involved in supporting or opposing local candidates barring extreme cases. The Deborah Hooper situation is one of those cases where, as part of my work, I have seen things for the last four years that the general public needs to know about and which cannot be allowed to continue.

Accused criminals have walked free in this county with smiles on their faces because of Deborah Hooper's errors. Want proof? Remember the arson case from a few years ago where the accused arsonist's defense attorney asked the state fire marshal why he didn't take pictures, the state fire marshal said he did, the surprised defense attorney asked where they were, and the state fire marshal pointed to Deborah Hooper and said he gave them to her? After something like that, there wasn't any choice; the jury had to be dismissed, the case had to be started all over again, and dozens of man-hours of firefighters and law enforcement personnel who had driven to Rolla to testify were all wasted for no reason whatsoever except that Deborah Hooper lost key evidence. Fortunately, the state fire marshal kept copies.

Unfortunately, that is not an isolated case. I believe, given her track record of the last four years, that any of her three opponents would be an improvement.

My public challenge to Mrs. Hooper stands. If she, as the sitting prosecutor, can find any law enforcement officer in Pulaski County willing to publicly endorse her and do a sit-down, on-the-record interview with me about why that officer supports her work as prosecutor for the last four years and deserves to be re-elected, I'll interview that officer in-depth and in detail on why that officer believes she is doing a good job.

There are less than eight weeks until the primary election. The clock is ticking on that offer. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Your wrong again, you are making a public endorsement against Deb Hooper, its plain as those glasses on your face that you dont like her and are biased in anything you say that has to do with the Prosecuting Attorney race, its also clear that your with Hillman.

[just_here]

From what I read, I don't believe Darrel dislikes Ms. Hooper personally.  In all honesty, you could probably take her name away from this entirely and just focus on her actions.  I believe that Darrel has some legitimate concerns as far as her ability to successfully run the prosecutor's office and rightly so.  The underlying hint of personal vindictivness on Darrel's part is offensive.  I see a reporter trying to get information out to the public in order for us to make an informed decision that will better the people.  I for one consider what Darrel has to say extremely informative since he has sat in the courtroom more than anyone else on this site and observed Ms. Hooper's performance on a regular basis.  Furthermore, I don't think Darrel has had to dig too deeply to find things troubling in Ms. Hooper's last 4 years.  Matter of fact, it seems to me that her actions have given him plenty of fodder.  I'm sure those victims who recieved no justice due to her lack of professionalism would and are praising Darrel's efforts to get the information out to those who haven't stepped foot in a courtroom in the last 4 years, but who might in the future.
 
Also, I can't see him being completely in Mr. Hillman's corner if he is pointing out the atributes of Mr. Thomas.  Speaking as someone from the public, I have heard nothing of Mr. Thomas other than he is extremely inexperienced.  I don't think Darrel has said anything to the contrary, he's only reported what he witnessed as far as Mr. Thomas' performance in the courtroom.  As far as Mr. Hillman is concerned, I have heard nothing but praise for the man where his abilities are concerned and it is my understanding his resume is extremely impressive.  Once again, nothing different from Darrel.  However, if Darrel were to bring to light anything to the contrary concerning Mr. Thomas or Mr. Hillman, I'm sure he would bring it to the public's attention.
 
What it all boils down to, is that Darrel seems to be reporting the things that he is aware of, which by definition, is a reporter's job.  If Darrel chose to sit silent and these things were brought to light after the election, then he would be condemed for withholding the truth.  When making a decision like this, I want as much creditable information as I can get in order to make my decision.  No one has produced any information to the contrary to contradict anything that Darrel has published, good or bad.  Until that happens, I believe I will continue to take what Darrel says into consideration and support him in his efforts.   

[Chas]

While I don’t think Darrell has come out and supported anyone.  He has come out against Hooper.  Which is his right, I don’t see how what he wrote can be taken any other way. 

[Kristi Marie]

Question for everyone~ I have been going to court with my son for 3 years now~ his case was dismissed yesterday~ I have sat in that courtroom alot over the last few years and they are backed up like you would not believe~ I don't think it is all Ms Hooper herself, go sit there sometime and watch what happens in court, then come back and post about her~ I don't know her personally all I have ever seen is her in court, and I know alot of people don't like her, but all i'm saying is that I don't think it is all her fault for court being backed up so bad~

[cowboy]

Thats the point she is inefficient.  She has done 50-70% the number of cases of prior PA (the actual numbers are post somewhere). 

[blissfullybusy]

It just feels to me like you have an agenda about Hooper, something I read you wrote somewhere.. Therefore it does make you look biased, and not the ideal person to hold the debate. Then again she doesn't come here and defend herself, so you know what I always say, "People don't come here who have something to hide." Not saying she does, but in my opinion it seems strange. I know I'd be in here defending myself if I were attacked. Then again I can just ban them LOL..

I would like to clarify... I'm not "holding" the debate. I simply took the initiative to make the arrangements happen.  William O. Worsham, Attorney at Law will be the neutral moderator.  He is not from this county and has years of experience in all aspects of the law including prosecution and will determine what questions will need to be asked.  He will be determining the questions and who is asked what. He does not know any of the candidates, their history or their party affiliation.  There will be 5-7 questions that will be provided to the candidates prior to the debate to prepare answers and then several questions that will be submitted from the constituents and the candidates, nor I, will know what those ones are.

I really have nothing more to do with the actual debate other than making sure people are where they need to be and at what time.

[darrellmaurina]

Your wrong again, you are making a public endorsement against Deb Hooper, its plain as those glasses on your face that you dont like her and are biased in anything you say that has to do with the Prosecuting Attorney race, its also clear that your with Hillman.

Others have said on my behalf most of what I would have said in response to your specific post, and I thank them (specifically JustHere and Chas) for doing so.
 
It's always an interesting sport when people try to figure out who a reporter supports. I posted here recently because someone contacted me privately and said people were saying I was supporting Jeff Thomas. You think I'm supporting Kevin Hillman. If people can't figure out which of those two Republican candidates I am supporting, that's probably a good thing. I am a conservative Republican, that's not a secret, and barring unusual circumstances I will almost always vote for a Republican unless the Democrat is a strong conservative or obviously more qualified.

But since people are already guessing and guessing wrongly what I think, I probably need to address that. Rather than let people continue to guess, here's my personal opinion on the race:

1. All three candidates other than Hooper probably can do the job. Hooper has proved she cannot do the job.

2. All four candidates have both pros and cons. (Yes, even Hooper has a few things in her favor: she has years of experience, she graduated from good schools, and was a committed conservative Republican who volunteered for military service in the JAG Corps during a period when the anti-military attitudes of the Vietnam War made volunteering for the military an important statement on her part.) I think a reasonable person, knowing what I know, could cast a well-informed vote for any of the three candidates other than Hooper.

3. Each of the three remaining candidates are better than others in some ways, while worse than others in different ways.

A: Wayne Gifford was the prosecutor twice before, and has been a special prosecutor even under Deborah Hooper when Hooper had conflicts of interest and she needed to appoint an outside prosecutor. He grew up here, he knows the county extremely well, and would be a competent prosecutor if elected. He'd also annoy lots of people with his attitude. There are older people in law enforcement who remember his past work as prosecutor and like the fact that he's a pit bull with sharp teeth. He has a track record that can best be summarized as saying he's a very aggressive and tough lawyer who knows the law very well, but whose interpersonal skills leave something to be desired. When running for office, people skills are important, and it's probably the main reason (other than being a Democrat) that he's likely unelectable. But regardless of his people skills, he would be much better than Hooper at actually getting the job done, and if Hooper somehow manages to win the Republican nomination there is no doubt in my mind that I will publicly endorse Gifford in the general election.

