SamPratt.com

THE INTERVIEWS

Having been asked by both District Attorney Paul Czajka and his challenger Eugene Keeler to support their campaigns, this site sat down for interviews with the two men.

Each interview was followed by extensive follow-up by email and direct message. This interviewer’s more personal take on the candidates appeared in Part I of this series.

:   :   :   :   :   :   :

Gene Keeler

In the back room of Wunderbar in Hudson, Keeler began with a barked instruction: Let me talk first—no interruptions!

He proceeded to deliver a 10-minute monologue, consisting of a nearly-verbatim recitation of policy positions already posted at his website, keelerforda.com.

As the interview progressed, Keeler frequently wanted to take his comments off the record, for the purpose of inserting negative information about Czajka into this report without being held accountable for it—but sometimes forgetting whether he was on-record or off-.

By contrast, the conversation with Czajka began as just that: an actual conversation, at a public table outside Otto’s Market in Germantown. The tone was easygoing and open, and not limited to the November election. The incumbent D.A. made no demands, and did not seek to impose limitations on the back-and-forth.

At one point, an unsuccessful Democratic 2015 candidate for Town Board approached, and made an inartful show of neither recognizing Czajka nor knowing how to pronounce his name once introduced. (It’s CHAI-KAH). The Democrat made several other attempts to needle the D.A., without success. Drawing perhaps on his experience as a judge, Czajka remained smiling and even-keeled throughout, and let the person have his say.

Keeler for his part kept saying that he was running a “positive campaign,” dropping hints of instructions from the County Democratic Committee to “not go negative this time.” His failed 2011 campaign against Czajka led to a scathing rebuke from The Columbia Paper for deploying “exaggerations and innuendo to tarnish his opponent,” and in theory both Keeler and the Dems would like to avoid another scolding.

Nevertheless (as discussed in an earlier report) Keeler followed the session with several salvos of negative “opposition research” about Czajka over the subsequent days and weeks. Then, in a troubling interview with the Register-Star’s Amanda Purcell last week, Keeler abandoned all pretense of staying positive by reiterating many of his discredited 2011 attacks.

He also admitting that he had been laundering campaign information via a career criminal who is currently being prosecuted for stealing from an elderly man.

:   :   :   :   :   :   :

This time around, Keeler’s ostensible focus is on bringing compassion and “reform” to the D.A.’s office. Citing his background as a social worker, he’s cobbled together a set of ideas from theorists around the country into a package of what he referred to as “collaborative justice decision-making.”

Keeler heatedly argues instead for a “decision-making system which is not top-down, arbitrary and driven by one person.” Believing that everyone has “unconscious biases,” he distrusts the idea of a prosecutor exercising his own best judgement. At Wunderbar, he contended that the current D.A.’s vaunted 90% conviction rate “does not actually protect victims or make the county safer,” and broadly alleged, without proof, that partisan and personal allegiances influence who gets prosecuted.

In place of the current system, Keeler proposes a new form of “community input on who does and doesn’t got to prison.” To achieve these goals, Keeler proposes to convene a group of “professionals from the community” to advise the D.A. “on policy procedures” and actual cases. This committee would be drawn, he said, from people serving in “nonprofits, agencies, church groups, businesses…”

Apparently, this committee would meet “to knock around the cases” even before any grand jury was convened, any jurors were selected, and long before any trial occurred—in effect pre-empting the longstanding legal procedures designed to winnow out weak cases.

Czajka’s reaction to this complicated proposal was simple: Even if he wanted to implement such a plan, he does not believe it would be Constitutional for a District Attorney “to delegate his decision-making authority” in that manner. An appointed panel would be open to the charge, he said, that “nobody voted for them.” He also would have serious concerns about confidentiality, if law enforcement or prosecutors were to share certain types of information about suspects who had not even been indicted with such a committee.

Another common-sense concern—which Keeler brushed aside—could arise from transplanting experimental programs from major cities in places like California to vastly smraller rural communities like Columbia County. Namely: It could prove impossible to assemble a standing panel of “professional” community members uninfluenced by their own allegiances to local political, economic, institutional, religious and other interests.

Allegations of inappropriate personal influence and favoritism would proliferate, as the committee’s decisions on who to prosecute and who not to prosecute invariably could be ascribed to personal connections or factionalism. The very point of grand juries and jury selection is to randomize these selections, and to vet potential jurors for obvious conflicts or unsuitability.

