Editorial: Unappealing options

Jim Reierson and Bob Caruso don’t agree on much, but they’re in accord about this: Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tucker needs to be replaced.

They make a compelling argument. Tucker has been practically invisible during his four years in office. He’s reputed to spend lots of time on the golf course, but little in the courtroom. He doesn’t account for himself to the public and rarely talks to the media. On his watch, a firehouse sex scandal went unpursued, even after two police officers directed the firefighter involved to destroy video recordings that might have been valuable evidence in a criminal investigation.

When Otto Zehm died following a fracas with seven police officers, Tucker dragged his heels. Only when faced with a threatened lawsuit did Tucker release a security video that might have answered questions about police response. Months passed before Tucker himself even viewed the video.

This week, he announced he would delay a decision about prosecuting any of the officers involved because acting Police Chief Jim Nicks was uncomfortable handling it with newly appointed Chief Anne Kirkpatrick due to take over on Sept. 11. Tucker is responsible to the public, not the acting police chief.

But if Tucker, a Republican, departs, somebody has to replace him. That would mean either Reierson or Caruso, the two Democrats who are slugging it out in the Sept. 19 primary. And they have problems of their own.

Reierson at least has experience as a deputy prosecutor in Coeur d’Alene and Walla Walla, although not in the Spokane County office he wants to head. He’s made at least four attempts at election or appointment to public office, including Spokane City Council, only to be passed over, prompting petulance.

When Pend Oreille County commissioners bypassed him for a judicial appointment in 1999, he accused them of favoritism. In one judicial race in Spokane County he protested that an opponent’s signs were misleading because they created confusion between the opponent and his father, a retired judge with the same name. He complained that bar association ratings of judicial candidates were unfair.

Caruso, meanwhile, has been practicing law for only seven years, having gone to law school after ending his business career. Starting law school in one’s 50s reflects admirable spunk, but Caruso displays a troublesome hair-trigger approach to decision making. He believes, for example, that the young woman whose 911 call to police precipitated the Zehm killing should be prosecuted. “She lied,” he says.

What if she just made a mistake in the confusion and anxiety of a traumatic encounter? “She lied,” insists Caruso.

His simplistic reasoning isn’t isolated. “How hard can it be?” he frequently asks with respect to complex challenges that could face the prosecuting attorney.

Very hard, and the job doesn’t belong in the hands of someone who underestimates its complexity.

Regarding the Zehm matter, which both Democrats say Tucker mishandled, Reierson said he’d call in the state attorney general’s office and Caruso said he’d convene a grand jury. Neither said he’d simply review the facts and the evidence and proceed appropriately through the customary prosecution channels.

It’s not the candidates’ fault that the options are unsatisfactory. They are who they are.

The blame falls to both political parties and the Spokane County Bar Association. They should care enough about who’s running this important county legal office to make sure the voters have better choices. If they haven’t come up with a more appealing menu four years from now it will be a scandal.

For now, voters have to face reality. Tucker is mediocre at best, but compared with Reierson and Caruso, mediocrity looks pretty good.