B. Kevin Hillman is relatively new to this county, though he has lived here for a number of years. Lots of people outside the legal community don't know him, and while I have had the opportunity to observe his work, not being a "known commodity" is going to be an important problem for a lot of people. He's been a military prosecutor before, but so has Deborah Hooper, and we saw how well that worked out. There are major differences between military and civilian prosecution, the key one being the tremendous fire hose of work civilian prosecutors face, and Kevin needs to answer questions about how he will manage the prosecutor's office and their massive workload. Kevin is also in the Missouri National Guard, and while that's a big positive in my book, some view that as a negative. People need to be aware that he might get called up for active duty and we need to make sure there's a "Plan B" in place in case he's called up. He's been a lawyer in this area for a number of years, though much less than either Wayne Gifford or Deborah Hooper, and the fact that he's worked for Tyce Smith before becoming the St. Robert City Attorney and now also Waynesville Municipal Judge should be taken into account. (Wayne Gifford is also the Crocker prosecutor, BTW, so he also has municipal experience.) He has a track record, though it's thinner than that of Gifford or Hooper. Those who want to vote for Hillman will likely do so because they value experience but believe Gifford is unnecessarily abrasive and Hooper is demonstrably incapable of doing the job.

C. Jeff Thomas is a young lawyer right out of law school, but the fact that he's the son of a local lawyer and grew up in this area can and should carry weight. He also graduated from a law school with a poor reputation, but he's explained to me that he attended that school because he could get through it in one year less than other law schools. That seems like a reasonble explanation to me. Being the son of Jim Thomas is a positive in some people's book and a negative in others, and it needs to be taken into account because unless his father retires, there will have to be many special prosecutors appointed to handle cases in which he or his father were involved as defense attorneys. (That's also an issue for the other two candidates, though it's less of a problem for them because unlike the others who won't have family members currently practicing law, Jeff Thomas' father will still be here in this county and still working.) The major negative against Jeff Thomas is his lack of experience, but the fact is that even with that lack of experience, he was still able to beat Deborah Hooper in a prominent court case. Those who vote for Jeff Thomas will be those who place less value on experience than on knowing the community and being known, and who believe Thomas has proved by beating Hooper in court that youthful energy can be more effective than years in legal practice.
 
4. Those who believe I have a personal animosity against Deborah Hooper are wrong. I voted for her four years ago. I thought, for a variety of reasons, that she was a better candidate than either of her two Democratic opponents. I was wrong, that's crystal clear from what I have seen in the courtroom, and I'm not afraid to admit it when facts show I've made a mistake.
 
5. The most important reason I oppose Deborah Hooper is the terrible relationship Hooper has developed with local law enforcement. A prosecutor's best friends should be the local police because it is the prosecutor's job to send the people to jail who the police have arrested. When the police don't like the prosecutor, the least that can be said is that something is seriously wrong.

So what's the best answer? That's really up to the individual voters and how much value they put on different types of candidate qualifications.
 
Two of the three candidates have been prosecutors before and have track records as good lawyers. With the third candidate, people are taking a risk with a young and relatively inexperienced lawyer, but he's already shown himself better than Hooper in the courtroom. And experience is not the sole factor voters should consider: Hooper is the most experienced of all the Republican candidates, but she's had long enough in office to prove she can't do the job. Some people may also say that having a young and aggressive prosecutor who knows the area well is better than having Gifford or Hillman because of specific things about Hillman or Gifford that they don't like.

I've tried to frame the issues, but nowhere in this post have I told anyone how I will vote, other than that as a Republican I will vote in the Republican primary but will cross over to vote for Gifford if Hooper wins the Republican nomination. I sincerely believe a reasonable voter could make an informed decision to support Hillman, Thomas or Gifford, and any of those three will do a better job than the current prosecutor.

[Waynesvillian]

Darrel are you Dave from Radio Shacks long lost brother?  If not I bet your besties.

[darrellmaurina]

Darrel are you Dave from Radio Shacks long lost brother?  If not I bet your besties.

Nope, I don't have a brother.

I do buy lots of equipment from Radio Shack and have for more than 30 years, but I can't honestly say I know the local people very well. I have no problem with them, I just don't have a reason to visit their store too much since their equipment usually works well and doesn't need to be fixed or replaced very often.

