In response to poor ratings by the Ventura County Bar Association's Judicial Evaluations Committee as to his qualifications to be judge,  Attorney Bradley Bjelke who is running against Judge Harry Walsh wrote:

"I made the decision not to participate in the evaluation because I want to be elected by the people--not a committee of individuals who have no accountability.  It should also be noted that one of the members of this supposed "independent" committee openly and publicly endorses my opponent. That alone discredits the entire evaluation."

 "I graduated from a top law school, worked for one of the largest law firms in the United States, and I represent sophisticated clients in complex matters and litigation.  The ratings that this committee gave me are not based on any facts and they are irresponsible and absurd.  I am confident that the voters in Ventura County will see through this nonsense and realize that this is just an attempt to discredit me to maintain the status quo.  If you want to change the way the current process works, you will vote for me and bring new life to the bench."

The committee recently concluded that Walsh is exceptionally well-qualified; Bjelke is not qualified to be on the bench.

The Bar's 13-member judicial Evaluations Committee who rated the qualifications of Walsh and Bjelke fired back on Friday, saying that Bjelke was invited on numerous occasions to participate in the judicial review process but declined to do so.

"Mr. Bjelke also alleges that the support of one member of the Committee of his opponent "discredits the entire evaluation."  Again, Mr. Bjelke is incorrect.  When this allegation surfaced shortly after the evaluations were released, the Committee's Vice Chair investigated it and concluded that it was unfounded.  The Committee member in question had been asked to endorse Judge Walsh.  He did not intend to do so.  However, a supporter of Judge Walsh placed the Committee member's name on the list of endorsers in error.  The Committee member participated in the evaluation process not ever knowing of the mistake or that his name appeared as an endorser of Judge Walsh.  Once the error was brought to the Committee member's attention, he promptly asked that his name be removed from the list of endorsers."

"What is particularly irresponsible about the timing of Mr. Bjelke's allegation is that, under the rules, he had a right to bring the situation to the attention of the Committee and to ask that the member not participate in either or both evaluations.  Mr. Bjelke chose to do nothing.  Had he acted in accordance with the rules, the mistake would have been corrected sooner.  Had he done so, based upon past experience, it also is most likely that the member voluntarily would have withdrawn from the process."

"Accordingly, while the Committee regrets the error and is disappointed that Mr. Bjelke did not raise the issue sooner, the Committee also continues to stand by the independence and integrity of its investigation and its evaluation of Mr. Bjelke." -- Joel Mark, Vice Chair Ventura County Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Committee

The Ventura County Bar Association on Wednesday released its ratings of judicial candidates Judge Harry Walsh and Attorney Bradley Bjelke.

The ratings were given by the Bar's 13-member Judicial Evaluations Committee.

Walsh is exceptionally well-qualified; Bjelke is not qualified to be on the bench, according to the committe's findings.

Candidates were rated on Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Judicial Temperament, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.

The ratings scale ranged from outstanding, very good, satisfactory, below average, unsatisfactory and unknown. The overall ratings given were either Exceptional Well Qualified; Well Qualified; Qualified or Not Qualified.

        Judge Harry Walsh was rated Outstanding in the categories of Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.  He received a rating of Very Good in the category of Judicial Temperament.  Overall, Judge Walsh has been rated as Exceptionally Well Qualified for the office of Superior Court Judge.

            Bradley Bjelke was rated Unsatisfactory in the categories of Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.  He received a rating of Unknown in the category of Judicial Temperament.  Overall, Mr. Bjelke has been rated as Not Qualified for the office of Superior Court Judge. 

            Judge Walsh stated in an email that his goal is to be "outstanding" in all categories and that he had some work to do on "judicial temperament."

         "I am not going to be falsely modest.  I have been a judge for 14 years, and I think the overall rating of "Extremely Well Qualified" is accurate, and I am proud of it.  I have never made a secret that being a judge is the best job I have ever had, and I work hard to be good at it.  I was disppointed that Mr. Bjelke did not fully participate in the process.  This is not an election for student council.  It is an election for an important position where the decisions that a judge makes often have a direct impact on people's everyday lives."

"Lawyers are in the unique position of being able to critically evaluate the performance of judicial officers they encounter on a daily basis, and most are able to do this objectively and get beyond the monentary disappointment they may experience when they in get a ruling they disagree with. My endorsements now include just under 500 lawyers. The VCBA evaluation reflects that level of support and approval.  Mr. Bjelke does not show great respect for either his profession or the position he seeks by refusing to present himself for scrutiny and evaluation."

Attorney Bjelke stated in an email that he declined to participate in the Bar Association's evaluation of the judicial candidates, criticizing the ratings process:

"I made the decision not to participate in the evaluation because I want to be elected by the people--not a committee of individuals who have no accountability.  It should also be noted that one of the members of this supposed "independent" committee openly and publicly endorses my opponent. That alone discredits the entire evaluation."

 "I graduated from a top law school, worked for one of the largest law firms in the United States, and I represent sophisticated clients in complex matters and litigation.  The ratings that this committee gave me are not based on any facts and they are irresponsible and absurd.  I am confident that the voters in Ventura County will see through this nonsense and realize that this is just an attempt to discredit me to maintain the status quo.  If you want to change the way the current process works, you will vote for me and bring new life to the bench."