Mono County 2009-2010 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: The May Letter and the October Letter were prepared and authorized by the County Clerk, in consultation with the Mono County Counsel.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: too long in such assignments, can inhibit the ultimate mission of the MLPD, and can further lead to a perception of favoritism. The Grand Jury recommends that the Chief and other management staff of the MLPD monitor more closely the performance of all officers who are placed on special assignment to determine whether the objectives of the assignment are being met.

F2: The County Clerk sent the May Letter to a limited group of persons who had registered to vote in Mono County in Spring 2008 around the time of publication of the Letter to the Editor, but who had mailing addresses outside of Mono County. The October Letter was sent to a limited group of persons who had registered to vote in Mono County in early Fall 2008 around the time of the September Email, but who had mailing addresses outside of Mono County. Because the letters were only sent to a few select second homeowners in each case, this may have caused an unintentional appearance of discrimination or targeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Chief take immediate steps to address the complaints of excessive micromanagement and lack of support and mistreatment of subordinate officers by a Sergeant. Should this mistreatment of officers continue, personnel may be lost, a hostile work environment complaint may arise and the Town could incur financial liability. To avoid the perception of favoritism or "whitewashing," the Grand Jury recommends

F3: The purpose of the May Letter and the October Letter were to educate and inform voters of the requirements regarding voter registration as set forth in the California Elections Code. Neither of the letters was intended to intimidate or harass, nor did the Committee find the letters intimidating or harassing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: that future IA investigations involving MLPD sworn management staff (Chief, Lieutenant and Sergeants) be conducted by an outside law enforcement agency or by an independent investigator. K. Management Communication Issues Statement: Several MLPD officers complained to the Grand Jury about the lack of communication at the management levels of the MLPD. The officers acknowledged that both the Chief and the Lieutenant have an "open door" policy and that officers are always welcome to come and speak with them. However, the MLPD is a paramilitary organization with a strict chain of command. The Chief is the head of the MLPD. The Lieutenant runs the day-to-day operations of the MLPD and reports to the Chief, and the four Sergeants report to the Lieutenant. Each Sergeant has a small group of patrol officers that report directly to such Sergeant while assigned to a particular shift. Shift assignments are changed every three months or so and, as a result of such shift changes, the patrol officers' supervisory Sergeant may also change. Due to this command structure, issues relating to supervisor complaints, for example, are expected to be taken up through the chain of command. Many officers commented on the difficulty of working through the chain of command on certain issues, the perceived lack of communication between the management levels of the MLPD, and the frustration this situation has caused.