As for the current topic, I don't think I've ever discussed the prosecutor's race with anyone working at the local Radio Shack. However, it's been four years that Deborah Hooper has been the prosecutor so maybe I've said something to them since her campaign began back in 2005 or since she took office in 2006, but if I have, I've forgotten it.

[Coyote]

Outside the box:  I would like to see someone snatch up Wayne Gifford and send him off to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and get his wardrobe fixed.  I really like Wayne, but his "attire" is just wrong.

[kari]

Outside the box:  I would like to see someone snatch up Wayne Gifford and send him off to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and get his wardrobe fixed.  I really like Wayne, but his "attire" is just wrong.

[Jax]

Darrell,

Thank you for your observations of facts. Your placing all of the candidates with their qualifications and/or lack thereof is very helpful.

I will refer to this post to share with others so that they can add it to other information to make an informed decision.

Jackie

[Lepard LLC]

Thanks for the clarification.. Sounds good to me.

I would like to clarify... I'm not "holding" the debate. I simply took the initiative to make the arrangements happen.  William O. Worsham, Attorney at Law will be the neutral moderator.  He is not from this county and has years of experience in all aspects of the law including prosecution and will determine what questions will need to be asked.  He will be determining the questions and who is asked what. He does not know any of the candidates, their history or their party affiliation.  There will be 5-7 questions that will be provided to the candidates prior to the debate to prepare answers and then several questions that will be submitted from the constituents and the candidates, nor I, will know what those ones are.

I really have nothing more to do with the actual debate other than making sure people are where they need to be and at what time.

[kevinhillman]

I wanted to respond to Darrell's post because I think some of what he wrote needs clarification and a response from me.  I realize it was Darrell's opinion and he was simply responding to what others said, so I have no problem with what he said.  I am just adding my two cents.

1.  On being "relatively new to this county."  I realize this is a matter of opinion on how long you have to live somewhere to not be new, but I don't think I just showed up here.  I have lived in this community for nearly 10 years (I came here in 2000 and the family came and bought our first home here in 2001).  We built our second house here last year and we intend on staying.  We fell in love with the area and the people and chose to stay even though I could have moved several times.  I just wanted to clarify if someone questioned how long my family has been here.

2.  On handling the caseload.  Yes, I was a military prosecutor and I am currently the chief prosecutor in the Missouri National Guard.  I have also been a civilian prosecutor.  For 3 years, part of which I was still in law school, I worked for the Butler County, Ohio Prosecutor's office in Hamilton, Ohio.  This is the suburban county north of Cincinnati and south of Dayton with a population of 400,000.  When I was there the office had 43 assistant prosecutors.  I had the privilege of working up from a law clerk to serving as an assistant prosecutor after I passed the bar.  I handled all sorts of cases, including my own misdemeanor docket where I had charging authority.  I handled nearly 3,000 cases per year and it was busy as I-75 ran right through the middle of my jurisdiction.  I left the office when I came on active duty in the Army to repay my ROTC obligation.  Even in the Army I prosecuted in the civilian arena as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.  There, I prosecuted misdemeanors and felonies in Magistrate Court and U.S. District Court in Springfield.  I have also handled over 3000 cases per year in St. Robert as the municipal prosecutor, something I am still doing today.  So, my point is that with my experience as a civilian prosecutor I think I understand the difference between civilian and military prosecutors and the way the offices run. I also am confident that I can handle the caseload based upon my experience gained over the years.

3.  My National Guard Service.  I hope that no one holds it against me that I continue to serve my country and state in the Guard.  Military service is important to me, that's why I did 5 years on active duty and have been in the Guard since 2006.  I find it a little odd that my opponents having no military service (save Ms. Hooper's service on Active Duty in the Army which should be commended) is not questioned, and seen as a plus?  I have 2 kids and a wife so I always have a Plan B if I get the call and have to deploy and serve my country.  For the prosecutor's office, it is quite simple.  I plan on hiring folks who I trust, and can trust if that happens.  I would also use my salary while I would be gone to add attorneys.  I would not double dip.  My assistant would become the acting prosecutor and additional assistants would be added in my absence to fill the gap.  I will also note that there are 2 current county prosecutors in the Guard with me, a Circuit Judge, and 2 others running for county prosecutor, so I am not unique.  I do not plan on micromanaging this office so my assistants will be ready and well qualified to fill the void for the 12 months I could be gone if ever deployed.

4.  On not being known.  I'll agree with Darrell on this one.  I am sure that I am not as well known as some others in this race, however I am not sure they are known for the right reason.  On the other hand, I haven't been a hermit either.  I am an active member of the Waynesville United Methodist Church and have been the trustee chair and financial secretary in the past.  I belong to the United Methodist Men and served as the treasurer for a number of years.  I am currently on the Stewardship/Finance Committee.  My family and I didn't start going to church when I decided to run for office, we have been regular attendees since we moved here and became members when we decided to stay here.  I am a member of the Rotary Club and will be on the board of directors this year.  I am a member of Waynesville Lodge #375 A.F.& A.M.  I am also an active member of the Pulaski County Shrine Club.  I am a member of the Scottish Rite. I referee youth and high school soccer.  I have been president of the Pulaski County Bar Association and have been the treasurer for several years.  I am a graduate of the Missouri Bar's Leadership Academy in 2006 and serve as the Chair of the Military Law Committee.  I am the Municipal Judge in Waynesville (hey, for the St. Robert City Attorney to be appointed the judge in Waynesville means someone must think I am ok).  If you don't know me and want to meet me, call me 336-0788 and I am happy to meet for lunch or whatever. 

5.  On Jeff Thomas being the son of a local lawyer and growing up here carrying weight.  I have had quite a few people from Dixon tell me that Jeff did not grow up in Dixon but lived for the majority of his childhood with his mother in the St. Louis area and did not attend or graduate from Dixon High School.  I am only repeating what I have been told, so someone should check into that if it carries weight to you.  I do not think Jeff's father should be an issue except to point out that for every case that his father would serve as defense counsel, the county would have to pay for a special prosecutor.  When I served as a special prosecutor in the past, I billed the county $100.00 per hour.  That could add up to a lot.

6.  My record is available, including my resume with dates, on my website at www.kevinshillman.com.  My academic record is there as well (I think I graduated from 2 fine institutions of higher learning, Centre College and the University of Cincinnati College of Law).  I always welcome any questions or comments.  Again, if you want to meet me, just give me a call.  I'll also be out campaigning, so just come up and grab me.

Thanks,
Kevin

B. Kevin Hillman is relatively new to this county, though he has lived here for a number of years. Lots of people outside the legal community don't know him, and while I have had the opportunity to observe his work, not being a "known commodity" is going to be an important problem for a lot of people. He's been a military prosecutor before, but so has Deborah Hooper, and we saw how well that worked out. There are major differences between military and civilian prosecution, the key one being the tremendous fire hose of work civilian prosecutors face, and Kevin needs to answer questions about how he will manage the prosecutor's office and their massive workload. Kevin is also in the Missouri National Guard, and while that's a big positive in my book, some view that as a negative. People need to be aware that he might get called up for active duty and we need to make sure there's a "Plan B" in place in case he's called up. He's been a lawyer in this area for a number of years, though much less than either Wayne Gifford or Deborah Hooper, and the fact that he's worked for Tyce Smith before becoming the St. Robert City Attorney and now also Waynesville Municipal Judge should be taken into account. (Wayne Gifford is also the Crocker prosecutor, BTW, so he also has municipal experience.) He has a track record, though it's thinner than that of Gifford or Hooper. Those who want to vote for Hillman will likely do so because they value experience but believe Gifford is unnecessarily abrasive and Hooper is demonstrably incapable of doing the job.

