Contra Costa judiciary 18-month postponement of trial for county assessor undermines public-official accountability
MARTINEZ,
CALIFORNIA – JULY 26: Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer, left, and his
attorney Mike Rains exit the AF Bray Courthouse Building after a hearing
related to the grand jury accusations against him in Martinez, Calif., on
Friday, July 26, 2019. Grand jury seeks Kramer’s removal from office for
alleged misconduct. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)
Foot-dragging
by Contra Costa judges in a #MeToo case involving the county assessor has made
a mockery of the state’s grand jury process designed to check public officials
who engage in willful or corrupt misconduct.
It’s
been 14 months since the Contra Costa Grand Jury signed a formal accusation
that county Assessor Gus Kramer, currently a candidate for county supervisor,
had created a hostile work environment for employees within his office and
under his supervision.
The
accusation alleges that Kramer, in incidents dating back to 2014, told stories
about his conquests with women, made unwanted advances on a subordinate, talked
about giving a sex toy to his niece, made crude comments about his sexual
desires, and disparaged people of Mexican descent.
An
accusation is the first step in a seldom-used process that should trigger a
trial to determine whether a public official is removed from office. But the
punishment of removal from office is meaningless if the accused remains on the
job through years of delays.
Yet,
that’s exactly what is happening in the Kramer case, which was bungled for
years by the county before it even reached the Grand Jury. Since the accusation
was filed, the case has been passed between three Superior Court judges,
Theresa Canepa, Charles Burch and, most recently, John Cope.
This
month, Cope set a date for jury selection of Oct. 19. That’s right. It won’t
even begin until 18 months after the Grand Jury foreman signed the accusation.
Meanwhile, Kramer draws salary and benefits worth about $360,000 a year and
continues to fatten his pension.
And
he remains in charge of a critical county department that determines the tax
values on more than $200 billion of property in Contra Costa. That includes
overseeing an office that includes one of his accusers.
Lest
there be any thought that Kramer was chastened by the Grand Jury accusation,
he’s currently running for a seat on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. He
eked out a second-place finish in March to qualify for the Nov. 3 runoff
against incumbent Federal Glover.
It
was bad enough that Kramer hadn’t been put on trial before the March election.
Now jury selection will commence two weeks after ballots for the November
election are mailed out. And with the trial expected to take about three weeks,
most ballots likely will be counted before a jury verdict is rendered.
What
a fiasco.
Kramer,
who denies the allegations, deserved his day in court before then, although his
attorney seems in no hurry. Just as important, county residents and voters
deserve a speedy resolution to the case to know whether Kramer will keep his
office and should be considered for another.
Blame
District Attorney Diana Becton for five weeks of delay in serving Kramer with
the accusation before the process could even start. Blame County Counsel Sharon
Anderson and Chief Assistant Mary Ann Mason for repeated delays turning over
documents.
Foremost,
blame the judges – the three who have presided over this case and let pre-trail
proceedings drag out for over a year. By the time the court was temporarily
shut down because of coronavirus, the judiciary already had relinquished
control. Once court hearings resumed, Judge Cope continued the delays by
setting a trial date yet another four months off.
It’s
unlikely that Kramer will win the November election. In March, Glover garnered
49.9% of the vote, a hair short of the simple majority needed to avoid a
runoff, while Kramer and a third candidate nearly evenly split the other half
of the votes.
Whatever
the outcome of the election and the trial, Kramer will have served about half
his current four-year term as assessor by the time the case is resolved.
And
if Kramer were to win the election, that would moot the accusation. Kramer
would have to quit his current job to become a county supervisor, anyhow. So,
the outcome of a trial to remove him as assessor would be meaningless.
This
isn’t the first time the public has been left in the dark before an election
about the outcome of accusations against Kramer. In 2015, two of his employees
lodged the complaints that were the genesis of this case. They were buried.
More
than two years later, in January 2018, County Administrator David Twa, acting
in response to the growing #MeToo movement, sent a memo to employees urging
reporting of inappropriate workplace behavior.
One
of the employees spoke up again, triggering a formal county investigation and
finding that it was “more likely than not” on several occasions Kramer had made
inappropriate comments. But by the time the report was completed, Kramer had
ensured election to another term because he had no opposition.
Then
county supervisors kept the report from the public until one of the victims
came to me and this news organization publicized the findings. Only then did
supervisors censure Kramer and refer the case to the Grand Jury.
Which
brings us to the final victims in this case – the grand jurors who served in
the 2018-19 fiscal year, carefully investigated the allegations and brought the
allegations. The three judges’ delay in this case not only sends a very
troubling message to employees who report misconduct, it tells grand jurors
that their work ferreting out wrongdoing is not respected.
The
Contra Costa judiciary should be ashamed.
East
Bay Times
By DANIEL BORENSTEIN | dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
June 27, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment