Why this L.A. public defender?

Re “Elect a public defender? Not in L.A.,” editorial, March 19

I recently served for six months as the interim Los Angeles County public defender. Contrary to your conclusion that the Board of Supervisors has been guilty of “neglect,” unfortunately in my experience, the opposite was true.

Rather, the supervisors listened to and relied upon complaints and letters from a small cabal of disgruntled attorneys. As a result, the supervisors nitpicked and placed roadblocks. They impeded and stalled efforts to improve morale.

Now, the supervisors’ perplexing and unprecedented decision to install a team of unequipped civil lawyers to be in charge of the country’s largest and greatest public defender’s office is appropriately resented and condemned by the office’s lawyers as well as the legal community as a whole and public defenders from throughout the country. Kenneth I. Clayman

Calabasas

First, there is no real debate as to whether the head of the country’s oldest public defender office should be elected or appointed. Probably everyone concedes that the present appointment system is here to stay, as it is in 57 of California’s 58 counties.

Second, the editorial hints that things in the office are “not working” and that changes are “in order” without offering the slightest bit of supporting information or recommendations for improvement.

Third, the editorial skirts the present controversy over the appointment of the current interim public defender. What is needed is a good investigative article about how and why this appointment was made. When the Board of Supervisors acts in such a secretive, questionable manner, is it not the duty of the Los Angeles Times to dig into the mess and enlighten us? Victor Salerno

Los Angeles The writer worked in the L.A. County Public Defender’s Office from 1979-88.