Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Reason for Investigation To investigate a complaint alleging that District Attorney, James Brazelton has committed

Published: February 17, 2004 6 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 20 findings

F1
The District Attorney is an elected official of the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
As an elected official, the District Attorney is not accountable to the Board of Supervisors or any other County official. He is accountable only to the electorate.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Stanislaus County has adopted a Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy, and a Harassment Policy. The Harassment Policy provides that it is applicable to elected officials. The Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy states in Section I.E that it applies to employees “...or other individuals providing services or acting on behalf of the County”.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
If elected officials of the County violate County policies, there is little recourse available to the County, unless the violation constitutes a criminal act.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Civil Grand Jury is required by Penal Code section 919(c) “...to inquire into the willful or corrupt conduct in office of public officers of every description in the county.”
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Prior to being interviewed at County Counsel’s office, the District Attorney entered an employee’s office, closed the door and stated that “Somebody has talked to the CEO’s office and I’m going to find out who it is”. He subsequently stated to the employee “But you know it never happened”. On that occasion, the employee did report feeling personally threatened and fearful. 36
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Training programs should reinforce the concept that it is the responsibility of every County employee to report acts of misconduct committed by co-workers, supervisors, department heads, managers and elected officials. It is vital that 39 training of this nature strengthen assurances that they need not fear retaliation for reporting the misdeeds of others.
F7
Prior to another employee’s meeting with County Counsel, the District Attorney approached the employee to state that he wanted to talk about “...that gun thing”. During the course of the conversation he stated that he would not do something like that, and that it didn’t happen. He subsequently stated that “I am just trying to find a rat in my office”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Training programs should reinforce the concept that it is the responsibility of every County employee to report acts of misconduct committed by co-workers, supervisors, department heads, managers and elected officials. It is vital that 39 training of this nature strengthen assurances that they need not fear retaliation for reporting the misdeeds of others.
F8
The District Attorney denies that either of the two events involving weapons display, simulated or actual, occurred.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Following his interview at County Counsel’s office, the District Attorney made contact with two of the witnesses after specifically being admonished by County Counsel not to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, in a regular meeting of the Board, should recite the conclusions and recommendations contained in this Grand Jury report and publicly rebuke District Attorney James Brazelton for his actions.
F10
Section I.C of the Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy provides that “...threats of violence...by any employee, contractor, or other person performing services for the County is prohibited and will not be tolerated”.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Section I.D.3 of the Policy provides that a “...Type III event usually involves a threat of violence ... by a current or former worker, supervisor or manager....”
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Section I.B. of the Stanislaus County Harassment Policy provides that “Harassment includes, but is not limited to speech such as epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositioning on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sexual orientation”.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Investigators employed by the District Attorney are sworn law enforcement officers pursuant to Penal Code section 830, and are authorized to carry firearms without a concealed weapons permit. The authority of investigators to carry or use firearms is conditional upon conformance to a Firearms Policy that was promulgated, and signed, by the District Attorney. The effective date of that policy was July 22, 2003, or approximately one month prior to events at issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Section VI.A (DISPLAY OF FIREARMS) of the Firearms Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Sworn personnel should not remove their firearm from the holster for the single purpose of display”. Section X.A (SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS) of the Firearms Policy provides as follows: “Investigators shall not unnecessarily display or handle any firearm”.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Section 4 (CCW License Conditions and Restrictions) of the State of California Department of Justice Standard Application for License to Carry a Concealed 37 Weapon (CCW) states that “...the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon ... unjustifiably display a concealed weapon”.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
An estimated fourteen attorneys employed by the District Attorney possess active concealed weapons permits that authorize them to carry firearms. Neither the District Attorney’s office nor the Office of the Chief Executive maintains records on concealed weapons permits held by employees. At the time of the two events in which it is alleged that the District Attorney displayed a firearm, or simulated drawing and firing a firearm, the District Attorney possessed a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. The permit has since expired.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The District Attorney has not promulgated a policy or issued directives relative to the carrying of firearms by employees who are not sworn law enforcement officers. At present, it is permissible for every employee at the District Attorney’s office to carry a firearm while in the office, provided that each employee has obtained a concealed weapons permit from the Sheriff’s Department or a police department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Management personnel at the District Attorney’s office, in consultation with County Counsel’s office and the Sheriff’s Department prepare a firearms policy that sets forth the following: a. A requirement that every weapon carried by non-sworn employees shall be registered with the department, and shall be identified by make, model and serial number; b. The conditions under which employees may carry firearms in the workplace; c. When and how firearms are to be stored at the workplace; d. Safety considerations; and, e. Prohibited use of firearms. Further, the Board of Supervisors should give serious consideration to applying the same policy to all County offices where employees possess concealed weapons permits.
F18
The District Attorney made comments about having missed an opportunity to strike one of the reporters with his vehicle when the reporter had walked across the street in front of him.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The District Attorney’s office has not consistently trained staff on County policies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Management personnel at the District Attorney’s office should, in consultation with the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, develop a training program that identifies the training needs of all employees in the Department, the frequency with which the training should be repeated, and that includes a training schedule for each employee. The training manual should address separately professional level training courses, and training on County policies and other issues of a general nature. Completion of required training should be a rating criterion for annual employee performance evaluations.
R5
Responsibility for the training program should be vested in a mid-level manager. 40
F20
The District Attorney has made jokes in the office about the incidents giving rise to County Counsel’s investigation. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 6

No Responses Found 3

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

Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Stanislaus County District Attorney Elected County Office
Stanislaus County Sheriff Elected County Office