Grand jury foreman challenges county

By CONNIE KORBEL Of The Mendocino Beacon -
Updated: 02/12/2009 08:12:15 AM PST

"There is a philosophical difference between our office and the grand jury about how much money should be made available to them for their resources," said Mendocino County CEO Tom Mitchell. "We are limited in how much money we can provide. We gave them the same treatment as all other departments — we did not grant them full funding.

"Historically, they have spent more than budgeted. It is an ongoing problem and will continue to be until we have a resolution on the funding issue."

Mitchell reported that county counsel had had discussions with Superior Court Presiding Judge Cindee F. Mayfield.

Mitchell was addressing the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 regarding the ordinance amendment to the county code with regards to the grand jury. Compliance with Penal Code 914.5, that any expenditure exceeding the authorized budget must be approved in advance by the presiding judge of the Superior Court, was among the revisions being discussed.

The California Constitution requires that every county impanel a grand jury every year to ensure the interests of citizens are being served. Grand juries have broad powers to, among other things, investigate and report upon the conduct of local government at the county level and lower. The grand jury is the watchdog of local government.

On Jan. 27, Grand Jury Foreman Finley Williams read a prepared opening statement that explained his position on the grand jury budget, particularly in regards to mileage.

Williams projected needing three times the $15,000 budget for travel. Last year's mileage expense, factored in before gas prices escalated, was $31,958.

The revised ordinance states that grand jurors are reimbursed $25 for each full panel meeting; $10 for each committee meeting. The ordinance also states grand jurors who live more than 30 miles from the county seat who choose to stay in Ukiah overnight, can be reimbursed for lodging and food at the same rate as county employees.

The board approved the ordinance with a 3-2 vote, with Third District Supervisor Chairman John Pinches and Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax dissenting.

Williams' position was the budget needs to reflect and be determined by the miles traveled by the 19 jurors (the required number for this county), some of whom commute from remote sections of the county to Ukiah for meetings.

The make-up of jurors changes every year, which significantly alters the number of miles needed to be compensated from year to year. The 2008-09 jury has five members from the coast who travel the greatest distance.

Williams told the board the grand jury had advised the CEO's office several times before the budget was passed in September that the budget was inadequate. The budget process takes place before the jury is seated.

"It is illogical to think it would cost less with the same number of jurors. Some of our cost-saving strategies have worked well; some have not," said Williams. "The fundamental fact remains that travel costs are directly proportional to the success of the court in recruiting a representative panel of jurors."

Williams did the mileage math for five coast jurors, three from Willits and the remaining from the Ukiah area, restating that more money would be needed to complete this year's work and the county should bear these facts in mind in the future.

"This [budget] was doomed for failure before it started," said Williams.

Williams referred to Penal Code Section, Title 4, Grand Jury Proceedings, Section 914.5 and 931*, explaining it places the authority for grand jury spending in the hands of the presiding judge. This frustrated staff and supervisors responsible for an insufficient budget.

Chairman Pinches took the opportunity to chastise the grand jury for criticizing him for his mileage, which resulted in him returning about $3,500 to the county coffers last year. Pinches was still upset with the grand jury.

"There's a disconnect between conveying your concerns about the funds and having the funds materialize in the manner you're requesting," said Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith. "Every piece of paper that comes across my desk now, in one way or another, addresses an inadequacy of either staffing or funding. It is a challenge to absolutely digest all of it.

"The disconnect is that we've been asking department heads for years to do more with less. That is the constant mantra the board has given them. It's at a very excruciating painful level that we're asking everybody to do that."

Board members shared ideas they felt the grand jury could incorporate to get the job done with less money, approaching problems differently, ranging from fewer and/or longer meetings to fewer investigations.

"You have to adjust your workload or sphere of discussion to meet the constraints of the budget," said Supervisor Smith.

Williams pointed out that the all-volunteer jury has functioned with the same static level for 21 years and challenged them to identify any other department that had done the same. The county eliminated a quarter-time clerical position, the only paid staff support, assigned to the grand jury in the 2007-08 fiscal year. Members assumed the clerical duties as a new volunteer responsibility.

Until last year, the grand jury had spent less money than in 2004-05 budget year, although always exceeding their approved budget. In 2004-05 they were budgeted $85,893 and spent $107,070.

The next year they were budgeted $87,180 and spent $91,419. In 2006-07 they were budgeted $91,582 and spent $101,603.

In 2007-08, at an all-time high, they exceeded the $92,720 budget by spending $130,153.

This year's budget is $99,084.

"The grand jury is a state-mandated watchdog. To limit the grand jury's operations by use of the budget is something the state Legislature, in its wisdom, has said should not happen," said Williams. "It says the power of the purse will essentially not stop the grand jury from operating."

First District Supervisor John McCowen essentially paraphrased Supervisor Smith's concerns. Supervisor McCowen disclosed he is a former grand juror, having served about 20 years ago.

"I don't really get that you understand the budget situation at the county. We are in a very serious budget situation," said McCowen. "I object to the characterization that the efforts of the executive office to look for budget savings is in any way an effort to constrain the grand jury or limit its ability to investigate. That's not the point at all."

Mitchell was frustrated and he took exception to Williams labeling the grand jury as a "watchdog," a term that commonly appears on grand jury Websites up and down the state.

"We only have so much money to allocate to everybody; next year's budget is worse than this year," said Mitchell. "A watchdog infers we're doing something wrong. I'd like to get away from that kind of dialog. It's a negative term [which] in today's environment we should avoid.

"If they're granted additional money, it means one more county employee has the potential to be laid off or take MTO [mandatory time off]. You simply can't ignore the fact that there are not enough funds to support all levels of county government regardless of the needs. We are all having to operate in a different environment than we're used to," Mitchell said.

"I cannot have the attitude that people are just going to exceed their budgets. That is not appropriate; it causes me great consternation. We do not have sufficient funds to keep this [grand jury] budget going the way the grand jury would like to fund it," he said.

Williams stayed the course.

"I would be hesitant to put controls on what the grand jury can investigate and how many investigations should be done a year," Williams said. "The end result of putting fiscal restraints of the kind you're talking [about], on the grand jury, translates to potential control over the topics the grand jury looks at.

"I want the grand jury to be able to investigate anything it deems appropriate when it finds issues to investigate. Having an inadequate budget in travel means that topics that should be wouldn't be investigated.

"This is the use of the purse to control the outcome of an investigation. It starts with the control of the purse," Williams said.

* The 914.5 of the state penal code reads, verbatim: "The grand jury shall not spend money or incur obligations in excess of the amount budgeted for its investigative activities pursuant to this chapter by the county board of supervisors unless the proposed expenditure is approved in advance by the presiding judge of the superior court after the board of supervisors has been advised of the request."

Section 931 reads, "All expenses of the grand jurors incurred under this article shall be paid by the treasurer of the county out of the general fund upon warrants drawn by the county auditor upon the written order of the judge of the superior court of the county."

http://www.mendocinobeacon.com/localnews/ci_11688429