Sheldon Portman is the longest serving Public Defender of Santa Clara County, California.  There have been a total of five public defenders: R. Donald Chapman (for a brief period until appointed to the bench), Sheldon Portman (from 1968 to 1985), Stuart Rappaport (1986 to 1995) and Jose Villarreal (1995 to the present).  This letter was written in response to statements by Jeff Brown, the Public Defender of San Francisco.  Mr. Portman's case was published in Sheldon Portman v. Santa Clara County (1993) 995 F.2d 898 and eventually resulted in half million dollar settlement in his favor.  Mr. Portman's case files are available at the National Equal Justice Library of  the Washington College of Law of American University. 

by Sheldon Portman
Former Santa Clara County P.D.

I was surprised that my former colleague, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Brown (the only elected PD in the state) believes that the proposal for an elected PD in Santa Clara County is "‘not a very good idea.’" (Change to Elected PD sought for Santa Clara," 6/23/98) I disagree. It may be hard to get on the ballot but not because the idea isn’t good.

A dozen years ago when, as P.D., I fell at the "whim" of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I envied Jeff’s elected position. I suspect my feeling was shared by the half-dozen other appointed county PD’s being disciplined or fired at that time for taking their jobs too seriously.

Before that I, too, believed the "appointed" system was superior. In fact, in 1980, I won enactment of a charter amendment placing the Santa Clara County PD under the board of supervisors, removing it from under the County Executive(a worse arrangement). At the time, I had a "sweetheart" relationship with the board and couldn’t foresee what could happen with a different one. I soon found out.

Jeff Brown warned that the "pressures" of being elected can "skew ... decision-making." Believe me, the "pressures" of appointed office can be even worse. Case-in-point: in 1985, during my performance evaluation by the board in a closed "personnel" session, I was read the riot act for my remarks during the public budget session, reporting that our excessive workload risked malpractice necessitating our withdrawal from cases, a fact that was confirmed by two presiding judges who accompanied me to that hearing.

At my so-called "performance evaluation," one supervisor scolded me for "always asking for more staff" instead of coming up with "alternatives that didn’t cost money." Another warned that I should never again "come before the board and say the things I said." A third, who once had attended West Point, instructed that "just like in the military," I was expected to carry out the board’s "orders" without question.

The only lawyer on the board to whom the new members looked for guidance and who should have known better, described my remarks as "inappropriate" and "offensive," "exposing the count to liability." As I later learned, this same supervisor had a hidden political agenda in seeking my downfall. She had long opposed my efforts to establish a sentencing alternatives program within the office – a program also opposed by the probation officers union which, as I later discovered, had made large contributions to that supervisor’s political campaign.

After the meeting on my performance evaluation, I received a six-percent salary cut together with a memorandum that repeated the board’s "concerns" about my "remarks" at the budget hearing. Their message was clear: Don’t trouble us with complaints about your lack of staffing.

I agonized over whether to accept the board’s "pressure" or fight. My attempts to discuss the issue with the supervisors individually – personally and through intermediaries – were futile. I chose to fight and was fired.

Some said I wasn’t a good politician. Some thought I was self-seeking – fighting over a measly salary increase. One county supervisor – the one who told me to stop asking for more staff – falsely accused me of "not communicating with the board anymore." Another patent falsehood during the litigation was that I had "sprung" the warning about inadequate staffing for the first time at the budget session.

While my lawsuit was pending, the board treated my successors generously with ample staffing and other resources. It was a transparent attempt to demonstrate that they were more deserving and more politically astute.

Ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later in legal fees and settlement costs to the county, not to speak of the thousands of hours of my own time working on the case, it was finally settled without trial. I was vindicated. But it was a huge waste of time and precious resources that I attribute to the worst features of the appointive system.

A PD’s responsibilities today are too important and complex to be micro-managed by politically-motivated or poorly informed county supervisors. The position deserves the same status and independence as that of a judge or a district attorney.

The Santa Clara County proposal may lack the financial and organizational backing to make it to the ballot, let alone get adopted. But it’s still a good idea.

END