City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney

The Grand Jury finds that the City Attorney does not consider a Supervising Deputy City Attorney and the remaining Deputy Attorneys, professionally capable of performing legal advisory duties. A review of the job descriptions found that a primary function of the Supervising Deputy City Attorney/Deputy City Attorney is to advise and represent the City. Specifically, it indicates “may represent the City Attorney at various city council, board and commission meetings and in court.” Correspondence, received from the City Attorney’s office, dated April 16 and 18, 2013 stated that the commissioners are represented by the City Attorney’s office. These statements indicate that any attorney in the City Attorney’s office can represent the commissioners. Also, in an April 18, 2013, correspondence, the City Attorney stated he was the “primary legal advisor” for the commissioners and that it was “critical he be present and available outside the jury interview room should a witness need to confer with him.” On April 22, 2013, the Grand Jury took sworn and recorded testimony from the City Attorney. During this testimony with his counsel present, the question was posed, “How many attorneys are employed with the City Attorney’s office?” The City Attorney responded that “there are 14 positions, 13 lawyers.” The organizational chart provided by the City Attorney’s office indicates there are 11 allotted Deputy City Attorneys and 2 two Supervising Deputy City Attorneys. At the conclusion of the City Attorney’s testimony, a verbal secrecy admonishment was issued to him and his counsel. In sworn and recorded testimony, it was stated by the City Attorney that he is the primary legal advisor for the commissioners, and he would only delegate that responsibility to a specific Supervising Deputy City Attorney who also was not available April 24 and 25, 2013. He further stated that only a specific Supervising Deputy City Attorney was suited to represent clients, and the remaining lawyers, including another Supervising Deputy City Attorney in the office were not qualified to fill in his place. When addressed directly, “So in your words, they would not be qualified,” his response was, “That’s correct.” However, City of Riverside Salary Schedule Report, dated March 28, 2013, reflects the annual range of salaries for attorney positions as $75,120 to $165,180. In testimony obtained on May 23, 2013, the manager of the Commission stated that if the City Attorney and a Supervising Deputy City Attorney were unavailable for legal advice, they would seek advice from any available Deputy City Attorney within the office.

The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. On April 12, 16, and 18, 2013, the Grand Jury received correspondence signed by the City Attorney with the subject line “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765.” According to sworn and recorded testimony, the City Attorney stated that after speaking with the Riverside Police Department, he “surmised” the Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, was the subject matter being investigated by the Grand Jury. Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter, all confidentiality on the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised, as this document was copied to the following: The Hon. Mark Cope, Presiding Judge Creg G. Datig, Assistant District Attorney Pamela Walls, County Counsel Scott C. Barber, City Manager Belinda J. Graham, Assistant City Manager James E. Brown, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Frank Hauptmann, Community Police Review Manager 3 When asked why he copied these individuals, his response was, “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing”. After being admonished regarding secrecy, on April 22, 2013, the City Attorney filed a Motion and Motion to Modify with the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside that contained Exhibits B and C with the subject, “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765,” which is in violation of Penal Code §939.22. On May 20, 2013, the Office of the Riverside County Counsel sent a letter of admonishment to the City Attorney on behalf of the Grand Jury (See Attachment #1).