In June of 1966 the Supreme Court handed down the now infamous
“Miranda” decision. Back then, the author of that decision came to
town each year to spend Christmas with his son’s family out in Conn
Valley.

It was not a popular decision. It was close—5-4. The court was
accused of coddling criminals. It was said they’d taken the handcuffs
off the lawbreakers and put them on the police. We thought it was
about hardened criminals.

Who would have thought one day it would play such a large role in the
lives of a bunch of ordinary mothers and housewives, here in St.
Helena?

The tom toms were beating over the weekend. It was on the Napa Superior
Court’s website. The People vs. Molly Morales-- CR150104. Criminal
court. Two counts of Voter Fraud were charged—a felony. This was
serious. It was all over town.

The temptation was to gloat. Hey. We’re all human. There was a
God. Finally…...

The next emotion, however, was one of unbearable sadness. How unnecessary this all was.

How sad that any human being should be burdened with such public
humiliation. It was Shakespearean.

Rather than gloating, I had to remind myself that we should remember
that Ms. Morales is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She’s
innocent until proven guilty. She deserves her day in court. It killed me that she is entitled to all the things she and the signature gathers denied the School Board.

I’d been doing my homework. I went to the Library and checked out
Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”. How similar this Recall mania was to the Salem Witch Trials. What is it in our makeup which causes communities to enter into mass hysteria and commit transgressions
ordinary, decent human beings would never think of?

I thumbed through Victor Navasky’s “Naming Names.” No, the Recall was hardly McCarthyism, but it carried a lot of similar traits—innuendo, false accusations, guilt by association, finger
pointing and the need for the accused, if not to “name names,” at
least confess to perceived transgressions.

This town had been torn apart by a group of people—led by the town
Iago who had unceremoniously resigned from the board, doing—doing
what?

Disregarding the law and the basic rights of their neighbors.
Remember the signature gatherers?

They went door to door with blatant disregard of due process and the rule of law, telling total strangers that Board members had violated felony conflict of interest
laws (California Criminal Code 1090) and awarded “Lavish” (according
to the Star) retirement packages .

None of it was true. But it got traction. It was the product of a 10
page “Bill of Attainder” written by a local attorney that read like a
first year law student’s mid-term.

Rather than facts, it was filled with gossip, innuendo and
inaccuracies. But it was given to the DA and used as the basis to
collect perhaps 2000 signatures (of course now the actual number is
open to question). Without foundation, they impeached the integrity
of the School Trustees.

People went door to door comparing legal, normal retirement packages
to A.I.G. bonuses. The DA found the accusations to be totally without
merit. There were never any criminal or ethical violations—but we
were willing to believe the worst.

A high tech lynching was underway.

The Star promoted the hysteria by suspending its rules on letters
(one per month) and allowing 12 families (Ms. Morales’ name appears on
numerous ones) to write over 50 letters—giving the appearance that the
movement was ubiquitous.

A herd mentality took over and pretty soon folks, who knew nothing
about it, were complaining about the profligate habits of the board.

The Star failed to point out that PARS retirement packages are used
by districts Statewide to save millions. It refused to report that
Sonoma Unified replaced its Superintendent with their assistant—just
like our board did!

This board had done nothing untoward, but when the rule of law was
ignored and the benefit of the doubt taken away—innocent volunteers
were slandered—their reputations shredded. For what?

So let’s not do to Ms. Morales what the Recallers did to the Board
and Alan Gordon. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt—let the
legal system run its course. It'S up to us to demonstrate compassion,
love and forgiveness. In short, let’s give her what we all need most
to get. Kindness. It’s the first step towards healing this community
and putting an end to this senseless tragedy.