[Riverside County] Board to Certify Report Rejecting Jury's Findings Regarding Chief Counsel

The civil grand jury questioned the legitimacy of his four-year appointment, noting the position was not filled via competitive recruitment.

Riverside County supervisors are expected today to sign off on a sharply worded response to a grand jury report recommending the discharge of County Counsel Greg Priamos amid allegations that he uses heavy- handed tactics aimed at stifling investigations.

The 19-member grand jury in May assailed Priamos as unfit for duty and a disruptive influence on open government, alleging he had prevented access to documents and witnesses.

The Executive Office and the Office of County Counsel each authored rejoinders to the jury’s findings, both tackling the issue of Priamos’ hiring in June 2014. The civil grand jury questioned the legitimacy of his four-year
appointment, noting the position was not filled via competitive recruitment.

The grand 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 the ”best qualified candidate and 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 board 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 criticized Priamos for interfering with witness examinations, insisting 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 District Attorney Michael Hestrin, the grand jury’s named legal adviser, 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. Priamos said that the jury’s accusation that he engages in behavior contrary to ”transparency and accountability’’ was a ”bold assertion with no facts or examples’’ to support it.

The statement appeared related to a jury investigation earlier this year into management of security protocols by the Riverside County Department of Information Technology. Jurors pointed out then that the department had failed to satisfactorily address concerns highlighted in an audit.

The grand jury said that soon afterward it received notice that Priamos had inaugurated a policy whereby all grand jury inquiries would need to be scrutinized by the Office of County Counsel.

Priamos asserted that the grand jury has ”no superior right to public records beyond that of any other citizen.’’

“One of the duties of county counsel in representing its client, the county, is to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client and attorney work-product privileged documents,’’ he said.

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 that the jury “misunderstands effective representation of clients as obstruction.’’

“Requiring compliance with applicable procedural guidelines set forth in the penal code (does) not constitute `interference or obstruction,’’’ he said. ”Rather, it represents appropriate representation of the county and its 
employees.’’

August 18, 2015

Palm Desert Patch

By Autumn Johnson