F4: There are no secret proceedings to determine who should have the right to vote and how that person voted. Information as to how a person voted is not available to any person for any reason.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: building formerly housed a spa and was converted some years ago for use by the MLPD. The building is very small and the MLPD has divided the space to provide the necessary areas for offices, squad room, evidence and file storage, and holding and booking facilities. The Grand Jury was informed that one corner of the building (where the women's locker room is located) has a door to the outside that is not well sealed. Consequently, flooding occurs in that corner with regularity during the winter. One of the primary issues within the building is the holding and booking area. That area lacks sufficient space to properly separate prisoners by gender and age and is an unsafe environment for officers, prisoners and the public. The Chief showed the Grand Jury the drawings and plans for the proposed new police building. The Grand Jury noted that the new building would not only provide far more space for MLPD operations, but would also provide four temporary holding cells, one for males, one for females, one for juveniles (who cannot by law be held with adults), and one for intoxicated persons. Recommendation: The Town's budget situation makes it impossible to adequately address these issues at this time. However, in anticipation of an eventual economic recovery and a consequent improvement in the Town's finances, the Grand Jury recommends, in no particular order: (i) that police vehicles be replaced every four years rather than every five years; (ii) that all police vehicles be equipped with audio and video recording equipment; (iii) that all vehicles be equipped with mobile on board computers (or an equivalent system, for example, through a Town-wide WiFi system); (iv) that the MLPD consider additional training programs as desired by the officers; (v) that the Town proceed with hiring a new records clerk and a new animal control officer; and (vi) that the Town move forward at the earliest possible opportunity with the construction of the planned new police building, and not spend funds to modify or improve the existing building, other than to make emergency repairs. The Grand Jury further recommends that no funds be expended to purchase and improve an interim facility. The Grand Jury notes that since the new police building would have temporary holding cells, prisoners would no longer have to be transported to Bridgeport at all times of the day and night. This in turn would significantly reduce the overtime costs of the MLPD. SUMMARY While there are some organizational and communication issues to address within the MLPD, the Grand Jury feels that the MLPD, under the management and leadership of the Chief, is generally providing quality law enforcement services in the Mammoth Lakes community. The Grand Jury would like to reiterate its conclusion that most of the allegations set forth in the Complaints against the Chief and the MLPD, in particular the allegations of a personal nature, have not been substantiated, and that the constant churning of rumors and misrepresentations of events and facts relating to the Chief and the MLPD is counterproductive and detrimental to the operations of the MLPD and possibly to the safety of the community as a whole. This investigation, like all Grand Jury investigations, was conducted with complete confidentiality. Any statements in the media speculating as to the Grand Jury's activities were done so without the Grand Jury's participation. The Grand Jury made no public statements or released any information to media sources prior to the release of this report. The Grand Jury conducted 37 interviews, held numerous committee meetings, and reviewed hundreds of documents during this investigation. All interviewees were remarkably honest and open. Often, the Grand Jury expected interviewees to be guarded and elusive but found instead that interviewees were happy to speak with the Grand Jury, perhaps even grateful for the opportunity to openly express themselves. Such frankness was critical in assisting the Grand Jury to understand issues and events and to produce an accurate, informative, and constructive report. The Grand Jury believes that its exhaustive and thorough investigation of this complex series of complaints and rumors has brought transparency and clarity to the operations of the MLPD. The Grand Jury encourages all parties involved to review the Grand Jury's findings and to implement its recommendations.

F5: No person who chose to register in Mono County for the June or the November elections was denied a ballot, was removed from the Mono County voter registration rolls, or was denied the right to vote. No voter's rights were violated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Unanimously, the Public Defender, the DA and County Counsel thought that the current private contract attorneys' need to make a profit did not compromise their preparation of a full defense. (It was argued that Judges would not tolerate substandard legal representation and the Public Defender attorneys' California Rules of Professional Conduct was a bulwark against it as well.) The Grand Jury had no reason to dispute this.

F6: The County Clerk acted within the duties and responsibilities of her office and sought legal guidance from the Mono County Counsel, as needed, to guide the actions taken by her office. Following the June election, the Supervisor questioned the validity of certain voter registrations within her District and requested an investigation by the County Clerk into such registrations. The County Clerk took no action in response to the issues raised by, and actions requested by, the Supervisor and so informed the Supervisor in writing in September 2008. The County Clerk is employed by Mono County under an at-will contract and serves at the pleasure of the County Administrative Officer, thereby avoiding any appearance of pressure from, or conflict of interest with, the Mono County Board of Supervisors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Spanish language interpreters are needed for interviewing witnesses, and to avoid conflict, one should be readily available to each the DA and the Public Defender. The deficiency in translation services was a comment by attorneys in both offices. ii State Bar of California Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services (2006). See also, Uelmen, Gerald, ed., “Final Report, California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice," (2008), 102. See www.ccfai.org. iii Benner, et al., 12. iv Ibid, 17.

F8: The law in California as it relates to residence, domicile and where a person may register to vote is complex. It is not within the Grand Jury's purview to address the legality of each voter registration in Mono County or to determine who is or is not eligible to vote in Mono County. The legality of such issues must necessarily be determined by the Secretary of State's office or through legal proceedings in the Mono County courts. The DA has initiated a criminal investigation into possible voter registration fraud in Mono County, and that investigation is ongoing.