C. Jeff Thomas is a young lawyer right out of law school, but the fact that he's the son of a local lawyer and grew up in this area can and should carry weight. He also graduated from a law school with a poor reputation, but he's explained to me that he attended that school because he could get through it in one year less than other law schools. That seems like a reasonble explanation to me. Being the son of Jim Thomas is a positive in some people's book and a negative in others, and it needs to be taken into account because unless his father retires, there will have to be many special prosecutors appointed to handle cases in which he or his father were involved as defense attorneys. (That's also an issue for the other two candidates, though it's less of a problem for them because unlike the others who won't have family members currently practicing law, Jeff Thomas' father will still be here in this county and still working.) The major negative against Jeff Thomas is his lack of experience, but the fact is that even with that lack of experience, he was still able to beat Deborah Hooper in a prominent court case. Those who vote for Jeff Thomas will be those who place less value on experience than on knowing the community and being known, and who believe Thomas has proved by beating Hooper in court that youthful energy can be more effective than years in legal practice.
 
So what's the best answer? That's really up to the individual voters and how much value they put on different types of candidate qualifications.
 
Two of the three candidates have been prosecutors before and have track records as good lawyers. With the third candidate, people are taking a risk with a young and relatively inexperienced lawyer, but he's already shown himself better than Hooper in the courtroom. And experience is not the sole factor voters should consider: Hooper is the most experienced of all the Republican candidates, but she's had long enough in office to prove she can't do the job. Some people may also say that having a young and aggressive prosecutor who knows the area well is better than having Gifford or Hillman because of specific things about Hillman or Gifford that they don't like.

I've tried to frame the issues, but nowhere in this post have I told anyone how I will vote, other than that as a Republican I will vote in the Republican primary but will cross over to vote for Gifford if Hooper wins the Republican nomination. I sincerely believe a reasonable voter could make an informed decision to support Hillman, Thomas or Gifford, and any of those three will do a better job than the current prosecutor.

[Lepard LLC]

Kevin, just wanted to say thanks for all you have done for the Acosta Family during this difficult time..

[♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥]

Mr. Hillman Sir.
I have a question if you don't mind.
Of all the Jobs that you are doing now, how many will you have to give up if You win your bid for the Pulaski county Prosecutor?

[darrellmaurina]

I appreciate Kevin Hilman's public answers to questions that people are going to ask. Some of the answers he stated publicly are things I already knew because I've already asked him privately, but they're questions that many people have and which need to be answered in public.
 
I also said things regarding Wayne Gifford and Jeff Thomas that need to be addressed in public. I know Wayne well enough to know that he'll answer those questions in an interview, but that may end up waiting until after the primary election because he doesn't have an opponent on the Democratic side of the ballot. I think Jeff will do the same in an interview with me, and also in the upcoming public debate.
 
Kevin Hillman does have a serious name identification problem. One of the most common questions I get about him is this: "Who is this Hillman guy and where did he come from?" I think he's well-known in certain circles but mostly unknown in others -- and that's going to hurt him in the primary.
 
Before anyone raises the issue that Kevin Hillman has been in this county slightly longer than me -- I've seen numerous times that in this area, especially for a lot of the rural long-term residents who are most likely to turn out in primary elections, anyone who didn't grow up here or has lived here for several decades is a "newcomer." That most definitely includes me, and I've been told that in no uncertain terms many, many, many times. And it probably doesn't help that I'm a northerner and a "city boy" -- I've lived in small rural counties before, and the anti-urban sentiment in much of rural Pulaski County is just as strong as I've seen in parts of rural Iowa, and the anti-Yankee sentiment in a few places around here is almost as strong as what I've seen in rural Texas.
 
Pulaski County is very much a divided county. The rural northern part of the county thinks and acts VERY differently from the area closer to Fort Leonard Wood. That has a dramatic effect on our local politics at the county commission level and in the primary elections for countywide offices, and a lesser but still noticeable effect in low-turnout general elections. Some of the things that help people get elected in the November general election are actually hurtful at the primary election level.

[kevinhillman]

I'll have to resign as city attorney for St. Robert and municipal judge for Waynesville.

Mr. Hillman Sir.
I have a question if you don't mind.
Of all the Jobs that you are doing now, how many will you have to give up if You win your bid for the Pulaski county Prosecutor?

