DISTRICT ATTORNEY REPLIES: District Attorney Christie Stanley says reports that she rarely visits the office due to illness are false “rumors,” that her lung cancer is in remission, and that she plans to run for reelection in 2010.
Contradicting reports that she is an absentee DA much of the time, Stanley told me Tuesday, August 11, that she is a “full-time” district attorney and is in one of the Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, or other offices “more or less” daily. “It depends on the amount of business,” she said, adding that she was “offended” that I would want to know the number of hours per week. “I don’t punch a time clock.” Stanley, who is in a wheelchair when she appears in the office or in public, blamed the reports on unnamed “opponents who have no other issues.”
On the Beat
For the most part, deputies have refused to comment on Stanley’s office absences. But one top staffer I spoke to, who refused to be identified and isn’t a candidate, grumbled that the DA was being paid “for not working.”
People are “afraid” to talk about the situation because of the great power a DA wields, said private defense attorney Doug Hayes, a former Santa Barbara prosecutor. “It’s been a big secret.” Hayes, who lost to Stanley in 2006, says he has no ax to grind and doesn’t plan to run again. Hayes said he wanted to make it clear that he has a high opinion of the DA’s staff. “She should be out of there,” Hayes said. “I’m very sad for her, but she’s messing up the office” by not being present and in charge. “She does nothing but she wants a raise.” Her current salary is $179,899, which may be below the pay for that position in comparable districts, but it still ain’t hay. Hayes said he spoke to one investigator who said he sees her about every two months.
But Stanley, who returned my call from the DA’s office the day after I phoned, said she’s actively running the department. “I’m the boss.”
Even those who admire Stanley’s long, courageous fight against cancer and hope for her 100-percent recovery were puzzled by her recent, sudden reassignment of two sex-abuse cases of a highly respected, 20-year deputy district attorney who apparently plans to run for DA in 2010.
When Stanley surprised the Courthouse community by taking deputy Joyce Dudley off the cases, a rare action, there was immediate speculation whether it was to deprive Dudley of high-profile cases that could enhance her campaign to replace Stanley. Stanley strongly denies this. “No, sir,” she told me. She said Dudley was going to be taking time off and also cited budget problems and the need for “others to get experience” in such cases.
Dudley, part of the DA’s Vulnerable Victims Unit, says she emailed Stanley two weeks ago asking for an explanation but so far has not received an answer. “I have been considering [running for DA] and will make an announcement the first of September,” Dudley told me. Normally, a DA with a sound record has little to fear from a challenger deputy highly thought of in legal circles, but little-known to the community at large. Usually, such an incumbent need not resort to office politics.
Hayes said Stanley’s husband, Gary, although not a lawyer, plays an important role in office matters. “He’s in that office on a regular basis, telling people what to do.” Stanley denied this. “He has no role in the office,” but does drive her to and from work, she said. Gary was, however, at the office with his wife when Dudley met with Stanley in June, to inform her that she was considering running. The County Board of Supervisors, facing major budget problems, has twice refused to grant Stanley a raise during the past year. Stanley said her doctors have told her that her cancer is in remission. “If I felt I was not improving, I would look at other options.”
If reports that raised questions whether lung cancer has substantially limited the DA’s office visits and effectiveness are wrong, shouldn’t she have issued a public statement correcting this and clarifying the situation to the public? Stanley, who was first diagnosed with cancer in December 2007, said she saw no need. Clearly uncomfortable about my question regarding her health, she cited her “privacy rights.”
Obviously, an officeholder planning reelection does not relish the thought of issuing such a statement, but the good of the office must be above political concerns. The public has a right to know. What’s needed here is not a continued shadow of doubt and more Courthouse whispers. Stanley should consider issuing a full statement explaining her medical condition, a medical report, prognosis for recovery, and an account of precisely how the DA’s office is being managed. Unless the public is assured, it could be necessary for public confidence to appoint a full-time in-house manager while the DA, who is still receiving treatments, recovers fully.
Related Links
Barney Brantingham can be reached at barney@independent.com or 805-965-5205. He writes online columns throughout the week and a print column on Thursdays.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
How sad that it's come to this.... The office is full of talented prosecutors, investigators and support staff, people who work hard every day to keep the community and the citizens of CA safe. They are not perfect, nor do they pretend to be, but they take their responsibilities seriously and are local citizens with families like the rest of us. Oddly enough, the loudest critics of law enforcement always seem to be defendants, defenders, or political opponents.... Mrs. Stanley was elected by a landslide because she represented the most decent, capable, compassionate, and honorable of all the candidates ( no personal offense to the others). Regardless of differences of personal opinion, her staff is by and large loyal and dedicated, both to her and to the public they serve. If and when it is appropriate, the public will decide whether she has served the County fairly. Until you step up and do the job that our law enforcement community does, don't whine, you just sound pathetic.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
4sOfN8r (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our city and county are overrun by entitlements, this would never fly in the corporate sector, it's time have an outside audit of all jobs, benefits, hours and productivity. I'll bet we are very "top heavy." Our tax money is being pilfered away by our trusted officials.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 3 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 3
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
haha, i love the "more or less" comment. self righteous people make me gag!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
IVconcerned (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dudley a highly respected attorney in the legal community? Nonsense. She is seen as a blatant self-promoter and bully with marginal skills at best. Clearly she is now ready to turn on Stanley who probably should resign. But there are many people more qualified to be DA than one who has participated in so much of the ethically questionable efforts of this office over the past 10 years. Get someone from the outside and clean up the hubris.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
RHS (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The elected D.A. has cancer, and people are in an uproar to have her step down. And the "best" that the Independent could find to give an "impartial" assessment is Doug Hayes !! Oh Geez.... I was laughing seeing his comments.... an over the hill... long time detractor of the D.A.'s Office who if elected would have run the office into the ground !!
It is nothing but gossip that the office is not being run while Chistie Stanley is battling her cancer.
You don't just force someone into retirement when they are ill with cancer, unless there is a reason..... the article is nothing more than courthouse gossip with no evidence of any problems. (You know what "evidence" is... right Doug?)
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
ThoughtfulBlogger (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DA Stanley's comments are false. She has been to the office less than 10 times in the past year and a half. She is totally sick. Her top assistants are complete dopes. The man she appointed in charge of Santa Maria, Eugene Martinez, hides in his office all day with the door closed hoping not to have to make a decision. Her top assistant in Santa Barbara, Eric Hanson, watches baseball on his office TV during work hours. Her illness and poor appointments have encouraged a total lunatic like Dudley to run against her. Maybe Dudley will write another poorly worded, grammatically incorrect vanity press piece on Jordan Danner's run for DA. I am sure Dudley already scribbled it. The DA's Office is in for tough times ahead.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
rocket (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2009 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barney, you need to double check your facts, Joyce is Dudley is NOT "highly respected in legal circles." She has just mediocre skills and uses ethically questionable tactics in her cases. She's a total self-promoter and is more focused on getting convictions than doing justice to advance her career. She's an avowed feminist and man-hater to curry favor with the PC feminazi groups. There are more competent and honorable prosecutors in the SB office who would make infinitely better choices for our next DA. If not, we should bring in a good person from the outside to clean up the mess in that broken office.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
zorro (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2009 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just about everyone working in the criminal justice system knows that District Attorney Stanley and her husband are milking the system for personal gain. Stanley has excellent health and disability benefits. It appears she wants all that plus her large salary. Not much of an example when the District Attorney continues to demand her full salary when she is no longer able to do the work. When did this sort of greed become acceptable?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
mesagirl2 (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This kind of unprofessional public dirty laundry wash endorses the fact that our Law Courts have become a mockery and the Lawyers are simply the jesters. How can we the public expect dignity coupled with expertise and the truth in the courtroom when they behave like buffoons in public?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
samuel (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2009 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The public can demand honesty and dignity when they cast their well informed votes in the next election.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
mesagirl2 (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2009 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I still see absolutely no info by anyone blogging here that somehow the D.A.'s office is not running as it should. The Hollywood case resulted in a conviction.... there are no attorneys quiting the office and claiming that the office is "falling apart", nothing from probation, police, or the courts that the office is "in disaray".
So where is this huge problem? How is Ms. Stanley's illness causing the D.A.'s not to do their job?
I see nothing more than a lot of vultures circling.... An elected official is ill, but her office keeps working... I think that is pretty commendable.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
ThoughtfulBlogger (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How curious! You think it's commendable that Ms. Stanley continues to collect her full salary even though she seldom shows up and does little or no work. Your justification -- the office is still functioning and getting convictions. Yes, the office is still functioning because the hard working Deputy D As are showing up for work and doing their job.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
govlawwatch (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
govlawwatch: Who ever said that because you are ill with cancer that you should quit your job? You're position would be that she should be forced to quit..... to give up her health benefits, to stop working in the department that she has been with for her entire career.... and to be put out on the street without salary or medical help.
Give me a break. Again.... so other than a defense attorney and former D.A. candidate who was embarassingly trounced.... who is providing any verifiable information that the D.A.'s office is not running as it should.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
ThoughtfulBlogger (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment