September
14, 2014
Ukiah
Daily Journal
Letter-to-the-Editor
Re: Finley Williams and the
Grand Jury Process
California's Grand Jury System
is unique — in that 48 of the 50 states have over the past century dropped the
use of citizen-empowered grand juries to investigate misfeasance and
malfeasance by our elected and appointed government officials. Politicians
across the country have found that citizens might independently determine where
government was no longer acting in their interests and taken actions to reign
them in. Only Nevada and California, where the Grand Jury is written into the
State Constitution, still uphold this basic safeguard for good government.
Finley Williams, who has served on many Grand Juries in Mendocino County,
explains the system well in his Letter published September 7.
The Grand Jury's own rules are
a major part of the problem in getting anyone to pay attention to their hard work
and push for fundamental change in how government works. The jury is empowered
for exactly 365 days and goes out of business July 1 of each year. Thereafter
they cannot respond to questions, answer critics, or even clarify issues — they
are dead in the water. Consequently the Board of Supervisors, the CEO, the City
Manager and all the other paid and well-positioned officials have a free fire
zone to take pot shots at the Jury with no fear of response. Even Finley, who
certainly knows most of the issues, is restrained in his letter to merely
explaining how the system is set up, he cannot defend the Jury's conclusions.
Even should a finding of the
Jury be found in future to be in error, it is too late to correct it, for they
are already out of business. The next year's Grand Jury can take up the same
case again, but they will not have access to last year's testimony. The data
and background documents that are sometimes available are, from my own
experience, poorly maintained and usually incomplete. It is also against the
rules for a new Grand Jury to meet with the previous years members and learn
anything about their findings that might not have made it to the Final Report.
Furthermore, the Jurors are
constrained from any publicity as to what they are studying and researching
while in session. Thus many in the public at large, who might have something to
offer as evidence, are not even aware that an important question is under
review. This is just plain stupid and I do not believe that many of the local
interpretations of the Grand Jury rules are wise nor appropriate. As a Grand
Juror myself a few years back, I became adamant about opening the process to
public view and allowing former jurors to provide their advice and experience.
I was quickly suppressed by the likes of Finley Williams and a number of others
who have made their membership on numerous Juries a major part of their lives.
Their actions serve the interests of the nomenclatura, the professional
office-holders at the City and County level, who would like Jury Reports to be
bland and easily digestible. When I determined, after 7 months of hard work,
that an Edit Committee was being organized, consisting of a few favorites of
the Foreman but not including me, would make the final edits and publish whatever
they pleased without and further discussion or review by the four or 5 who had
prepared the draft report. I realized my work was futile for the Edit Committee
would have their way and another toothless Grand Jury Report would be issued. I
resigned rather than have my name on the final product.
The California Grand Jury
System can be a safeguard against entrenched bureaucracies but it takes
vigilance and a good fight every so often. Most of people haven't the interest.
Too bad.
— James Houle, Redwood Valley
No comments:
Post a Comment