📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Mendocino County Office of the Alternate Defender

8 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 10 findings

F1 Page 153
The case load has increased each year since 1997. There appears to be a need for another Deputy Alternate Defender. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office was established in October 1997. Since that time the caseload has increased each year. The Alternate Defender’s Office presently handles 600-650 cases per year. The need for an additional attorney was met when Scott McMenomey was hired as a part-time attorney in September, 1999. That position became a full time position in January, 2000. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 153 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Alternate Defender. The need for an additional attorney was met when the Office hired a part-time attorney in September of 1999 and that position became full time in January of 2000.
F2 Page 154
The staff expressed concern regarding low salaries and inequities among departments. Research indicates that all attorneys employed by the County fall under the same pay structure. The County financed an independent study of the Mendocino County salaries (the Slavin Report). This study, dated January 2000, reveals that the salaries for Public Defenders in Mendocino County are substantially less than those paid by other counties included in the study. Response (Alternate Defender): Hopefully the implementation of the
F3 Page 154
Several Alternate Defenders objected to being searched prior to entering secure areas of the County Jail. The Grand Jury found that the Jail policy of making no exceptions to its established procedure was valid for security reasons. Response (Alternate Defender): The jail’s policy of searching visitors is certainly a valid policy. It has been the Department’s experience that once the jail staff is familiar with an attorney or investigator, the correctional officers tend to relax the policy a bit, so there is no feeling of “mistrust” between the jail staff and the attorneys and investigators. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4 Page 154
There is no security counter between the public area and the secretary's work area. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office consists of five individual offices that accommodate the Alternate 154 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Defender, three attorneys, and one investigator. The sixth employee, the legal secretary, is situated just inside the front door in an unenclosed area. Between the secretary’s desk and the front door is the main waiting area for clients when they visit our office. Although it would be beneficial to install a security counter between the secretary’s desk and the front door, there is insufficient space for such a counter as it is only about seven feet from the front door to the secretary’s desk. To install a security counter would, essentially, leave little or no space to accommodate our clients as they wait to see their attorney. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The people entering the office are clients of the Alternate Defender. The office must weigh safety versus perception by their clients.
F5 Page 155
The Office of the Alternate Defender has no policy and procedure manual. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office does not have a policy and procedure manual per se. However, the County of Mendocino does have a Memorandum of Understanding, which is heavily relied upon in the daily functions of this office. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F6 Page 155
The Office of the Alternate Defender is not a separate department. The Alternate Defender reports to the Public Defender. This subordination of the Alternate Defender encumbers his ability to directly address facility issues such as carpeting, entry and security. The Alternate Defender budget is administered and presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) by the Public Defender. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office maintains a separate office from the Public Defender’s Office. The Alternate Defender’s Office has separate office space, a separate mailing address, separate phone lines, separate FAX lines, a separate copy machine, separate computers, etc. and separate files that cannot be accessed by anyone other than the employees of the Alternate Defender’s Office. The Alternate Defender does the personnel evaluations of all employees in the Alternate Defender’s Office. Although Alternate Defender’s budget is presented to the Board of 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 155 Supervisors by the Public Defender, the Alternate Defender’s budget is administered by the Alternate Defender. I believe this issue was addressed by the Public Defender’s response of August 23, 2000. (Refer to Public Defender’s response to
F7
Carpeting is unsightly and needs to be replaced. Response (Alternate Defender): The carpeting in the Alternate Defender’s Office is unsightly and needs to be replaced. This office has attempted to negotiate with the landlord, Mrs. Feibusch, who contends there is nothing wrong with the carpet. With that said, this office is presently attempting to obtain bids to have the carpet replaced. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Alternate Defenders Office is seeking bids to replace the carpet.
F8 Page 156
This office seems to be running smoothly. The employees shared a combined respect for one another and a contentment in their assigned duties. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office is truly blessed, especially in an office with such a small staff and small quarters, to have people who are dedicated to the work they do on behalf of their clients, and who truly appreciate and respond to the needs of others. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and thanks the Grand Jury for this comment. 156 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F9 Page 157
When interviewing prisoners at the Jail, the employees are concerned about their personal safety because of the length of time it takes the officers at the Jail to respond to their request to be released from the interview room. Response (Alternate Defender): The jail has essential two venues in the male side of the jail to interview clients: one interview room, and the law library. Because of the issues of confidentiality between an attorney and his/her client, there is only a buzzer and no intercom with which to summon correctional officers. It often takes pushing the buzzer several times over the course of several minutes to a half an hour before there is a response to release the attorney from the interview room. The concern is that there may be a time when there is a problem between parties in the interview room, and if there is not a reasonable response when the attorney presses the buzzer to be released, a situation could escalate resulting in injury to someone. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Alternate Defender states it often takes several minutes up to one half hour for a response to the buzzer to leave the interview room.
F10 Page 157
The performance of the Alternate Defender is not evaluated by the Public Defender, nor is it reviewed by the BOS, the County Administrative Officer or anyone else. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender has received yearly reviews by the Public Defender. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding. The review and evaluation of the Alternate Defender is done by the Public Defender.

Recommendations 7