2010 - 2011 Final Report- District Attorney Complaint

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  The Grand Jury concludes that there is insufficient cause for the issuance of an "Accusation" for the removal of the DA. The Grand Jury concludes that the DA's leadership style and methods may contribute to morale issues within the office, especially in times of staffing shortages and heightened workload. The Grand Jury concludes that accusations in the complaint regarding discriminatory personnel actions are the subject of litigation and not within the purview of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury concludes that complaints regarding the performance, work habits, or suitability of the Deputy DA for his position are not fully convincing and, in any case, action for his termination is moot with his announced retirement. The Grand Jury concludes that there may be some justifiable concern regarding the timely filling and handling of some court cases. Some of the problems may be attributed to an nadequate systems for suspensing and controlling cases as they are processed from filling to resolution. Management decisions, to include prosecutorial discretion, also should be addressed. The Grand Jury concludes that the release of documents relating to active cases involving minors is troubling and effective guidelines as to who has the authority to release such information must be strengthened. The Grand Jury concludes that the report prepared by outside counsel for the county might address issues of concern to employees within the DA's Office and the general public. The suggestion that an investigation ordered by agents of the County has not been read in its entirety nor made available to the members of the BoS is not creditable. The DA should be permitted to read the report and submit a rebuttal or refutation of the findings, if any. The Grand Jury concludes that rather then contest a subpoena, the public interest would be better served with an early release of the report prepared by outside counsel. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the DA review his leadership style and seek assistance in rebuilding staff morale and improving his communication of matters to his staff. The Grand Jury recommends the BoS give due deference to a co-equal elected county official, encourage courtesy and collegiality, and consider granting increased budgetary discretion to the DA. The Grand Jury recommends control and release authority for confidential documents, especially those dealing with minors, be reviewed and strengthened. The Grand Jury recommends that the BoS address the county human resource function, to include proper staffing; file retention and control; initiation and tracking of timely personnel evaluations; and the promulgation of procedures regarding employee complaints. The Grand Jury recommends that the BoS release in full or in part the investigative report now in the possession of the County Counsel. Such a release, even if redacted in part for privacy or privilege purposes, must be shown to the DA, and he should be permitted to offer materials in rebuttal or refutation before release to the general public. Respondents: Written response required pursuant to PC 933(c) Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 District Attorney Madera County 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93637 Information: Response Optional Interim Director, Human Resources Madera County 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.