‘Somewhere along the line, we have lost our ability at diplomacy,’ Supervisor Kevin Jeffries said.
Despite concerns over its
implications, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday signed off on a sharply
worded response to a grand jury report recommending the discharge of County
Counsel Greg Priamos amid allegations that he used heavy-handed tactics aimed
at stifling investigations.
“Somewhere along the line, we
have lost our ability at diplomacy. I don’t fault anyone individually, because
both sides are more emotional than they should be. Both sides are determined to
be right without compromise,” said Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who abstained
from voting with his colleagues to put the board’s seal of approval on the
official response to the 19-member civil grand jury’s findings.
The 3-0 vote also lacked input
from board Chairman Marion Ashley, who’s on vacation.
Jeffries spoke after hearing
from several members of the public, each of whom rendered unfavorable opinions
of Priamos and praised the jury.
“There are a lot of issues
here,” said Vivian Moreno of Riverside, a critic of Priamos since his tenure as
city attorney for Riverside. “The grand jury is bringing a huge light to this
board. Greg Priamos made a mess of the legal department for the city. Now he’s
here, because he’s nothing more than your buddy.”
Temecula resident Paul Jacobs
said the board appeared ready to “put down a watchdog of the people” while
ignoring the county’s growing slate of lawsuits.
“Mr. Priamos is creating
problems,” Jacobs said. “Red flags keep being ignored.”
Supervisor John Tavaglione, an
admitted longtime friend of Priamos, disputed the grand jury’s negative
characterization of the chief counsel, saying several members of that panel
“had a bone to pick” with Priamos from when he worked as city attorney.
“I’ve never seen a grand jury
so confrontational as this last one,” Tavaglione said. “When I was called to
speak to them, I felt like I was on the witness stand, literally being treated
like a suspect or witness to a crime.”
The supervisor went on to
criticize the media for detailing aspects of Priamos’ dealings with the grand
jury.
“It’s very unfortunate ... but
they’re the ones that like this kind of stuff,” Tavaglione said. “Confrontation
sells news.”
Supervisor John Benoit said it
was a “new day” since a new grand jury had been impaneled.
“I think we’ll have a different
feel going forward,” he said. “I think we’ll see a more collegial and effective
relationship.”
Priamos told the board that he
had met with county Presiding Judge Harold Hopp and the grand jury’s named
legal adviser, District Attorney Mike Hestrin, all of whom had agreed that the
controversy that cropped up in the last year shouldn’t be repeated.
“Judge Hopp, Mr. Hestrin and I
(will be) working together to ensure these issues don’t reoccur,” Priamos said.
The grand jury in May assailed
him as unfit for duty and a disruptive influence on open government, alleging
he had prevented access to documents and witnesses.
The Executive Office, on behalf
of the board, and the Office of County Counsel authored a joint rejoinder to
the jury’s findings, tackling the issue of Priamos’ hiring in June 2014. The
grand jury questioned the legitimacy of his four-year appointment, noting the
position was not filled via competitive recruitment.
The jury quoted an unnamed
member of one supervisor’s staff as saying Priamos, then city attorney for
Riverside, was chosen in a candidate search that involved looking no farther
than “three blocks” from the County Administrative Center.
The Executive Office countered
that “other candidates” were interviewed for the position and that “Mr. Priamos
best suited the needs of the county.”
At the time of Priamos’ hiring,
City News Service interviewed then- Supervisor Jeff Stone, who said that only
one other person had been interviewed for the job -- Assistant County Counsel
Anita Willis.
Members of the grand jury
recommended that Priamos’ contract be annulled and a wider candidate search be
initiated, but the board answered that Priamos remained “in the best position
to lead the county counsel’s office.”
The grand jury charged that
since Priamos came aboard, “a simple request for public documents has become
difficult, if not impossible to obtain.”
“His appointment is having the
effect of eliminating all transparency into the governmental operations of the
county,” jurors wrote.
The Executive Office replied
that the jury failed to provide specific examples to illustrate its case and
emphasized that the “watchdog” grand jury -- which does not have the power of
an “indictment grand jury” -- is by law “only entitled to any public record to
which any member of the public is entitled,” nothing more.
Jurors said Priamos interfered
with witness examinations, saying he insisted that either he or one of his
deputies represent county employees summoned by the grand jury for questioning
regarding government operations.
The Office of County Counsel
characterized the jury’s approach as “manipulating the witness interview
process” by attempting to obtain testimony from county employees without
allowing them the opportunity to consult with an attorney before providing
information.
Priamos wrote that in January,
he confronted Hestrin about jurors’ attempts to solicit unsworn testimony,
calling it “inappropriate, unethical and ... an abuse of the civil grand jury
process.” The practice summarily ceased, according to the Office of County
Counsel.
Jurors accused Priamos and his
staff of devising a strategy to “hamper the process of the grand jury’s
pursuance of its legal and authorized duties,” citing an email and PowerPoint
presentations in which the chief counsel allegedly encouraged department heads
to ascertain “the areas being reviewed” by the jury in order to run
interference.
Priamos said the jury
“misunderstands effective representation of clients as obstruction.”
August 19, 2015
Banning-Beaumont
Patch
By Alexander
Nguyen
No comments:
Post a Comment