A hand-picked, standing panel such as Keeler proposes would be the opposite of random and neutral. It seems either an ironic choice for a candidate who has so often railed against cronyism; or else just one he has not fully thought through.

:   :   :   :   :   : 

Paul Czajka

On the topic of kinder and gentler prosecutors, Czajka highlights his experience with the County’s opioid crisis, and the endorsement of Beth Schuster, executive director of Twin County Recovery Services. Schuster touted Czajka’s “compassion and understanding,” saying that he “has demonstrated respect and support for those impacted by addiction and the family members who care for them.”

Czajka comes across as reflective, and not the least bit defensive, about his career as both a D.A. and judge.

Before election to County office, that career also included volunteering to serve in the Peace Corps, representing farmers with the USDA, working as Germantown’s town attorney, and representing the Southern Columbia Ambulance Squad pro bono.

He says that he’s left aside his more youthful ideas from 35 years ago of “changing the world” and just tries to take the thousands of cases he sees “one at a time.” 

He does express regret about “lock-’em-up” attitudes taken in the past, for example in regard to illegal drugs. He readily admits that while he was “good at” securing drug convictions, this approach did not work in the long run.

For those cases which do not result in convictions, Czajka makes no excuses, and says the buck stops with him. On principle he considers himself ultimately responsible for the outcome of every case handled by his office. He vows that he will never throw staff or law enforcement under the bus, even if doing so might save face for himself. The D.A.’s job, he adds, is as much a management position as a prosecutorial one.

The topic of shouldering blame has cropped up in each of Keeler’s attempts to regain the office he held for one term in the 1980s. He did not run for re-election in 1988 after the Wyley Gates case drew national attention, but resulted only in conspiracy convictions, rather than guilty verdicts for the four murders. (Czajka—who was briefly assigned to represent Gates “for a minute” before the accused obtained his own counsel—declined to comment on it.)

In a letter reproduced on Keeler’s website, Columbia County Democratic Committee chair Keith Kanaga sought to deflect blame for the Gates verdict on “shoddy police work.” In a 1988 profile, however, Keeler conceded to The Albany Times-Union that “he will take the verdicts ’to my grave.’”

Keeler also expressed regrets at the time that the case lost him fees from his side business as a real estate attorney. He complained to the T-U that “the Gates trial cost him $15,000 in personal business,” asking about himself in the third person: “If you were buying a house during the Gates trial, would you call Gene Keeler?”

:   :   :   :   :   :

Far more recent, and far more damaging than the Gates trial for Keeler were his antics during the 2011 campaign. 

In that race, Keeler’s habit of attacking opponents defined his candidacy, and not for the better. In a blistering editorial, The Columbia Paper’s Parry Teasdale—mildly liberal, and liberally mild—excoriated Keeler for his campaign conduct.

Endorsing Czajka, Teasdale blasted the Democrat’s publication of a tabloid newspaper devoted collecting and repeating every knock on and rumor ever spread about Czajka. Referring to the paper as “political trash,” Teasdale said that Keeler’s reliance on “exaggerations and innuendo” left his campaign “without a shred of credibility.”

After losing that race, one might have expected Keeler to give up trying to retake his old office from more than 30 years ago—or, at least, given up using the same tactics. As detailed in Part I, Keeler gave up all pretense of running a “positive campaign” last weeks after his bizarre Register-Star interview was published.

And inexplicably, the County Democrats have turned yet again to the same candidate, which calls to mind Einstein’s remark about the insanity of expecting a different result from the same approach.

HANDICAPPING TUESDAY

So why would Keeler and the Columbia Dems expect a different result this time around?

The answers seems to be that (a) they are hoping a tidal wave disgust with Trump will lift all Democratic boats, and anyway (b) they didn’t really to find anyone to run, and so the nomination was Keeler’s for the taking.]

The Dem’s inability to find—or lack of interest in finding—someone else to run suggests either a lack of imagination, or a lack of a bench, or a lack of energy, or all three.

But unlike a generation ago, Democrats now have the highest enrollment of any party in Columbia County. Voters here have gone solidly for national candidates like Obama and (Hillary) Clinton.

