Board of Supervisors

The available information determined that the decision to retire was voluntarily made by the former County Counsel. 2006-2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 6 The available information did reveal that a few days prior to the resignation the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors had berated the County Counsel in an open workshop meeting, concerning the County Counsel's failure to follow Board direction and also made comments to the effect that outside use of legal counsel was being considered. The inability to satisfy each Supervisor’s needs and the discord between Supervisors was one of the deciding factors leading to the decision to retire by the County Counsel.

The former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors recommended and Supervisors approved of an Interim County Counsel, which was a proper procedure under County Charter: Article 2, Section 7, which states, "Any vacancy in a County office other than that of supervisor, shall be filled by the Board of Supervisors by appointment for the unexpired term." There was a concern as to the Supervisors’ decision to bypass the Assistant County Counsel and the effect that the decision would have on the Colonies Partners Limited pending litigations by bringing in an Interim County Counsel with questionable knowledge of the critical litigation issues. There is no requirement in a County appointed position that the assistant to that department head automatically become the head or interim of the department. This concern became a moot issue when the Board of Supervisors disregarded the expenditure of County funds already spent on outside legal representation, all legal counsel advice and settled the suit in favor of Colonies Partners Limited, L.P.

The available information at this time supports the premise that the Board of Supervisors’ monetary settlement in favor of the Colonies Partners Limited, L.P. was a decision made by three of the five Supervisors after consideration of the available alternatives. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to make the final decision on this civil lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors can consider, but were not required to follow, legal advice in this civil matter.

The purchase of the Maranatha jail facility and the subsequent Gumport report has been reviewed and disclosed no violations of law. The overall examination of the issues involved with the Maranatha facility purchase and information contained in the Gumport report did result in some positive actions by the Board of Supervisors. The first action was to renegotiate the Platinum Advisory contract to allow the CAO to terminate the contract at any time. There was also a reporting requirement to the County by the Platinum lobby contract when an issue of possible conflict arose. The lobbyist, who was a central issue in the Gumport report, although still employed by Platinum, is not representing San Bernardino County. A second positive result was the acquiring of a 700-bed jail 2006-2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 7 facility needed by the Sheriff. The facility was placed into service in a relatively short time and at a substantially reduced cost considering the cost to build a new jail facility. New additions to the facility are in the planning stages.

The area concerning release of confidential information to the news media was reviewed, however the person or persons responsible for the releases were not ascertained. The available information does support the premise that the discord between members of the Board of Supervisors may have contributed to the release of confidential information.

Partisan politics in County government, although not legally allowed, cannot be proven to exist or discounted.

The major area of concern was the dysfunctional display of interaction by some members at Board of Supervisor meetings, negative comments that made their way into the news media and release of confidential information with the intent to place another in a negative position. These actions were clearly not in the best interest of the citizens of the County. One of the reasons for the dysfunction of the Board was the failure of some members to place their personal feelings aside when debating an issue and the failure to recognize that others may not view the issue in the same way. The failure to resolve these long-standing differences further added to the dysfunctional perception of the Board. When the available information is viewed in totality the blame for allowing the dysfunctional operation of the Board of Supervisors lies squarely on the shoulder of the former Chairman of the Board who was, at the time, the elected leader. The leadership did not take the necessary steps to resolve the issues that were the source of conflict between Board members. The remaining Board of Supervisors also share in the blame for the dysfunctional operation due to their failure to take a leadership role in the conflict when the former Chairman did not take action to defuse or resolve the dysfunctional operation. As a result of the overall inaction by the Board of Supervisors there was a continuing failure of cooperation, trust and communication between Supervisors; thus the dysfunctional perception. This perception continued until there was a change in the Chairman of the Board leadership in 2007. 2006-2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 8 COMMENDATION The present Board of Supervisors, despite differences of opinion that may arise on County matters, appears to be functioning as a cohesive unit of County government for the benefit of the people. Credit for this positive change appears to be the new leadership and the manner in which he is able to listen and communicate with Board members. The positive change is also a credit to the cooperation exhibited by all Board members. The vast reduction in the amount of negative press by the news media concerning the Board of Supervisors is also a credit to them. The Board of Supervisors is also positively credited with the implementation of the new COUNTY VISION site on the County website, which will open up the avenues of information and may reduce the distrust of county government due to the lack of information. The commendation to the Board of Supervisors is meant to be construed as a reminder that they are the elected representatives of the people, charged to act in the best interest of the citizens in their respective districts, and a dysfunctional Board of Supervisors is not in the best interest of the citizens of San Bernardino County.