[paloha]

I grew up knowing Wayne Gifford...been in the home many times. He's just as rude now as he was a little boy. Yes, he fights hard for whomever he's hired by....stepping on anyone in the way is nothing to him. Personally, I'd vote for Mickey Mouse rather than him.

[bigedd]

I've been gone from this site for quite a while, but I see nothing has changed.  Darrell and maybe some others of you know who I am, so my comments should come as no suprise.  I'm not sure why people are concerned about the relationship between law enforcement and the proscecuter.  From some things I have seen, Pulaski County lacks a lot in law enforcement expertise.  Maybe they don't like being told how to correctly do their jobs, or maybe if they did a better job, the proscecuter could do a better job.  My experience with Ms. Hooper is extensive, and while she may not be the slickest lawyer in town, nobody tries harder.  I think she is exactly what this county needs.

[darrellmaurina]

I've been gone from this site for quite a while, but I see nothing has changed.  Darrell and maybe some others of you know who I am, so my comments should come as no suprise.  I'm not sure why people are concerned about the relationship between law enforcement and the proscecuter.  From some things I have seen, Pulaski County lacks a lot in law enforcement expertise.  Maybe they don't like being told how to correctly do their jobs, or maybe if they did a better job, the proscecuter could do a better job.  My experience with Ms. Hooper is extensive, and while she may not be the slickest lawyer in town, nobody tries harder.  I think she is exactly what this county needs.

Thank you, BigEdd... I think your voice is an important one to hear.

Since you noted my name, I probably ought say a few things.

Deborah Hooper has some supporters in Pulaski County; for example, one man spoke up at the Laquey meeting when Hooper was repeatedly attacked and made clear the critics did not speak for him. Some of those supporters of Hooper are crime victims who either had their cases successfully prosecuted or for whom, in the victim's opinion, Hooper did everything she could to help.

There's one area on which I will not criticize Hooper: It's not fair to call her lazy. She works long hours and tries hard. Sometimes she succeeds, and when she does, the victims on whose behalf Hoooper worked hard often appreciate her hard work.

Of course, there are also other cases and other victims who have a different view of the matter.

[blissfullybusy]

Thank you, BigEdd... I think your voice is an important one to hear.

Since you noted my name, I probably ought say a few things.

Deborah Hooper has some supporters in Pulaski County; for example, one man spoke up at the Laquey meeting when Hooper was repeatedly attacked and made clear the critics did not speak for him. Some of those supporters of Hooper are crime victims who either had their cases successfully prosecuted or for whom, in the victim's opinion, Hooper did everything she could to help.

There's one area on which I will not criticize Hooper: It's not fair to call her lazy. She works long hours and tries hard. Sometimes she succeeds, and when she does, the victims on whose behalf Hoooper worked hard often appreciate her hard work.

Of course, there are also other cases and other victims who have a different view of the matter.

Trying hard is one thing, I understand that and commend her for her efforts.  However, I can try as hard as I possible can, working endlessly and long hours, but no matter how much "trying" I do I will never be an NBA star.  Just because you try hard that doesn't necessarily mean that is where you talents are.

As Albert Einstein said,  "Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing it is stupid." Perhaps she's a fish and the PA's office is a tree she's trying to climb.

In addition, with all her trying she still doesn't have a good track record.  Why would you want to continue having someone who has to try with everything in them to do a less than mediocre job when someone else with half the effort could do three times as good of a job?

And the relationship between LE and the prosecutor is a very pertinent subject matter when it comes to elections.  LE and the PA will not always agree, they will not always see eye to eye, but they do have to be cordial enough to work together, they are on the same team.  The PA has to have a good rapport with officers so that when they correct them it's actually received and reapplied.

Part of the PA's job is to educate officers on how to do their jobs better, what they need to include in reports, what kinds of questions to ask when talking to witnesses/victims so the PA may do his/her job better.  Has she EVER taken time to schedule officer education?  No.... this is something done regularly in other counties, including smaller counties like Webster and Dallas, not just the big counties.

Her organizational skills leave a lot to be desired too.  When you have subpoenas repeatedly given to officers the DAY OF a scheduled hearing or trial it is going cause problems between them, especially when officers have odd days off and sleep on odd schedules. 