And rage against the Trump administration has many more voters saying they’ll “Vote Blue No Matter Who.” In campaign emails and conversation, Czajka himself notes that more new Democrats have registered to vote locally than his margin of victory in the 2011 campaign. On the other hand, voters have also returned familiar Republicans to offices such as County Sheriff and Clerk repeatedly in years between Federal elections.

Meanwhile, though some Yellow Dog Democrats locally take the position that anyone who endorses a Republican is some kind of traitor to the cause, this lens appears to be a selective one. 

For example, the Chatham Democrats are running a Republican for Supervisor, even as the Republicans run an independent—with no public backlash from the County Democratic establishment. As much as Trump motivated Democrats in the midterm Federal elections, this may be an election cycle which features more people splitting their tickets, casting vote for the person, not the party.

Some Democratic candidates on Town tickets express private concerns that the wave of new Dem enrollment for the Delgado-Faso race in 2018 may not translate to similar results in 2019. They report that many 2018 registrants lack much interest in down-ticket local elections. Two candidates expressed fears that by sending a weak challenger like Keeler against Czajka, their own chances will be diminished, as the countywide race gives the GOP a way to motivate their base.

There is also the small problem of Keeler lacking True Blue bona fides. While he has held recent fundraisers for Columbia Democrats, he ran previously as a Republican in Rensselaer County, and ran for various offices as a member of the Independence Party. Czajka, though strongly identified as a Republican, still likes to mention that his mother was a Democratic Committeeman. He has also touted the endorsement of various Democratic attorneys, plus Democratic Supervisors Art Bassin and Ray Staats.

:   :   :   :   :   :   :

Teasdale of the Columbia Paper—not registered in any party himself, but married to a Democrat, and generally seen as left-leaning—once again endorses Czajka over Keeler, as he did in 2011.

Alluding to Keeler’s long absence from the courtroom, Teasdale writes that “There is only one prosecutor seeking the job of Columbia County district attorney this year. He is Paul Czajka. He has served the county admirably for decades. He is poised to continue applying the law with an openness to new ideas and he remains unwavering in his determination to protect the people whose lives depend on the office he holds.”

Given the professionalism and equanimity Czajka displayed in his interview with this site, coupled with the dishonesty that Keeler showed in his own, it is easy to agree.

:   :   :   :   :   :

Part III: A final personal note and coda to the Czajka-Keeler race will appear on Monday.

Left: Paul Czajka Right: Gene Keeler Source: Candidate websites

Both the incumbent District Attorney Paul Czajka and his challenger, Gene Keeler, asked for my support in this Fall’s elections.

Having known both candidates for more years than I can count, this put me in kind of a sticky position.

But had I not known both as friends, this would not be a difficult choice. Before explaining that choice, and what occurred during my interviews with each, it’s worth saying a bit more about those relationships, and sketching a portrait of each of the men who would be D.A.

JUDGEMENT, BOOKS & COVERS

Until Melino’s pub in Hudson closed earlier this month, I could rely on running into Gene having a solitary beer just before kickoff of the 1 pm football games, looking for a political conversation. Gene would buy me a Budweiser draft, then bend my ear about his single topic of conversation—namely, his longstanding claims about corruption in Columbia County government. Having worked as an activist against the status quo for many years, I guess I made a likely audience.

Invariably, Gene would have his eyeglasses up on his forehead, secured behind his neck with a cord. When he stood up, one of the tails of his shirt might be untucked. At some point, he’d produce a pack of dogeared index cards from his breast pocket—held together with rubber bands, where he jots down reminders to himself.

Though Gene has recently bowed to the wishes of the Columbia County Democratic Committee, and courted endorsements from establishment figures, in conversation over the years he has often been a heated critic of the party’s lack of effectiveness. Indeed, Gene has run at times as a Republican, and once sought to take over the County Independence Party leadership. For this campaign, however, he seems keen to hew to the party line, at least as much as his galvanic nature will allow it.

Likewise, I often bump into Paul at the Bell’s Pond supermarket, or in Hudson restaurants, where he is often accompanied by a jovial band of staff members. No matter the venue, he looks as if he walked off the office set of Mad Men: neatly attired like an advertising executive in a gray or blue suit, starched shirt, classic tie and, in certain weather, an oldschool men’s hat. He always appears to have visited a barber within the past 10 days, as men used to do.

