Human Resources Department Grand Jury Secrecy

On August 3, 2017, in response to a request from the Riverside County HR Director, the Grand Jury Foreperson, Grand Jury Foreperson pro tem, and the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) met with the HR Director and a Deputy Director in Grand Jury chambers. The HR Director stated that a previous Grand Juror, and an anonymous person, had filed a complaint containing certain allegations of misconduct. The HR Director proceeded to inform those present that he was planning to investigate a County employee (EMPLOYEE) for misconduct. Since the complainant was a previous Grand Juror, the ADA informed all those present that, as the Grand Jury’s legal advisor, if any Grand Jurors were to be interviewed, the ADA must be present. This was to ensure that no intimidating actions or undue pressure was applied to violate Grand Jury secrecy, or that inappropriate information was disclosed. HR proceeded with their investigation by hiring a Private Investigator (PI) on September 12, 2017. He was informed, via email, that he was to investigate the sole allegation of a previous Grand Juror. However, within days, at the request of the PI, HR explicitly agreed to expand the investigation beyond its original scope. With the help of HR, the unfettered PI (now a contracted agent of the County) interviewed at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors. Even though the ADA had directed HR that he was to be present during all interviews with any prior or current Grand Jurors, the PI proceeded to interview at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors without the presence of the ADA. During these interviews, the PI questioned Grand Jurors about what was said, who it was said by, what matters were pending before the Grand Jury, and how they voted relative to the matters pending. This is in direct violation of PC §924. Hiring a Private Investigator

HR Divisional Manager contacted an outside attorney, who occasionally works for the County, for a recommendation to hire a PI. The reason stated for hiring an outside PI was due to the perceived sensitivity of the investigation. The HR Divisional Manager was not confident the in-house investigators could conclude the investigation in less than 120 days. The HR Divisional Manager also received instructions from the HR Director to complete the investigation within 30 days. The PI was hired with the approval of the HR Director with only a phone call and an email confirmation. There was no formal agreement or confirmation letter to define the scope of the investigation, the amount of time, maximum billing amount, or other covenants between the parties. With no formal contract between the County, and without proper hiring documentation and no specific direction, the PI apparently had free reign and complete authority to act with no oversight. When the Grand Jury interviewed the PI, he stated he did not feel he needed to provide a confirmation letter defining the scope or his understanding of the County’s expectations. The PI stated he could base his scope of investigation on his own interpretation of the allegations. Comprehensive Investigation

The PI conducted his investigation by interviewing the Grand Jurors who had lodged complaints, or Grand Jurors referred by those interviewed. The Grand Jurors, in their statements to the PI, expressed animus against the EMPLOYEE. The PI was made aware of other Grand Jurors who may have provided a different interpretation, however, the PI chose not to seek out potential exculpatory evidence. An email dated December 19, 2017, from the PI to the HR Principal Analyst stated that a particular witness has animosity toward the EMPLOYEE making the motivation of this witness questionable. The PI stated that he chose to believe this witness any way. In an email dated October 26, 2017, from the PI to the HR Division Manager and Employee and Labor Relations Division, the PI states in part: …I believe it’s important to understand that only five Grand Jurors have been interviewed. It sounds like there are a few Grand Jurors who have served several terms over the years, and who may be advocating for EMPLOYEE with a different take on EMPLOYEE behavior. [sic] An email from the HR Principal Analyst dated December 20, 2017 addressed to the PI, states in part: When you send me a revised draft of your report, could you send it in Word please? This will make it easier for … and I… to communicate with each 5 other re any further recommended edits or comments any of us may have re the report… We would not finalize any tracked changes without sharing them with you first, as we, and I’m sure you, would not want a situation down the road where you are testifying about your investigation, and someone shows you something in the report that you don’t recognize or agree with. That wouldn’t be good for anyone… [sic] The PI’s response in part: …But again, given the assortment of other inappropriate comments I don’t know that it was necessary to include this one as well, (but I’m happy to do so if you’d like)… Failure to Properly Protect Employee Rights Under Investigation

In the letter from the Deputy County Executive Office to EMPLOYEE informing EMPLOYEE about the ongoing investigation, EMPLOYEE was instructed to cooperate with the investigator. This letter states in part: …In order to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation, you are not to discuss the investigation with anyone other than your representative, legal counsel, or the Private investigator. If you are unsure whether a comment or discussion would be a violation of this directive, you must first contact Mr. … for guidance… [sic] HR Policy Requires Progressive Discipline

HR policy (Disciplinary Process Manual) stipulates that progressive disciplinary steps (from least to most severe), should be followed and implemented in relation to the alleged offenses being substantiated and supported. When there is a continued pattern of the employee failing to comply with a policy or a directive, then a more serious penalty may need to be imposed. This progressive disciplinary history must be clearly documented by the employee’s supervisor. The disciplinary penalty imposed should be appropriate in relation to the offense committed – starting with the least severe. The evidence developed by the PI did not confirm the initial allegation. The underlying incident, as discovered by the PI, had been handled appropriately. The PI then proceeded to search for other allegations. These complaints made, and corroborated, by the 6 shared testimony of a few disgruntled Grand Jurors, were then used to pile on the allegations against EMPLOYEE, in order to establish the case to terminate EMPLOYEE without progressing through the normal disciplinary steps. No Provision to Inform Employee They Are Under Investigation

There is no provision or policy to inform an employee that they are under investigation unless they are employed as a peace officer or they have been placed on administrative leave. Breach of Confidentiality of Grand Jury Information

Other than their names, the Grand Juror’s personal information is confidential and shall not be disclosed except by order of the Presiding Judge. The Executive Office staff, HR staff, along with a prior Grand Juror, breached this confidentially by providing home addresses and other personal contact information to the PI. The PI used this information to contact current and past Grand Jurors by phone, and/or visiting their residences, in an attempt to gather investigative material for the case he was building against EMPLOYEE. The PI even went as far as to interview a Grand Juror’s neighbor. Grand Jury Subpoenas

The Grand Jury subpoenaed the HR Director and PI to appear and produce documents to assist the Grand Jury in its investigation. The HR Department contacted County Counsel. County Counsel elected to file a motion to quash or modify these subpoenas. County Counsel further contacted the PI instructing him not to comply with the subpoena. Upon receipt of this motion, the Grand Jury sent a letter to County Counsel requesting his office provide legal representation for the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury did not receive a response from County Counsel. The County then hired an attorney to represent the contracted PI. The Grand Jury appeared before the Court to defend its subpoena without representation. The Court questioned why County Counsel was not providing representation to the Grand Jury as required under California Government Code §27642. County Counsel did not provide an answer acceptable to the Court.