John Tavaglione remembers sitting at large
conference tables with grand juries and cordially discussing issues concerning
Riverside County government.
This year was different, said Tavaglione, a
county supervisor since 1995.
“I was sitting at a box like you’re being
questioned in a courtroom,” he said. “They’re all sitting out in front of you
like they’re judge and jury … It’s almost like a process of intimidation, which
is not like the grand jury should be operating.”
Recent civil grand jury reports, and the
county’s written responses, suggest tension between the panel – a
court-appointed watchdog of public agencies – and county officials who often
are the focus of their investigations.
In formal responses, officials sometimes say
the grand jury drew the wrong conclusions or doesn’t understand its job. The
grand jury accuses the county’s top lawyer, Greg Priamos, of having “a history
of bias and contempt.”
“County Counsel’s response to Grand Jury
inquiries are designed to obstruct transparency, protect (the Board of
Supervisors), County agencies, and the Office of County Counsel from scrutiny,”
the grand jury concluded in a recent report.
“There was never an issue getting anything”
with past county counsels, said Michael Pernarelli, the grand jury’s foreman.
“Now it’s become an issue just to get documents.”
Pernarelli traced the recent atmosphere to a
2014 grand jury report that criticized how supervisors spent money from their
individual accounts for community causes and nonprofit groups.
“It seems like (that) report may have
triggered a little shutdown in transparency,” he said.
A YEAR’S WORK
Each of California’s 58 counties has a civil
grand jury of 19 adults empaneled by a Superior Court presiding judge every
July. From July 1 to June 30 of the following year, jurors probe the inner workings
of public agencies with an eye toward improving their function.
Jurors, who apply for the positions, are paid
$25 for each full day served, plus mileage. Investigations can be prompted by
written requests from the public or employees.
Once a query wraps up, the grand jury issues
a written public report. By law, the focus of the investigation has 90 days to
formally respond. It can agree with a grand jury’s recommendations or disagree
and explain why.
County government often is a subject of grand
jury reports. One report, issued in April 2014, took supervisors to task for
how they handle their annual allotments of community improvement funds.
The grand jury said the funds have poor
oversight and allow supervisors to promote themselves and dine on the taxpayer’s
dime. In the formal response, county officials agreed there should be more
checks and balances on the funds’ use.
But the county said the grand jury erred when
it tried to apply laws governing political fundraising to community funds. And
it took issue with grand jury criticism of the renaming of a community center
for Supervisor Marion Ashley.
“The Grand Jury’s attempt to dictate county
policy and usurp Board authority by claiming that a Board action four years
earlier violated the (Political Reform) Act is a misguided attempt at
manipulating Board policy and a complete misinterpretation of the law,” read
the county’s response, which was issued in July.
Then-Supervisor Jeff Stone panned the grand
jury in 2012.
“What we have found in the past is that the
civil grand jury makes reports and more often than not, after we have all the
facts and re-create all the facts, we often (refute) their findings,” said
Stone, who is now a state senator.
A report issued earlier this year appeared to
strike a nerve with the county. The report on the county’s information
technology department found a timely response was not made to an IT audit.
County officials took that to mean they were
being criticized for not promptly responding to all audits. “They have based their
conclusion on the late filing of one department that was ... without a
permanent director and short staffed during the (audit) time period,” the
formal response read.
The grand jury also accused Priamos of
interference by directing IT to only accept written queries from jurors.
“The grand jury clearly does not fully
understand the role of County Counsel, nor does it understand the limits of
grand jury action,” the response read. Priamos was doing his job in
representing the county’s interests and preventing the release of potentially
sensitive security information, officials said.
The grand jury was never denied access to
information, the response read, adding that the grand jury is entitled to
access to public records, not all records.
The response drew a rebuke from Paul Jacobs,
a Temecula resident who frequently speaks at Board of Supervisors meetings.
“The defensive tone of the county’s response
to the grand jury is disrespectful and unprofessional almost to a degree where
it seems the county has something to hide,” Jacobs told supervisors Tuesday.
“I think we understand our role pretty well,”
Pernarelli said.
PRIAMOS AT THE CENTER
Much of the county/jury discord centers on
Priamos, who served as Riverside city attorney before coming to the county last
year.
In 2013, the grand jury accused Priamos of
violating the confidentiality of its investigations. It was looking into city
police practices and its report indirectly referred to the death of Brandon
Dunbar, who was shot and killed by police in 2012.
At the time, Priamos sought to reschedule
testimony by members of the Riverside Community Police Review Commission. The
grand jury said Priamos wrote a letter about the scheduling conflicts to the
county Superior Court’s presiding judge, Riverside’s city manager and others.
The letter referred to Dunbar’s death, the
grand jury said. “Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter,
all confidentiality on the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised,”
the panel’s report read.
Then-County Counsel Pamela Walls sent Priamos
a letter of admonishment. Priamos denied violating the grand jury’s secrecy.
A newly issued grand jury report accuses
Priamos of throwing up roadblocks. Jurors said Priamos or his deputies have
tried to sit in on employees’ sworn testimony, a move that could prevent them
from speaking freely.
“(Priamos’ obstructing tactics include)
attempts to block access to information, delaying the Grand Jury’s hearings, by
requiring subpoenas, making access to witnesses and records difficult and
invoking attorney-client privilege to protect the 18,000 plus County employees
when such privilege may not exist rather than the legitimate interests of the
2.2 million County residents,” the grand jury reported.
Priamos also asked county departments to
notify him in advance if they are asked by the grand jury to testify, the
report read.
Priamos has said he respects the jury’s role
and tries to balance its job with the county’s needs. A written response to the
report on his office is pending.
‘NOT WELL SERVED’
Conflicts between grand juries and counties
are not commonplace, said Karen Jahr, president of the California Grand Jurors’
Association.
Better grand jury training about their
reporting and investigative duties, she said, often reduces conflict. The
association trains more than 1,000 jurors and alternates each summer, but not
in Riverside County and a few other places, Jahr said.
“We understand that these grand juries
receive some degree of training ‘in house,’ but we are unaware of the specifics
of that training,” she said.
Supervisor Kevin Jeffries said he was
“disappointed at the deterioration” in the county/grand jury relationship.
“The public is not well served when both
sides keep poking a stick at each other in the public reports,” he said. “Our
county faces enormous financial and growth challenges going forward and we need
all agencies working together to improve accountability and find new
efficiencies.”
“I am, however, confident that cooler heads
will prevail and we will get past this in the near future.”
June
19, 2015, Updated June 21, 2015
Riverside
Press Enterprise
By
Jeff Horseman
No comments:
Post a Comment