Posted on March 6, 2009 by kpayeditor
Butte County is paying almost a million dollars a year for some retired workers medical benefits, and the county Grand Jury is urging some changes. An interim report from the Butte County Grand Jury recommends the county renegotiate its benefit package so retirees pay part of their medical coverage. Butte County compared itself to 12 counties when negotiating the cost of living adjustments, and some of those counties include Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Napa. Sang Kim with Butte County Administration had this response to the report about comparable counties.
The Grand Jury sugggests Butte County compare itself to counties that are closer in “socio-economic” status.
http://newstalk1290.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/butte-grand-jury-takes-on-medical-insurance-for-retirees-in-interim-report/
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Mendocino County Department heads talk budget cuts
County department heads talk cost reductions
By ROB BURGESS The Daily Journal
Updated: 03/04/2009 12:02:57 AM PST
Department heads who overran their budgets by more than $10,000 were brought before the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Carmel Angelo, Health and Human Services Agency director, said she had "good news" for the board in that she was able to reduce the number of layoffs in her department from 29 to 10.5 due to vacancies.
"We will be laying off one supervisor to 4.5 frontline staff in Mental Health," she said. "These positions are in the crisis unit. We are providing some non-mandated coverage in Mental HealthŠIn Social Services, we will be laying off five positions instead of 15. This should leave us in the black in Social Services."
Meredith Ford, auditor/controller, said her department had reduced its shortfall from $38,000 in the mid-year budget review to $9,400 because of mandatory and voluntary time off by her staff.
"My budget is in the position it is in because of the economy," she said.
Nash Gonzalez, Planning and Building Services director, said he had three different options to close the $411,000 deficit his department faced.
"The first deals with projections and additional revenue through vehicle abatement, line item savings and cancellation of contract with existing contractor," he said. "This will leave us with $141,000 savings along with revenue. This still leaves us with a shortfall."
Gonzalez said the other two alternatives would couple the first option with an increasing number of staff layoffs.
"For alternative two, I'm also bringing to the board a reduction of five positions, which is 16 percent of my staff," he said. "This is the combination of the first alternative and the reduction of five positions.. That in itself brings it to $219,349 savingsŠThe third alternative not only looks at the first one, but also further staff reductions of an additional seven positions, plus five positions. This brings me to $321,810 (in savings) but still leaves me with a shortfall."
Gonzalez said he couldn't control the amount of money coming in the door since his department was fee-driven.
"I'm just one of the byproducts of the economy," he said. "I don't recommend any of them, but I would look at the board considering options one and two."
By consensus of the board, 3rd District Supervisor John Pinches directed Gonzalez to come back with a presentation of what option two will do and to move forward with option one.
Finley Williams, the grand jury foreman, said his department was completely out of money as of the end of March.
"The grand jury anticipated this precise situation in July of last year," he said. "We took what steps we couldŠWe have no place to cut."
Williams said the decision of whether or not the grand jury can still spend money past its allocated amount was in the hands of the judiciary.
"We're in the report-writing session of our term at this point," he said. "When those reports are completed it goes before the full panelŠWe have no profit centers."
Sheriff Tom Allman said he had warned the board during last year's budget hearings that he would be more than $2 million short, but that he had reduced costs and had halved that number.
"We are all in this together," he said. "You're not going to see anything except a team player attitude from the sheriff's department. We are the largest law enforcement agency in the countyŠThe good news is I don't think we're going to be $2.2 million short. I think we're going to be $1.1 million. We haven't reduced any services to the public. In our plans of cutting costs and cutting our services I'm going to stand in front of you that we don't have the power to cut the services we provide unless we can override the state constitution, which we don't."
Allman said cutting officers in either positions or days worked in many areas was not an option.
"I can't tell you I'm cutting $1.1 million, but I can tell you we're being a team player to reduce our costs," he said. "There is no way I can ask citizens to not call when there is a crimeŠThe bottom line is that we're trying to reduce costs. There's public safety issues that we cannot reduce at all. There are certain things that cannot be compromised, and public safety is one."
Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith said that even with Allman's efforts to curb excess overtime and other costs it still left a significant gap between what the county had and what it was spending.
"We have not addressed the $1.1 million shortfall," she said. "You have reduced costs, but they're not reflected in the $1.1 millionŠYou have a large budget so you have the most opportunities to cut costs. I think it's up to you to think of where you can do this. We have to find this million dollars. Everyone knows the money isn't there."
Allman said that while asset forfeitures could help reduce the cost to the general fund, he was worried about the legal implications.
"I can't give you a number and utilize asset seizures and break the law," he said. "Give me a chance to go back to our office. I may have to call some of the administrators at the federal government. In case anyone is asking, the answer is no."
The board directed Allman to continue the hiring freeze and utilize asset forfeiture for vehicle purchases.
The board decided to push further budget talks for the 2009/10 fiscal year to a special board meeting scheduled for the morning of March 16.
Rob Burgess can be reached at udjrb@pacific.net.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11832412
By ROB BURGESS The Daily Journal
Updated: 03/04/2009 12:02:57 AM PST
Department heads who overran their budgets by more than $10,000 were brought before the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Carmel Angelo, Health and Human Services Agency director, said she had "good news" for the board in that she was able to reduce the number of layoffs in her department from 29 to 10.5 due to vacancies.
"We will be laying off one supervisor to 4.5 frontline staff in Mental Health," she said. "These positions are in the crisis unit. We are providing some non-mandated coverage in Mental HealthŠIn Social Services, we will be laying off five positions instead of 15. This should leave us in the black in Social Services."
Meredith Ford, auditor/controller, said her department had reduced its shortfall from $38,000 in the mid-year budget review to $9,400 because of mandatory and voluntary time off by her staff.
"My budget is in the position it is in because of the economy," she said.
Nash Gonzalez, Planning and Building Services director, said he had three different options to close the $411,000 deficit his department faced.
"The first deals with projections and additional revenue through vehicle abatement, line item savings and cancellation of contract with existing contractor," he said. "This will leave us with $141,000 savings along with revenue. This still leaves us with a shortfall."
Gonzalez said the other two alternatives would couple the first option with an increasing number of staff layoffs.
"For alternative two, I'm also bringing to the board a reduction of five positions, which is 16 percent of my staff," he said. "This is the combination of the first alternative and the reduction of five positions.. That in itself brings it to $219,349 savingsŠThe third alternative not only looks at the first one, but also further staff reductions of an additional seven positions, plus five positions. This brings me to $321,810 (in savings) but still leaves me with a shortfall."
Gonzalez said he couldn't control the amount of money coming in the door since his department was fee-driven.
"I'm just one of the byproducts of the economy," he said. "I don't recommend any of them, but I would look at the board considering options one and two."
By consensus of the board, 3rd District Supervisor John Pinches directed Gonzalez to come back with a presentation of what option two will do and to move forward with option one.
Finley Williams, the grand jury foreman, said his department was completely out of money as of the end of March.
"The grand jury anticipated this precise situation in July of last year," he said. "We took what steps we couldŠWe have no place to cut."
Williams said the decision of whether or not the grand jury can still spend money past its allocated amount was in the hands of the judiciary.
"We're in the report-writing session of our term at this point," he said. "When those reports are completed it goes before the full panelŠWe have no profit centers."
Sheriff Tom Allman said he had warned the board during last year's budget hearings that he would be more than $2 million short, but that he had reduced costs and had halved that number.
"We are all in this together," he said. "You're not going to see anything except a team player attitude from the sheriff's department. We are the largest law enforcement agency in the countyŠThe good news is I don't think we're going to be $2.2 million short. I think we're going to be $1.1 million. We haven't reduced any services to the public. In our plans of cutting costs and cutting our services I'm going to stand in front of you that we don't have the power to cut the services we provide unless we can override the state constitution, which we don't."
Allman said cutting officers in either positions or days worked in many areas was not an option.
"I can't tell you I'm cutting $1.1 million, but I can tell you we're being a team player to reduce our costs," he said. "There is no way I can ask citizens to not call when there is a crimeŠThe bottom line is that we're trying to reduce costs. There's public safety issues that we cannot reduce at all. There are certain things that cannot be compromised, and public safety is one."
Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith said that even with Allman's efforts to curb excess overtime and other costs it still left a significant gap between what the county had and what it was spending.
"We have not addressed the $1.1 million shortfall," she said. "You have reduced costs, but they're not reflected in the $1.1 millionŠYou have a large budget so you have the most opportunities to cut costs. I think it's up to you to think of where you can do this. We have to find this million dollars. Everyone knows the money isn't there."
Allman said that while asset forfeitures could help reduce the cost to the general fund, he was worried about the legal implications.
"I can't give you a number and utilize asset seizures and break the law," he said. "Give me a chance to go back to our office. I may have to call some of the administrators at the federal government. In case anyone is asking, the answer is no."
The board directed Allman to continue the hiring freeze and utilize asset forfeiture for vehicle purchases.
The board decided to push further budget talks for the 2009/10 fiscal year to a special board meeting scheduled for the morning of March 16.
Rob Burgess can be reached at udjrb@pacific.net.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11832412
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Riverside County Grand jury report critical of Nevada Hydro partnership
By AARON BURGIN
The Press-Enterprise
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District should accept that a proposed hydroelectric facility it co-sponsors is not financially viable and explain to ratepayers how it has used $4 million spent on the project, a Riverside County grand jury said in a report.
The Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage project includes a pumped storage plant and 30 miles of proposed transmission lines that would link Riverside and San Diego county power grids.
Elsinore Valley and Vista-based Nevada Hydro Corp. are the project's co-partners.
The report casts doubt on the prospect of Elsinore Valley recouping the money it has spent on the project because a 1997 agreement between Elsinore Valley and Nevada Hydro only requires the company to reimburse the district when the project is complete.
Three financial reports that cast doubt on the project's profitability and recent decisions by Nevada Hydro call into question whether the pumped storage portion will ever be built, the grand jury said in its report.
The financial studies, which the district released to the public last year, said the $1.3 billion project would not be profitable or, in a best-case scenario with federal incentives, could turn a small profit.
"Worst-case scenario would be that repayment will never be made, nor will the pump/storage portion of the project ever be built," the jury said..
Elsinore Valley attorney John Brown said the district plans to respond to the report in writing, but said the district believed it had given the grand jury -- and the public -- an accounting of the money spent on the project.
Nevada Hydro project manager David Kates said the report contained several factual errors, including that the project's financier, New York-based Morgan Stanley, is only committed to covering the power lines.
The report also assumes that Nevada Hydro has no intention of developing the pumped storage portion of the project, which is not the case, Kates said.
Critics of the project said the report validates concerns that the district wasted ratepayer money for a project that doesn't make sense financially.
Reach Aaron Burgin at 951-375-3733 or aburgin@PE.com
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_leaps03.43302f3.html
The Press-Enterprise
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District should accept that a proposed hydroelectric facility it co-sponsors is not financially viable and explain to ratepayers how it has used $4 million spent on the project, a Riverside County grand jury said in a report.
The Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage project includes a pumped storage plant and 30 miles of proposed transmission lines that would link Riverside and San Diego county power grids.
Elsinore Valley and Vista-based Nevada Hydro Corp. are the project's co-partners.
The report casts doubt on the prospect of Elsinore Valley recouping the money it has spent on the project because a 1997 agreement between Elsinore Valley and Nevada Hydro only requires the company to reimburse the district when the project is complete.
Three financial reports that cast doubt on the project's profitability and recent decisions by Nevada Hydro call into question whether the pumped storage portion will ever be built, the grand jury said in its report.
The financial studies, which the district released to the public last year, said the $1.3 billion project would not be profitable or, in a best-case scenario with federal incentives, could turn a small profit.
"Worst-case scenario would be that repayment will never be made, nor will the pump/storage portion of the project ever be built," the jury said..
Elsinore Valley attorney John Brown said the district plans to respond to the report in writing, but said the district believed it had given the grand jury -- and the public -- an accounting of the money spent on the project.
Nevada Hydro project manager David Kates said the report contained several factual errors, including that the project's financier, New York-based Morgan Stanley, is only committed to covering the power lines.
The report also assumes that Nevada Hydro has no intention of developing the pumped storage portion of the project, which is not the case, Kates said.
Critics of the project said the report validates concerns that the district wasted ratepayer money for a project that doesn't make sense financially.
Reach Aaron Burgin at 951-375-3733 or aburgin@PE.com
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_leaps03.43302f3.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Grand jury pokes into regional trash agency's contract selection process
By Shaun Bishop
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 02/25/2009 12:20:59 AM PST
Eight members of a trash collection agency in San Mateo County are set to start negotiating a new 10-year garbage contract with Norcal Waste Systems, even though a civil grand jury is investigating the agency's contract selection processes.
The South Bayside Waste Management Authority, which manages trash service for 10 Peninsula cities, the county and a sanitary district, has spent the last year seeking and evaluating bids for two major trash contracts.
San Francisco-based Norcal won one of those contracts last August, when the authority's board selected it over three other competitors, including current contractor Allied Waste, to take over curbside pick-up service beginning in 2011.
The second contract, for managing the authority's disposal and recycling facility in San Carlos, has not yet been awarded.
Each of the agency's members holds a separate contract with the trash pick-up provider that may differ slightly, so each has to ratify Norcal's selection.
On Monday, the West Bay Sanitary District became the eighth agency to give Norcal its approval, joining East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Foster City and Burlingame.
Authority officials now believe they have enough support to start finalizing Norcal's contract, worth an estimated $46 million in annual revenue. Staff from the authority will open negotiations next month on behalf of its members, said authority Executive Director Kevin McCarthy.
But looming over the upcoming talks with Norcal is the grand jury probe, which began late last year after then- Supervisor Jerry Hill questioned the transparency and fairness of those contract selection processes and asked the grand jury to look into them.
Hill, now a state Assemblyman, sent a letter to the grand jury foreman in November saying he was concerned that McCarthy's actions suggested the process was "biased and subject to manipulation."
Hill cited a letter McCarthy sent in August to elected officials containing "negative remarks" about Allied Waste. He also cited an e-mail from Louie Pellegrini, a partner in a company that was not selected, who said McCarthy angrily confronted him outside an authority meeting and threatened to end a business deal.
Since then, Hill and at least three other people have been called to testify before the grand jury, though the exact scope of the grand jury's work or when it will be complete has been kept secret.
"Honestly, none of us will know what the impact is until we see the report," McCarthy said.
"We're just going about doing what we're normally doing and trying to keep moving forward on the rollout of the new service."
McCarthy said he regrets the incidents Hill mentioned but said they happened in August, well after the authority's selection committees had made their recommendations in June and July.
"I think what Mr. Hill and others haven't spent the time to figure out is there were mistakes made by me sort of in the political fight that erupted several months after the (request for proposals) evaluation and selection work was done," McCarthy said.
Still, at least one city — Burlingame — plans to wait until after the grand jury report is released to make a decision on the Norcal contract.
"I think that's an important piece of information to have," said Jesus Nava, Burlingame's finance director. "The last thing I want to do is propose something to the council and then have the report come out and make us look like we didn't know what's going on.
"It's just safer," Nava said.
Hill said Tuesday he is more concerned about the facility contract than the collection contract, but believes the grand jury is "looking at everything."
The grand jury is a fact-finding body and has little power to enforce any recommendations it makes, but Hill said it is important for the 90,000 ratepayers in the authority's jurisdiction to have confidence in the authority's picks.
Virginia Chang Kiraly, the forewoman for the grand jury, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_11780371
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 02/25/2009 12:20:59 AM PST
Eight members of a trash collection agency in San Mateo County are set to start negotiating a new 10-year garbage contract with Norcal Waste Systems, even though a civil grand jury is investigating the agency's contract selection processes.
The South Bayside Waste Management Authority, which manages trash service for 10 Peninsula cities, the county and a sanitary district, has spent the last year seeking and evaluating bids for two major trash contracts.
San Francisco-based Norcal won one of those contracts last August, when the authority's board selected it over three other competitors, including current contractor Allied Waste, to take over curbside pick-up service beginning in 2011.
The second contract, for managing the authority's disposal and recycling facility in San Carlos, has not yet been awarded.
Each of the agency's members holds a separate contract with the trash pick-up provider that may differ slightly, so each has to ratify Norcal's selection.
On Monday, the West Bay Sanitary District became the eighth agency to give Norcal its approval, joining East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Foster City and Burlingame.
Authority officials now believe they have enough support to start finalizing Norcal's contract, worth an estimated $46 million in annual revenue. Staff from the authority will open negotiations next month on behalf of its members, said authority Executive Director Kevin McCarthy.
But looming over the upcoming talks with Norcal is the grand jury probe, which began late last year after then- Supervisor Jerry Hill questioned the transparency and fairness of those contract selection processes and asked the grand jury to look into them.
Hill, now a state Assemblyman, sent a letter to the grand jury foreman in November saying he was concerned that McCarthy's actions suggested the process was "biased and subject to manipulation."
Hill cited a letter McCarthy sent in August to elected officials containing "negative remarks" about Allied Waste. He also cited an e-mail from Louie Pellegrini, a partner in a company that was not selected, who said McCarthy angrily confronted him outside an authority meeting and threatened to end a business deal.
Since then, Hill and at least three other people have been called to testify before the grand jury, though the exact scope of the grand jury's work or when it will be complete has been kept secret.
"Honestly, none of us will know what the impact is until we see the report," McCarthy said.
"We're just going about doing what we're normally doing and trying to keep moving forward on the rollout of the new service."
McCarthy said he regrets the incidents Hill mentioned but said they happened in August, well after the authority's selection committees had made their recommendations in June and July.
"I think what Mr. Hill and others haven't spent the time to figure out is there were mistakes made by me sort of in the political fight that erupted several months after the (request for proposals) evaluation and selection work was done," McCarthy said.
Still, at least one city — Burlingame — plans to wait until after the grand jury report is released to make a decision on the Norcal contract.
"I think that's an important piece of information to have," said Jesus Nava, Burlingame's finance director. "The last thing I want to do is propose something to the council and then have the report come out and make us look like we didn't know what's going on.
"It's just safer," Nava said.
Hill said Tuesday he is more concerned about the facility contract than the collection contract, but believes the grand jury is "looking at everything."
The grand jury is a fact-finding body and has little power to enforce any recommendations it makes, but Hill said it is important for the 90,000 ratepayers in the authority's jurisdiction to have confidence in the authority's picks.
Virginia Chang Kiraly, the forewoman for the grand jury, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_11780371
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Orange County Grand jury dings supervisors for stance on concealed weapons
Report tells county supervisors and activists to back off.
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 119 | Recommend 3
The Orange County grand jury has a message for county supervisors, gun rights advocates and everyone else who disagrees with Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits: "Let the sheriff do her job."
That's the title of the grand jury report to be released today, according to a confidential copy obtained by The Orange County Register.
Hutchens has spent months arguing with local lawmakers and gun advocates over her plan to make it tougher to get gun permits.
Critics have said that Hutchens, a former division chief for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, is mistakenly bringing an L.A. standard to a staunchly Republican county. Hutchens argues she is just enforcing state law and refuses to use the permit issue to advance policy beliefs on gun rights.
"An orderly society is the goal. Public safety is the paramount consideration," concludes the grand jury report. "The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant."
Hutchens was muted in her reaction to the report, thanking the grand jury through a spokesman for "looking at this issue from a factual and dispassionate basis."
Under California law, sheriffs and police chiefs have wide discretion in deciding what residents have a "good cause" that would enable them to carry a concealed gun in public. Former Sheriff Mike Carona established a policy that greatly expanded the number of permits during his tenure.
But there were also questions whether political supporters were being handed the gun permits in exchange for contributions. Indeed, a Register investigation into the permits found 95 instances where contributors were granted one. And federal prosecutors mentioned Carona's generosity with permits in their indictment against him. Carona was later found guilty of a single charge of witness tampering.
Hutchens – who was appointed to finish out Carona's term this summer – almost immediately announced the gun permit revision. Since she announced it in August, she has endured three controversial public hearings explaining the policy.
Meanwhile, supervisors have adopted resolutions suggesting she be more gun-friendly, with Supervisor Chris Norby even terming her revisions a "jihad."
Yet the grand jury also concluded that Hutchens is on the right track in developing a written policy regarding the granting of concealed weapons permits, alleging that a written policy didn't exist under Carona.
Hutchens utilized the services of an Aliso Viejo think tank called Lexipol to develop the department's new concealed weapons policy. That company has worked with 400 public safety departments throughout the state on concealed weapons issues.
Supervisors were surprised by the grand jury's conclusions.
"My board colleagues and I have never questioned the authority of the sheriff to establish a (concealed weapons) policy and carry it out as she sees fit," said board Chairwoman Pat Bates. "I have, however, expressed my disagreement with the sheriff's policy, in particular the revocation of existing permits and the mischaracterization that most of those permits were given as 'political favors' by the previous sheriff."
Norby questioned the effectiveness of the grand jury analysis noting, "the 'us versus them' attitude has come from the department, not from the board."
CORRECTED: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described Sandra Hutchens' previous department.
Contact the writer: 714-796-2221 or nsantana@ocregister.com
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/permits-gun-policy-2316575-hutchens-grand
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/letthesheriffdoherjob/letthesheriffdoherjob.pdf
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 119 | Recommend 3
The Orange County grand jury has a message for county supervisors, gun rights advocates and everyone else who disagrees with Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits: "Let the sheriff do her job."
That's the title of the grand jury report to be released today, according to a confidential copy obtained by The Orange County Register.
Hutchens has spent months arguing with local lawmakers and gun advocates over her plan to make it tougher to get gun permits.
Critics have said that Hutchens, a former division chief for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, is mistakenly bringing an L.A. standard to a staunchly Republican county. Hutchens argues she is just enforcing state law and refuses to use the permit issue to advance policy beliefs on gun rights.
"An orderly society is the goal. Public safety is the paramount consideration," concludes the grand jury report. "The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant."
Hutchens was muted in her reaction to the report, thanking the grand jury through a spokesman for "looking at this issue from a factual and dispassionate basis."
Under California law, sheriffs and police chiefs have wide discretion in deciding what residents have a "good cause" that would enable them to carry a concealed gun in public. Former Sheriff Mike Carona established a policy that greatly expanded the number of permits during his tenure.
But there were also questions whether political supporters were being handed the gun permits in exchange for contributions. Indeed, a Register investigation into the permits found 95 instances where contributors were granted one. And federal prosecutors mentioned Carona's generosity with permits in their indictment against him. Carona was later found guilty of a single charge of witness tampering.
Hutchens – who was appointed to finish out Carona's term this summer – almost immediately announced the gun permit revision. Since she announced it in August, she has endured three controversial public hearings explaining the policy.
Meanwhile, supervisors have adopted resolutions suggesting she be more gun-friendly, with Supervisor Chris Norby even terming her revisions a "jihad."
Yet the grand jury also concluded that Hutchens is on the right track in developing a written policy regarding the granting of concealed weapons permits, alleging that a written policy didn't exist under Carona.
Hutchens utilized the services of an Aliso Viejo think tank called Lexipol to develop the department's new concealed weapons policy. That company has worked with 400 public safety departments throughout the state on concealed weapons issues.
Supervisors were surprised by the grand jury's conclusions.
"My board colleagues and I have never questioned the authority of the sheriff to establish a (concealed weapons) policy and carry it out as she sees fit," said board Chairwoman Pat Bates. "I have, however, expressed my disagreement with the sheriff's policy, in particular the revocation of existing permits and the mischaracterization that most of those permits were given as 'political favors' by the previous sheriff."
Norby questioned the effectiveness of the grand jury analysis noting, "the 'us versus them' attitude has come from the department, not from the board."
CORRECTED: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described Sandra Hutchens' previous department.
Contact the writer: 714-796-2221 or nsantana@ocregister.com
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/permits-gun-policy-2316575-hutchens-grand
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/letthesheriffdoherjob/letthesheriffdoherjob.pdf
Grand jury credits San Diego mayor for Brown Field cleanup plan
Grand jury credits mayor for Brown Field cleanup plan
Non-aviation tenants are getting evicted
By Jeff McDonald
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. February 24, 2009
OTAY MESA — The city of San Diego has not fully complied with federal rules since acquiring Brown Field, but after years of neglect, the current mayor has done a good job putting the airport back on track, according to a county grand jury report released yesterday.
The municipal airport just north of the U.S.-Mexico border was granted to the city almost 50 years ago on the promise that it remain an airport, with only aviation-related uses.
Since the early 1990s, the city has allowed a spate of wrecking yards and other non-aviation businesses on various parts of the airfield – largely because it needs the rental income.
In recent months, the city allowed three such businesses to remain three more years, but handed eviction notices to 14 others, the grand jury said, and is pushing a major renovation at the site.
“Under the city's current political and operational leadership, significant progress is being made to remove the non-aeronautical-use tenants,” the grand jury wrote.
The non-aviation sites can be costly, the grand jury noted. Cleaning up the site of a former recycling and compost business has so far cost $300,000 and could take as much as $500,000, the jury said.
In a formal recommendation, the grand jury said the mayor should require current tenants to pay into a fund that would finance future cleanup costs.
“The cleanup will either be paid for by the (airport) enterprise fund or a state grant,” said Darren Pudgil, a spokesman for Mayor Jerry Sanders. “We're not going to touch the general fund.”
The Federal Aviation Administration, which has warned San Diego for years that the businesses have to move, said it is satisfied with the pace of evictions, but the city must keep at it.
“We expect to see that progress continue, and we're working closely with the city on planning and logistical issues related to their Brown Field development agreement,” FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said in prepared remarks.
Sanders, who pledged to clean up Brown Field during his 2005 mayoral campaign, is moving forward on a plan to build a new terminal, a hotel and conference center, condos, and retail and office space.
But some smaller, flying-related tenants have complained they have not been allowed to extend leases that would enhance the airport.
Jeff McDonald: (619) 542-4585; jeff.mcdonald@uniontrib.com
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/24/1m24brown00182-grand-jury-credits-mayor-brown-fiel/?zIndex=57555
Non-aviation tenants are getting evicted
By Jeff McDonald
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. February 24, 2009
OTAY MESA — The city of San Diego has not fully complied with federal rules since acquiring Brown Field, but after years of neglect, the current mayor has done a good job putting the airport back on track, according to a county grand jury report released yesterday.
The municipal airport just north of the U.S.-Mexico border was granted to the city almost 50 years ago on the promise that it remain an airport, with only aviation-related uses.
Since the early 1990s, the city has allowed a spate of wrecking yards and other non-aviation businesses on various parts of the airfield – largely because it needs the rental income.
In recent months, the city allowed three such businesses to remain three more years, but handed eviction notices to 14 others, the grand jury said, and is pushing a major renovation at the site.
“Under the city's current political and operational leadership, significant progress is being made to remove the non-aeronautical-use tenants,” the grand jury wrote.
The non-aviation sites can be costly, the grand jury noted. Cleaning up the site of a former recycling and compost business has so far cost $300,000 and could take as much as $500,000, the jury said.
In a formal recommendation, the grand jury said the mayor should require current tenants to pay into a fund that would finance future cleanup costs.
“The cleanup will either be paid for by the (airport) enterprise fund or a state grant,” said Darren Pudgil, a spokesman for Mayor Jerry Sanders. “We're not going to touch the general fund.”
The Federal Aviation Administration, which has warned San Diego for years that the businesses have to move, said it is satisfied with the pace of evictions, but the city must keep at it.
“We expect to see that progress continue, and we're working closely with the city on planning and logistical issues related to their Brown Field development agreement,” FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said in prepared remarks.
Sanders, who pledged to clean up Brown Field during his 2005 mayoral campaign, is moving forward on a plan to build a new terminal, a hotel and conference center, condos, and retail and office space.
But some smaller, flying-related tenants have complained they have not been allowed to extend leases that would enhance the airport.
Jeff McDonald: (619) 542-4585; jeff.mcdonald@uniontrib.com
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/24/1m24brown00182-grand-jury-credits-mayor-brown-fiel/?zIndex=57555
County morgue needs to be a higher priority
County morgue needs to be a higher priority
Posted: 02/24/2009 12:04:40 AM PST
IT IS A TOUGH TIME to justify spending several million dollars to create a county morgue. The county has made do without a properly equipped facility for decades.
The need for a modern county morgue has been apparent for years.
Ten years ago, the Marin civil grand jury looked into the issue and concluded - without reservation - that the county needed a central morgue.
The current grand jury took another look and reached the same conclusion.
"Establishment of an up-to-date forensics facility and morgue is long overdue in Marin," the report states. "The problem today is more acute."
Last year, a pathology firm canceled its contract with the county to handle crime-related cases. According to the grand jury report, because of the substandard conditions at the mortuaries, the pathologist "would be unable to testify in court that any autopsy had been properly conducted."
Since then, the county has been using Napa's county morgue for several sensitive cases, but for most autopsies, it contracts with three Marin mortuaries at $225 per case.
A central morgue has many obvious advantages, including more efficient response in homicide cases and safer and more professional conditions for coroner personnel and their investigations. It would also offer tighter safeguards to protect autopsies from security breaches that could compromise findings and raise legal questions about investigations.
Officials have been reluctant to include space for a morgue in the public
safety building the county plans to build across from the Marin Civic Center. Finding room for a central morgue in that building or in Civic Center space that will be available when the new building opens makes sense. But that would be, at best, several years away.
Officials also want to avoid a repeat of the political skirmish that erupted over the county's plan to move the morgue to the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery in San Rafael. Neighbors of the cemetery worried that the morgue would increase traffic on Fifth Avenue.
With an average of 222 autopsies per year, the traffic generated by a morgue wouldn't even be noticed at the bustling county government complex.
The county is now considering renting 12,000 square feet of space on East Francisco Boulevard in San Rafael with an option to buy. An estimated $1.75 million already set aside for a morgue could be used to remodel the site and buy equipment.
That is an encouraging development. The site could be a long-term home for a morgue, although security and convenience might be better at the Civic Center.
We strongly agree with the latest grand jury report.
A modern, centrally located morgue needs to be a top priority at the Civic Center. This is a public safety issue that has been ignored for far too long.
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_11772289
Posted: 02/24/2009 12:04:40 AM PST
IT IS A TOUGH TIME to justify spending several million dollars to create a county morgue. The county has made do without a properly equipped facility for decades.
The need for a modern county morgue has been apparent for years.
Ten years ago, the Marin civil grand jury looked into the issue and concluded - without reservation - that the county needed a central morgue.
The current grand jury took another look and reached the same conclusion.
"Establishment of an up-to-date forensics facility and morgue is long overdue in Marin," the report states. "The problem today is more acute."
Last year, a pathology firm canceled its contract with the county to handle crime-related cases. According to the grand jury report, because of the substandard conditions at the mortuaries, the pathologist "would be unable to testify in court that any autopsy had been properly conducted."
Since then, the county has been using Napa's county morgue for several sensitive cases, but for most autopsies, it contracts with three Marin mortuaries at $225 per case.
A central morgue has many obvious advantages, including more efficient response in homicide cases and safer and more professional conditions for coroner personnel and their investigations. It would also offer tighter safeguards to protect autopsies from security breaches that could compromise findings and raise legal questions about investigations.
Officials have been reluctant to include space for a morgue in the public
safety building the county plans to build across from the Marin Civic Center. Finding room for a central morgue in that building or in Civic Center space that will be available when the new building opens makes sense. But that would be, at best, several years away.
Officials also want to avoid a repeat of the political skirmish that erupted over the county's plan to move the morgue to the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery in San Rafael. Neighbors of the cemetery worried that the morgue would increase traffic on Fifth Avenue.
With an average of 222 autopsies per year, the traffic generated by a morgue wouldn't even be noticed at the bustling county government complex.
The county is now considering renting 12,000 square feet of space on East Francisco Boulevard in San Rafael with an option to buy. An estimated $1.75 million already set aside for a morgue could be used to remodel the site and buy equipment.
That is an encouraging development. The site could be a long-term home for a morgue, although security and convenience might be better at the Civic Center.
We strongly agree with the latest grand jury report.
A modern, centrally located morgue needs to be a top priority at the Civic Center. This is a public safety issue that has been ignored for far too long.
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_11772289
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Plea delayed in release of Grand Jury documents
By TERRY VAU DELL - Staff Writer
Posted: 02/21/2009 12:00:00 AM PST
OROVILLE -- While it may have taken months to get a state budget passed, a court arraignment for a former Butte County grand juror charged with leaking confidential documents was done Friday before the court calendar was even called.
The attorney for Georgie Szendrey said a prosecutor from the California Attorney General's Office agreed to delay a plea in the case until April to allow the defense time to fully examine some 150 pages of investigative documents.
State prosecutors have declined to comment on the case, which is believed to stem from information Szendrey allegedly provided to a defense attorney and the Enterprise-Record surrounding a Grand Jury investigation she conducted in 2007 into an excessive force complaint against two Paradise police officers.
Szendrey was charged by the state attorney general earlier this month with a misdemeanor count of improper disclosure of Grand Jury information, which could carry up to one year in jail.
On Friday, attorneys in the case appeared at a "clerk's arraignment" — an informal proceeding outside the presence of a judge, 15 minutes before the scheduled 8:30 a.m. hearing.
Szendrey's attorney, Michael Harvey of Oroville, said that because she is charged with only a misdemeanor, he appeared in her absence.
Harvey said Deputy Attorney General Barton Bowers had also arrived early at the court Friday morning and agreed to continue the arraignment until April 9.
According to Harvey, the criminal complaint alleges improper disclosure of Grand Jury information between Feb. 7 and March 6 of 2008.
However, he said he won't know the basis for the allegations until he examines the inch-thick sheaf of investigative reports the prosecutor turned over to him Friday.
The case came to light in the spring of 2008, when a Chico attorney included a copy of confidential Grand Jury documents in a motion seeking to unseal the personnel file of veteran Paradise police officer Robert Pickering on behalf of Max Justin Schumacher, 30, who at the time was accused of threatening the officer and resisting arrest on a public intoxication charge.
At his trial, Schumacher claimed the officer stopped his vehicle on a dark road near the county jail, pulled him from the back seat and threw him to the pavement while he was still handcuffed.
Pickering testified that after threatening to kill him and members of his family, the intoxicated man had tried to shoulder past him when he stopped the patrol car to see if Schumacher had injured himself banging his head inside the patrol car.
In the pretrial motion seeking the names of people who had filed excessive force complaints against the arresting officer, Schumacher's attorney, Kevin Sears, included written findings by the ex-grand juror and transcripts from a videotape of a violent arrest of an underage drunken driving suspect, Justin Baltierra, by Pickering and a second ridge officer, Timothy Cooper, in December 2006.
In her unpublished written opinion, which Szendrey said she turned over to Baltierra's attorney Denny Forland after her term on the grand jury ended, she determined that the two ridge officers had failed to inform the drunken driver he was under arrest before tackling him to the pavement, as a neighbor videotaped the arrest.
After reviewing the officer's personnel file in chambers, Butte County Superior Court Judge Sandra McLean ordered the names of three people who had brought excessive force complaints against Pickering in the last two years to be turned over to Schumacher's lawyer, over objections by the town's attorney.
Schumacher's jury was shown the Baltierra arrest tape prior to acquitting him of all charges.
Last year, the FBI in Sacramento reportedly cleared both Pickering and Cooper of excessive force complaints lodged against them by Baltierra, Schumacher and a third man, Harold Funk, 51, also of Paradise.
Funk, who claimed his elbow was dislocated by the same two officers after they pursued him into a public lavatory in February 2007, was acquitted last month by a separate jury of a misdemeanor resisting arrest charge.
The case against the former grand juror was referred to the state Attorney General's Office because Szendrey's husband, Ed Szendrey, is a retired chief investigator for the Butte County District Attorney's Office.
Outside of court Friday, he said that given the recent acquittals in the resisting arrest cases, "my own confusion is why all this effort is being made to prosecute my wife, when nothing has been done about the officers and their conduct."
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_11754015
Posted: 02/21/2009 12:00:00 AM PST
OROVILLE -- While it may have taken months to get a state budget passed, a court arraignment for a former Butte County grand juror charged with leaking confidential documents was done Friday before the court calendar was even called.
The attorney for Georgie Szendrey said a prosecutor from the California Attorney General's Office agreed to delay a plea in the case until April to allow the defense time to fully examine some 150 pages of investigative documents.
State prosecutors have declined to comment on the case, which is believed to stem from information Szendrey allegedly provided to a defense attorney and the Enterprise-Record surrounding a Grand Jury investigation she conducted in 2007 into an excessive force complaint against two Paradise police officers.
Szendrey was charged by the state attorney general earlier this month with a misdemeanor count of improper disclosure of Grand Jury information, which could carry up to one year in jail.
On Friday, attorneys in the case appeared at a "clerk's arraignment" — an informal proceeding outside the presence of a judge, 15 minutes before the scheduled 8:30 a.m. hearing.
Szendrey's attorney, Michael Harvey of Oroville, said that because she is charged with only a misdemeanor, he appeared in her absence.
Harvey said Deputy Attorney General Barton Bowers had also arrived early at the court Friday morning and agreed to continue the arraignment until April 9.
According to Harvey, the criminal complaint alleges improper disclosure of Grand Jury information between Feb. 7 and March 6 of 2008.
However, he said he won't know the basis for the allegations until he examines the inch-thick sheaf of investigative reports the prosecutor turned over to him Friday.
The case came to light in the spring of 2008, when a Chico attorney included a copy of confidential Grand Jury documents in a motion seeking to unseal the personnel file of veteran Paradise police officer Robert Pickering on behalf of Max Justin Schumacher, 30, who at the time was accused of threatening the officer and resisting arrest on a public intoxication charge.
At his trial, Schumacher claimed the officer stopped his vehicle on a dark road near the county jail, pulled him from the back seat and threw him to the pavement while he was still handcuffed.
Pickering testified that after threatening to kill him and members of his family, the intoxicated man had tried to shoulder past him when he stopped the patrol car to see if Schumacher had injured himself banging his head inside the patrol car.
In the pretrial motion seeking the names of people who had filed excessive force complaints against the arresting officer, Schumacher's attorney, Kevin Sears, included written findings by the ex-grand juror and transcripts from a videotape of a violent arrest of an underage drunken driving suspect, Justin Baltierra, by Pickering and a second ridge officer, Timothy Cooper, in December 2006.
In her unpublished written opinion, which Szendrey said she turned over to Baltierra's attorney Denny Forland after her term on the grand jury ended, she determined that the two ridge officers had failed to inform the drunken driver he was under arrest before tackling him to the pavement, as a neighbor videotaped the arrest.
After reviewing the officer's personnel file in chambers, Butte County Superior Court Judge Sandra McLean ordered the names of three people who had brought excessive force complaints against Pickering in the last two years to be turned over to Schumacher's lawyer, over objections by the town's attorney.
Schumacher's jury was shown the Baltierra arrest tape prior to acquitting him of all charges.
Last year, the FBI in Sacramento reportedly cleared both Pickering and Cooper of excessive force complaints lodged against them by Baltierra, Schumacher and a third man, Harold Funk, 51, also of Paradise.
Funk, who claimed his elbow was dislocated by the same two officers after they pursued him into a public lavatory in February 2007, was acquitted last month by a separate jury of a misdemeanor resisting arrest charge.
The case against the former grand juror was referred to the state Attorney General's Office because Szendrey's husband, Ed Szendrey, is a retired chief investigator for the Butte County District Attorney's Office.
Outside of court Friday, he said that given the recent acquittals in the resisting arrest cases, "my own confusion is why all this effort is being made to prosecute my wife, when nothing has been done about the officers and their conduct."
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_11754015
Ex-members of grand jury forming informational group
Former members of the Sacramento County grand jury are creating an association of grand jurors to increase the effectiveness of such panels and bolster citizen awareness of how the jury and court systems work.
The Sacramento County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors' Association was certified in December by the state association and is seeking members.
In a written statement, the current foreman of the county grand jury, Donald Prange, said the new group will be a "positive step in helping to reach the public's interest of local agency transparency and accountability."
"We need more informed citizens to become active in grand jury matters," he said.
More information can be obtained by contacting the Sacramento Grand Jury Association at P.O. Box 605, Carmichael, CA 95609; by fax at (916) 979-9443; or by e-mail at jimyspag@aol.com.
– Sam Stanton
http://www.sacbee.com/government/story/1642000.html
The Sacramento County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors' Association was certified in December by the state association and is seeking members.
In a written statement, the current foreman of the county grand jury, Donald Prange, said the new group will be a "positive step in helping to reach the public's interest of local agency transparency and accountability."
"We need more informed citizens to become active in grand jury matters," he said.
More information can be obtained by contacting the Sacramento Grand Jury Association at P.O. Box 605, Carmichael, CA 95609; by fax at (916) 979-9443; or by e-mail at jimyspag@aol.com.
– Sam Stanton
http://www.sacbee.com/government/story/1642000.html
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Former grand juror faces prosecution
By TERRY VAU DELL - Staff Writer
Posted: 02/19/2009 12:03:12 AM PST
OROVILLE -- A former Butte County grand juror faces criminal charges over the alleged disclosure of information she received while serving on the public watchdog group.
Although state prosecutors refused to comment on the case Tuesday, the misdemeanor charge is believed to have stemmed from a 2007 grand jury probe of an excessive force complaint involving two Paradise police officers.
Information from the secret Grand Jury proceedings were subsequently used in court by the attorney for a resisting arrest suspect to unseal one of the arresting officer's personnel files.
Georgie Szendrey maintained at the time she felt she did nothing wrong because her service on the 2006-07 county Grand Jury had expired before she turned over information on her investigation to an attorney.
The unauthorized release of confidential grand jury information is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.
Because Szendrey's husband, Ed Szendrey, is a former chief investigator in the Butte County District Attorney's Office, the case was referred to the California Attorney General for investigation.
Calling his wife "a courageous woman who loves truth and justice," the now-retired investigator stated in an e-mail he stands by her actions.
"She has always demonstrated that she is a friend of law enforcement and the community. We believe in the end she will be exonerated," he wrote.
Georgie Szendrey's attorney, Michael Harvey of Oroville, said Monday that since
he has not yet seen any investigative reports, he is unaware what the specific allegations are.
A spokesperson for the attorney general Tuesday declined to comment on the case, other than to confirm that a misdemeanor complaint was filed in Butte County Superior Court charging the Chico woman with "improperly disclosing Grand Jury information."
The charges are believed to relate to an excessive force complaint lodged with the county Grand Jury in 2007 by the family of Justin Baltierra, who was reportedly videotaped by a neighbor being tackled to the pavement and handcuffed by Paradise police officers Robert Pickering and Timothy Cooper, after being arrested for drunken driving in December 2006.