Paul has been unflaggingly polite, genial, and open to conversation with me—despite some pretty unforgivable behavior toward him on my part some 15 years ago. (More on that in Part II.) He has interests which range well beyond the law, for example once lending me a copy of Saul Bellow’s terrific novel Henderson the Rain King, written while he was teaching at Bard. He also has an affinity for local political history, for which he has a remarkable memory. As a moderate Republican, he likes to mention that his mother was a Democratic committeeman.

I have seen Paul stay cool, unflappable and smiling when taken to task by people who had few facts or context to back up their verbal assaults on him.

QUALITIES & QUALIFICATIONS

Appearances shouldn’t matter. I’d be more likely to vote in a primary for Bernie Sanders, with his unkempt hair and raspy Brooklyn accent, than the more conventionally “presentable” Joe Biden. I myself own only one comb, which I can’t find at the moment... Most of my cheap Wrangler pants have tears in them from working outdoors, or feature splotches of housepaint.

But I’m not aiming to be a District Attorney. And for the books of Keeler and Czajka, their demeanors and deportment do seem to mirror their personalities. Gene struggles to stay kempt, calm and collected. Meanwhile, Paul gives the impression that his neat, orderly and upbeat bearing does reflect his habits of mind. Mens sana in corpore sano, as the saying goes.

By his own admission, Gene has not practiced law in nearly 5 years. (His detractors claim he has not set foot in a courtroom in 10.) As seen in a recent Register-Star interview, and also my own conversations with him, straightforward journalistic questions which he does not want to hear cause him to get annoyed and rattled—far more easily than is wise for a potential prosecutor.

Gene’s “reform” proposals, no matter how well-intentioned, feel half-baked and even opportunistic. When pressed, he falls back on his background as a social worker. But issues of social and racial justice took a backseat in his previous campaigns against Paul and former D.A. Beth Cozzolino—both opponents coming in for thunderous abuse of their characters.

There is indeed a need for more compassionate law enforcement and justice all across our country. But achieving these goals may require a less tendentious messenger than the Democratic nominee for D.A.. The longer we talked, the more Gene’s inability to stick to a script, let alone basic principles, emerged. Having waged a disastrously negative campaign against Paul in 2011, he will insist he is staying positive this time… but will lay right back down in the gutter with negative attacks only minutes later. 

Worse than that: Over the course of a month, I could not help but realize, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my friend Gene had lied to my face—more than once. In my own relationships, the one fatal quality a person can display is conscious dishonesty. Once someone lies to you, you can never trust them again, even if they apologize (which Gene hasn’t).

For those dispensing justice, lying should be even more unpardonable.

ENDORSEMENT: PAUL CZAJKA FOR D.A.

Now, I seldom vote for any Republican, unless the Democrat is unusually unfit for office. Even a moderate Republican can be objectionable, to the extent that they enable their lunatic, right-wing peers in the party. There are, however, exceptions. 

For example, in 1999 I assisted the moderate Republican Kenny Cranna in his successful campaign for Hudson Mayor against Cappy Pierro, because the Hudson Dems had drifted to the right of Strom Thurmond. Cranna proved a big disappointment. But I don’t regret at all keeping the Pierro gang out of City Hall for a term. And some of Cranna’s running mates, such as since-deceased Treasurer Kevin Walsh, did some real good in cleaning up the City’s disastrously messy finances and giving Hudson a breather from the Scalera circus.

Moreover, this endorsement is not merely against Gene’s non-starter of a candidacy. It also recognizes that Paul is a sound, competent choice. As will be discussed in Part II, he has expressed regrets about the stern “law and order” approach of his early years as D.A. and as a judge. He seems to have moderated many of his positions and practices, except when it concerns the most vile crimes, such as child molestation. He takes a constructive and less punitive approach to pressing issues, such as the local opiod crisis. And he doesn’t fly off the handle when opponents like Keeler (or his surrogates) tar him with outlandish accusations.

Based on my interview, I have reason to believe that Paul is more than capable of staying independent from Republican orthodoxy and allegiances, and will side with the law over rank partisanship. Today, he seems the kind of person who would gladly and openly sit down with those who believe that the current ”system” is slanted against them, and actually take stock of their concerns.

Overall, Paul Czajka has the experience, skills and most of all the right temperament to do the job professionally. As such, having listened to and quizzed both candidates about their intentions, and thought long and hard about it, I’ll be voting for Paul in November. 

PART II of this series will delve journalistically into the candidates, their positions, and their credibility, and will refer henceforth to both by their last names.