[cowboy]

ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT POST

[bigedd]

People speak of this "track record" a lot.  Does anyone have any official statistics?  How many cases filed, how many tried, how many plea bargained, how many convicted, how many dismissed, etc.?  What is her percentage of success compared to previous prosecutors?  As far as training LE, if I were the chief of an agency that needed training, I would consider it my responsibility to get the training.  I might go to the prosecutor for the training, or I might go elsewhere, like the State.  Has anything like that occured?  As far as organizational skills, I seem to recall similar comments made about the previous prosecutor.  I'm not sure it is a matter of skill as much as funding to hire administrative personnel in the office.  We all know the county has money problems.

[cowboy]

The case numbers are shown in this thread somewhere - one of us could look them up.   Its hard to go somewhere to get training on what this PA whats from officers.  I think the PA office has the same resources they have had in the past yet the case work is down 30-50%.

[darrellmaurina]

These are valid questions. I've done some of the statistical work a couple of years ago and printed it on the front page of the Waynesville Daily Guide; more recently others have done similar digging.

YankeeTrader, can you please help here by giving up-to-date info to Ed?

The summary, however, is that Deborah Hooper's track record is horrible.

Things are so bad that when people pay their traffic tickets AND SIGN THE FORM PLEADING GUILTY, at one point Circuit Clerk Rachelle Beasley was having to mail thousands of dollars of money back to the people who had tried to pay their traffic tickets because Hooper had failed to file the tickets within the statute of limitations. The county was at one point risking losing state-funded personnel in the circuit clerk's office because the caseload filed by Hooper had dropped so badly.

Things are somewhat better now, in part because Hooper's actions were so obviously unacceptable that everybody, even her, agreed something had to be done to address the mess.

I realize most of the money from traffic fines goes to other places, but the total number of cases filed **IS** key to showing the state that the number of personnel in the circuit clerk's office is justified. When the county is in dire financial straits, mailing back money from tickets because the prosecutor can't be bothered to file them before the statute of limitations runs out is beyond belief. That's not just a poor management decision, it is incompetence.

People speak of this "track record" a lot.  Does anyone have any official statistics?  How many cases filed, how many tried, how many plea bargained, how many convicted, how many dismissed, etc.?  What is her percentage of success compared to previous prosecutors?  As far as training LE, if I were the chief of an agency that needed training, I would consider it my responsibility to get the training.  I might go to the prosecutor for the training, or I might go elsewhere, like the State.  Has anything like that occured?  As far as organizational skills, I seem to recall similar comments made about the previous prosecutor.  I'm not sure it is a matter of skill as much as funding to hire administrative personnel in the office.  We all know the county has money problems.

[blissfullybusy]

These are valid questions. I've done some of the statistical work a couple of years ago and printed it on the front page of the Waynesville Daily Guide; more recently others have done similar digging.

YankeeTrader, can you please help here by giving up-to-date info to Ed?

The summary, however, is that Deborah Hooper's track record is horrible.

Things are so bad that when people pay their traffic tickets AND SIGN THE FORM PLEADING GUILTY, at one point Circuit Clerk Rachelle Beasley was having to mail thousands of dollars of money back to the people who had tried to pay their traffic tickets because Hooper had failed to file the tickets within the statute of limitations. The county was at one point risking losing state-funded personnel in the circuit clerk's office because the caseload filed by Hooper had dropped so badly.

Things are somewhat better now, in part because Hooper's actions were so obviously unacceptable that everybody, even her, agreed something had to be done to address the mess.

I realize most of the money from traffic fines goes to other places, but the total number of cases filed **IS** key to showing the state that the number of personnel in the circuit clerk's office is justified. When the county is in dire financial straits, mailing back money from tickets because the prosecutor can't be bothered to file them before the statute of limitations runs out is beyond belief. That's not just a poor management decision, it is incompetence.

Especially when all you have to do as a PA for traffic tickets is sign your name.

[tpgunbiz]

See also how many bad checks have been prosecuted while she has been in office.