by P.D. Lesko
TAMARA GARWOOD is seated at a table in Cafe Verde which is tucked in a corner. She has chosen a secluded spot where, presumably, our conversation will not be overheard. The problem is that in Cafe Verde at 10 a.m. (my choice, not hers) on a Saturday, it’s not an issue of being overheard as much as it is an issue of hearing each other.
The din is intense, but Tamara Garwood, a Detroit Law School graduate with 15 years of experience in private practice, doesn’t seem to notice; she is focused, leaning forward, her attention on the interview.
Another person might be distracted, eyes wandering if someone familiar were to pass, but not Garwood; it’s as if we are the only two people in Cafe Verde. Tamara Garwood is a mixture of zeal, steely resolve, enthusiasm and idealism. In short, she’s exactly the kind of person who should be a judge. Whether her idealism in campaigning will undermine her chances, remains to be seen.
Garwood has young children and a husband who’d just left for a 10-day trip to Asia. But she doesn’t appear harried. She’s composed—really composed. You wouldn’t know it look at her, but she’s in the midst of a grueling campaign against multiple candidates, one of whom (Julia B. Owdziej) was appointed in June to the probate seat by Gov. Snyder, much to the irritation of the other candidates (each of whom applied to the Governor’s office for the opening, as did Owdziej).
A spokesman for the Governor, when asked how Snyder’s office chose between the multiple Ann Arbor candidates who’d applied, explained that “beyond official qualifications of being a licensed attorney for at least five years and a resident of the county noted, key attributes are all merit-based, including legal acumen, fairness, work ethic, expertise and experience in court and/or proceedings involving the type of court with the vacancy.”
In the recent Washtenaw County Bar Association Judicial Poll, local lawyers gave Julia Owdziej higher scores in all of those categories than they did to Garwood. Tamara Garwood was judged to have better interpersonal skills, however.
Garwood has said she would have taken the appointment had it been offered to her. She, like all of the other judicial candidates whom I’ve spoken with, admitted she filled out the county Bar Association’s survey for herself and her opponents.
“I regularly practice with those people,” she said. Then she added, “Did you ask them if they gave themselves all the highest possible scores?”
The intimation is that her opponents gave themselves the highest possible scores and she did not.
The judicial candidates seem unable to grasp how anonymously evaluating themselves and their opponents during a heated campaign looks to an outside observer—like a momentary lapse in judgement. It is offset by the fact that all have been scrupulously honest in admitting what they did.
LESKO: So, your husband’s gone for 10 days. You’re with the kids (both of whom are under 8), running for office, working….
GARWOOD: I know, right? It’s grueling. After Julia was appointed, people called me and encouraged me to drop out of the race.
LESKO: Why didn’t you?
GARWOOD: Since I was little, I knew I wanted to be a judge. I watched my dad and grandfather give all of their time to their clients. That instilled in me a work ethic. When we didn’t have school, my dad would ask the three of us who wanted to go to court with him. My siblings would be, like, ‘Nah…’ Me? I had my hand up. I would go and sit at his trials with him.
LESKO: If you lose, would you run again in six years?
GARWOOD: I’d have to see how the person was doing in office. How is was going.
LESKO: You just said this is something you’ve wanted to do since you were a kid? Why would what you want be predicated on the performance of any incumbent?
GARWOOD: (Pauses for several seconds). That’s a good point. I suppose I might, but running for office is really tough. I was at Top of the Park, and my four-year-old had on one of my campaign shirts, ‘Garwood for Judge.’ An adult went up to her and said something like “I don’t like Garwood. I’m not voting for her….” How do you think my daughter responded?
LESKO: She burst into tears.
GARWOOD: Exactly. So there I was, comforting my daughter because an adult had said something so mean and so inappropriate….It’s frustrating to run in this race. This is a position (probate court) that most people will come into contact with. When I was collecting signatures, I hit over 200 doors in Dexter. I got three reactions:
1. The blank look.
2. Annoyed at having been interrupted.
3. Angry.
I ran into people who were really angry because they’d had terrible experiences with the Trial Court.
LESKO: The Trial Court has earned a reputation as providing very poor customer service, if the “Black Robe Syndrome” article published by The Ann is accurate.
GARWOOD: The turnover of staff is high. People don’t appear to be well-trained.
LESKO: So, as the probate judge, how are you going to improve customer service, to make it better?
GARWOOD: If I have to sit down with the court clerk’s office staff, I would. You have to be tenacious. The Court has to provide better customer service. If you’re part of a broken system, you have to work to fix it.
LESKO: So what about the pay inequity at the Trial Court? There are clerks paid $35,000 per year. Are their families on food stamps? Pay inequity and low pay must certainly contribute to the turnover rate, right?
GARWOOD: I would do whatever it takes to get people to stay, to lower the turnover rate. You have to go back to the basics. I would definitely be willing to look at how the system works and suggest changes.
LESKO: Let’s talk about endorsements Your opponents are leaning heavily on their endorsements, but you are endorsed by the judge who held the seat, Judge Nancy Francis.
GARWOOD: Right. I talked to Judge Francis and the probate seat seemed a good fit. I’ve worked in all the areas, criminal, probate, etc…but I have the most experience in family law. I think the only endorsement that really matters is that of the person who’s done the job….
LESKO: Judge Francis….
GARWOOD: Yes. Judge Francis married my husband and I. Listen, I didn’t ask anyone for an endorsement. I’ve talked to people like Rebekah (Warren) about campaigning. I may be naive, but I am not actively pursuing endorsements.
LESKO: The local Democratic machine seems to be lined up behind Tracy Van den Bergh. Is that going to help her, do you think?
GARWOOD: It’s a nonpartisan election, however people always ask about my political affiliation. But, yes, I think the support of local Democrats will help Tracy in the election.
LESKO: Anything you want to add, anything we haven’t covered?
GARWOOD: I am running for this seat because I want to help more people. I believe in equal justice, but in some courtrooms I don’t think the rules are always equally applied. That’s something I want to change.
When will interviews with the other candidates be published?
Garwood is the best candidate for the probate judge seat. She is a great human being with many good qualities and Washtenaw county would benefit greatly should Garwood be elected.
As this article suggests she is tenacious, has scruples, and she has the experience.
Mostly, she can and will make good and fair decisions for our community, our families and friends.