CULLMAN — A forum to quiz candidates on how they would approach their role in assessing the legal status of the mentally ill brought out a myriad of concerns over how the Cullman County probate judge’s office will assist local care providers under some sweeping new Alabama provisions.

Thursday’s forum, sponsored by the Cullman chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), hosted five Republican candidates seeking their party’s nomination to face Democratic incumbent probate judge Leah Patterson Lust in the November general election.

Republicans Tammy Brown, Phillip Hicks, Bridgette Reeling Warner, Candy Thomas and Anne Searcy-Vaneman all fielded a series of questions dealing with how they would weigh the various factors that influence the probate court’s decision to order a person into involuntary mental care.

Lust attended the meeting as well, and joined in the discussion of how recently-proposed closures of most state-run mental hospitals may affect commitments ordered by probate judges’ offices locally and statewide.

The most germane question for probate candidates focused on how a probate judge must consider the well being of an individual against the needs of the community which may — or may not — be harmed by allowing a mentally deficient person to continue to function at large — “How do you balance the wishes of the family or community with the rights of the person?”

Searcy-Vaneman and Brown gave assertive answers in favor of maintaining individual rights, contrasting most starkly with the views of Thomas, who noted that a community’s safety must weigh in a probate judge’s decision to remove a person with a potentially dangerous mental disability from society.

“The individual’s rights have to be protected, even if the community is wanting something,” Searcy-Vaneman said, pointing out that the philosophical underpinnings of the law support an individual’s right to expect impartial consideration. “I would guard a person’s rights as much as possible, because these are individuals — and even though they may have a problem, they still need to be respected as individuals.”

Brown voiced a similar opinion, stressing the gravity of any court decision that has the power to separate a person from his freedom.

“You’re literally taking away that person’s rights,” she said. “I would make sure that, in the petition [to have a mentally unstable person committed by the probate court], there’s enough evidence to do that. I would make sure that every means of treatment for that person — that we would look at all of those options. I was always taught that, whatever you do in a commitment, to make sure it’s the least restrictive thing.”

Thomas argued that, in many cases, individual rights must be set aside to ensure a person isn’t a threat to others’ safety.

“In the end, if they are a danger to the community, I’m gonna go with what’s safe for the community,” Thomas said. “I’m going to follow all the state laws to protect every individual’s rights, but if they’re a danger to the community, I’m going to have them committed — because a lot of these options [for alternate treatments] have been taken away from us.”

The removal of those ‘options’ referred to an announcement earlier this week from the Alabama Department of Mental Health that every state-supported mental hospital but one — including North Alabama Regional in Decatur, which routinely receives local probate commitments — would likely shut down in a budget-cutting move by September of this year. That would cut more than 900 jobs and force many mental commitments into yet-to-be-developed community-based care alternatives.

Responding to the audience’s dismay over how the law and the medical profession will be able to reconcile such drastic measures, Lust took the floor to discuss how her office is already collaborating with Mental Healthcare of Cullman and others to develop a forthcoming system of community-based care that won’t leave future commitments facing their responsibilities alone.

“I’m sensing the anxiety in the room over the budget cuts,” Lust said. “For a while now — and this has been a joint effort spearheaded by [Mental Healthcare of Cullman executive director] Chris Van Dyke — he has had the wonderful idea of trying to get a crisis intervention center in Cullman; a place where it is possible to stabilize people on an as-needed emergency basis.

“Something else I would like to see formed in this community is a drop-in center ... In light of what’s coming, we are going to have to develop a new plan, but I promise you — I am personally and professionally committed to making sure those needs are met.”

One question having nothing to do with mental health issues drew perhaps the biggest collective gasp of the evening, when each Republican candidate was asked whether the local party’s leadership favored one candidate above the others.

The candidates’ responses varied.

Thomas showed frustration as she answered.

“From the very first time that I went and met with our party chairman, he tried to talk me out of running for probate judge — [he advised that I run for] any other thing than for probate judge,” said Thomas. “I didn’t understand it at first — and that’s all I’m going to say.”

Cullman County Republican party chairman Ken Brown said Friday he tries to offer potential candidates pragmatic advice at the outset of their campaigns, as well as offer the party’s support once a candidate has qualified to run.

“What I do is meet with all the candidates when they decide they want to run, and I try to make sure they understand, going into it, what it will mean for them and their families,” said Brown.

“I want them to understand early on that, if they don’t have good support in the community, or good name recognition, or if they’re starting out very late in the campaign — which was the case with Candy — they are likely to encounter certain difficulties. I’m telling them that this can be a tough business, and if you want to be a candidate for probate judge or for any other job, you need to go into it with your eyes open.”

Warner said it’s not the party’s job to endorse one candidate ahead of its own primary.

“I have been very involved with my party, and they can’t show favoritism until after the party primary,” she said. “As far as I know, they haven’t shown any.” In an earlier response, she offered more fully her opinion on how politics isn’t necessarily an ally in assessing a person’s competency to care for himself.

“I wish it wasn’t so political,” Warner said. “It shouldn’t matter it you are Republican or Democrat. I don’t owe anyone anything — I answer to God; that’s it.”

“The only person who can’t be involved in party politics is the party chairman,” noted Brown. “With me going and talking to them as a Republican, they have been very supportive and fair. They have discussed the details of what I was going to come up against ... and all of that has made me stronger, and I will continue to go forward.”

Hicks, who has spent a significant portion of his career inside Republican politics, said it’s impossible for party leaders and candidates to avoid some appearance of partiality. He said he’s already proven capable of making tough decisions that sometimes upset political allies. And, he said, candidates have to resign themselves to some realities of political life — especially at election time.

“I have worked with the Republican party for most of my life,” he said. “There are a lot of emotional ties to campaigns. But [as a candidate] you just have to rise above it.”



* Benjamin Bullard can be reached by e-mail at bbullard@cullmantimes.com, or by telephone at 734-2131, ext. 270.