2022 Trinity County Civil Grand Jury Report County Counsel Review (jur 2022-001)

A series of County ordinances enacted to regulate CCLs from 2016 through 2021 consistently failed to comply with CEQA requirements to identify and mitigate for the full range of environmental impacts associated with commercial cannabis cultivation. The BOS during that period relied on the current County Counsel for legal guidance.

Failure of the County to properly address CEQA resulted in a lawsuit filed by concerned County residents (TAA) seeking to compel compliance. After an initial settlement in which the County paid $95,000 in the litigant’s attorney fees in 2019, the County failed to honor terms of the settlement and ultimately was ordered to pay an additional $339,185 in costs and attorney fees in 2021. The current County Counsel provided legal guidance to the BOS throughout this period.

As part of the 2021 Court Order in the TAA case, the County was ordered to desist from issuing or reissuing any CCL until CEQA compliance is achieved. Numerous Trinity County farmers found themselves unable to operate legally through no fault of their own, and several filed legal action against the County. In addition, numerous cannabis abatement cases against farmers who continued to operate without licenses were filed by the County. These cases, both by the County and against the County, have and continue to represent significant additional legal costs to the County.

From FY2016-17 through FY2021-22, the County paid approximately $4.5 million in legal costs. This total includes $435,185 in settlements and award to litigants, $94,641 paid to the Special Counsel retained for the TAA case, and nearly $4 million paid directly to County Counsel.

During the period considered herein (2016-2022), the BOS and County Counsel displayed a tendency to conduct public business in secret. The BOS failed to consistently report decisions and actions taken in closed session as stipulated in State and County statutes, and County Counsel consistently invoked attorney-client privilege to conceal information ranging from services billed to the opinion of Special Counsel regarding the disposition of the TAA case.

The 2016-2017 Grand Jury also found that the BOS failed to provide meaningful or accurate reports regarding business conducted in closed session. In particular, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury found that the BOS reported that closed sessions for personnel evaluations of County Counsel were held 11 times in the span of one year. Both the BOS and County Counsel responded to that finding with a flat denial, which we find to be demonstrably false.

County Counsel advised the BOS to reject a potential $30,000 settlement with TAA in 2021, ultimately resulting in a Court order for the County to pay TAA more than 10 times as much. In doing so, County Counsel stifled information casting doubt on County Counsel’s advice and assumed full responsibility for the TAA case.

County Counsel has been operating under the same contract for more than seven years, whereas State Government Code and County policy state that the term of County Counsel is four years.

The contract under which County Counsel currently operates consists of base fees for assisting with certain County business, but also stipulates that County Counsel will bill for any litigation services at a rate of $200 per hour. This contractual structure appears to incentivize legal actions that promote litigation, or at least could discourage actions that avoid unnecessary litigation.