In her written findings as a member of the Grand Jury group assigned to oversee law enforcement matters, Szendrey concluded the officers had neither provided clear commands nor informed the intoxicated driver he was under arrest, "used vulgar language in their attempts to get the subject to comply, resulting in an unnecessary take down" and also prevented his girlfriend from calling 9-1-1 to summon other officers to the scene.
When she was unable to get the necessary votes among her fellow grand jurors to include the incident in its end-of the-year report, after her term expired in June 2007, Szendrey turned over her written findings, along with a transcript of the arrest tape, to Baltierra's lawyer, Denny Forland.
After Baltierra entered into a plea bargain resolving his case, Forland said he furnished a copy of the Grand Jury information to Chico attorney Kevin Sears, who used it in support of a court motion to examine Pickering's personnel file on behalf of another ridge man, Justin Schumacher, who at the time was accused of resisting and threatening the ridge officer following a public intoxication arrest.
The town's attorney, Dwight Moore, had argued there were insufficient grounds to allow the defense lawyer to examine the officer's file, and openly questioned how the unpublished Grand Jury documents had been leaked.
Schumacher was subsequently acquitted of the felony charges at trial.
A separate jury last month acquitted a third man, Harold Funk, 51, also of Paradise, of similar charges involving the same two Paradise police officers.
Funk claimed on the witness stand the officers dislocated one of his elbows after pursuing him into a public lavatory while investigating an after-hours vandalism complaint outside a Paradise market.
Following a separate investigation into excessive force complaints lodged by the families of Schumacher, Baltierra and Funk, the FBI in Sacramento last year reportedly cleared the two ridge police officers of any criminal wrongdoing.
The California Penal Code 924.1 states that except when ordered to do so in court, every grand juror who "willfully discloses any evidence adduced before the grand jury, or anything ... said, or in what manner grand jurors voted, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
In a letter referring the matter to the state Attorney General's Office, District Attorney Mike Ramsey said he did so to "preserve the integrity of the grand jury system and it's secrecy provisions."
According to the Butte County Superior Court Web site, a notice to appear for arraignment Friday on the misdemeanor charge was sent to Szendrey's lawyer.
Harvey said Monday he is "awaiting discovery in the case to see what exactly they are basing their allegations on."
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_11737901
Posted: 02/19/2009 12:03:12 AM PST
OROVILLE -- A former Butte County grand juror faces criminal charges over the alleged disclosure of information she received while serving on the public watchdog group.
Although state prosecutors refused to comment on the case Tuesday, the misdemeanor charge is believed to have stemmed from a 2007 grand jury probe of an excessive force complaint involving two Paradise police officers.
Information from the secret Grand Jury proceedings were subsequently used in court by the attorney for a resisting arrest suspect to unseal one of the arresting officer's personnel files.
Georgie Szendrey maintained at the time she felt she did nothing wrong because her service on the 2006-07 county Grand Jury had expired before she turned over information on her investigation to an attorney.
The unauthorized release of confidential grand jury information is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.
Because Szendrey's husband, Ed Szendrey, is a former chief investigator in the Butte County District Attorney's Office, the case was referred to the California Attorney General for investigation.
Calling his wife "a courageous woman who loves truth and justice," the now-retired investigator stated in an e-mail he stands by her actions.
"She has always demonstrated that she is a friend of law enforcement and the community. We believe in the end she will be exonerated," he wrote.
Georgie Szendrey's attorney, Michael Harvey of Oroville, said Monday that since
he has not yet seen any investigative reports, he is unaware what the specific allegations are.
A spokesperson for the attorney general Tuesday declined to comment on the case, other than to confirm that a misdemeanor complaint was filed in Butte County Superior Court charging the Chico woman with "improperly disclosing Grand Jury information."
The charges are believed to relate to an excessive force complaint lodged with the county Grand Jury in 2007 by the family of Justin Baltierra, who was reportedly videotaped by a neighbor being tackled to the pavement and handcuffed by Paradise police officers Robert Pickering and Timothy Cooper, after being arrested for drunken driving in December 2006.
In her written findings as a member of the Grand Jury group assigned to oversee law enforcement matters, Szendrey concluded the officers had neither provided clear commands nor informed the intoxicated driver he was under arrest, "used vulgar language in their attempts to get the subject to comply, resulting in an unnecessary take down" and also prevented his girlfriend from calling 9-1-1 to summon other officers to the scene.
When she was unable to get the necessary votes among her fellow grand jurors to include the incident in its end-of the-year report, after her term expired in June 2007, Szendrey turned over her written findings, along with a transcript of the arrest tape, to Baltierra's lawyer, Denny Forland.
After Baltierra entered into a plea bargain resolving his case, Forland said he furnished a copy of the Grand Jury information to Chico attorney Kevin Sears, who used it in support of a court motion to examine Pickering's personnel file on behalf of another ridge man, Justin Schumacher, who at the time was accused of resisting and threatening the ridge officer following a public intoxication arrest.
The town's attorney, Dwight Moore, had argued there were insufficient grounds to allow the defense lawyer to examine the officer's file, and openly questioned how the unpublished Grand Jury documents had been leaked.
Schumacher was subsequently acquitted of the felony charges at trial.
A separate jury last month acquitted a third man, Harold Funk, 51, also of Paradise, of similar charges involving the same two Paradise police officers.
Funk claimed on the witness stand the officers dislocated one of his elbows after pursuing him into a public lavatory while investigating an after-hours vandalism complaint outside a Paradise market.
Following a separate investigation into excessive force complaints lodged by the families of Schumacher, Baltierra and Funk, the FBI in Sacramento last year reportedly cleared the two ridge police officers of any criminal wrongdoing.
The California Penal Code 924.1 states that except when ordered to do so in court, every grand juror who "willfully discloses any evidence adduced before the grand jury, or anything ... said, or in what manner grand jurors voted, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
In a letter referring the matter to the state Attorney General's Office, District Attorney Mike Ramsey said he did so to "preserve the integrity of the grand jury system and it's secrecy provisions."
According to the Butte County Superior Court Web site, a notice to appear for arraignment Friday on the misdemeanor charge was sent to Szendrey's lawyer.
Harvey said Monday he is "awaiting discovery in the case to see what exactly they are basing their allegations on."
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_11737901
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)