Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2003-2004 • Agency Response

Response to Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury Report #04-39 In responding to the Grand Jury’s Report, I am compelled

Published: August 15, 2004 7 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F4, F8, F14, F15, F16

Findings and Recommendations 13 findings

F1 Page 1
The District Attorney is an elected official of the County. Agree 2. 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. Partially Agree: The District Attorney is a county employee in addition to being an elected official. As a county employee he/she is accountable with regard to county policies as well as most administrative directives. The District Attorney is also accountable to the Attorney General of the State of California. Of Course, the district Attorney is accountable through the elections process to the citizens of this County.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 2
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 is applies to employees “…or other individuals providing services or acting on behalf of the County”. Agree 4. If elected officials of the County violate County policies, there is little recourse available to the County, unless the violation constitutes a criminal act. Disagree: The salary for elected officials is set by the Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 2
The Civil Grand Jury is required by Penal Code section 919© “…to inquire into the willful or corrupt conduct in office of public officers of every description in the county.” Partially agree: Section 919 of the Penal Code states “corrupt misconduct”. Otherwise the quote is correct.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 2
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 if never happened”. On that occasion, the employee did report feeling personally threatened and fearful. Partially agree. The two events in question took place in August 2003. At that time, my management staff conducted an investigation and made recommendations to me. In February 2004 the CEO and County Counsel initiated a new investigation for reasons unknown to me. I went to one of the employees involved in one of the events to refresh my recollection and to determine why another investigation had been initiated. I do not recall that the door was closed at anytime. If this staff member misinterpreted my actions, I apologize. I meant no harm to my staff or anyone else. At no time did the employee display any indication of fear and there were no threats of any type made toward her or any other employee. I was not aware of any interviews scheduled with County Counsel or anyone else..
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 2
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”. Partially agree: I had no knowledge of any staff meeting with County Counsel. As in #6 above, I approached the staff member to assist my recollection of the events from four months previous and to determine why an additional investigation was being conducted by the County Counsel’s Office. I may have said that I would never do anything like that, and, in fact, the grand jury has determined there was no gun involved in this incident, but I do not recall making any statement about “a rat”. 8. The District Attorney denies that either of the two events involving weapons display, simulated or actual, occurred. Agree: I have never brandished or “waved around” a firearm in the office. I did have my unloaded gun displayed in the palm of my hand while discussing types of handguns with a staff member in one instance.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 3
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. Partially agree: I have on a few occasions greeted one of the persons while passing in the office. I have not spoken at all with the other person since the County Counsel’s admonition.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 3
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”. Statement of policy, no response is necessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 3
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 ….. Statement of policy, no response is necessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 3
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”. Statement of policy, no response is necessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 3
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 in 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. Agree 14. 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”. Agree 15. Section 4 (CCW License Conditions and restrictions) of the State of California Department of Justice Standard Application for License to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) states that “…the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon … unjustifiably display a concealed weapon”. Agree 16. 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 possess a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. The permit has since expired. Partially agree: It is correct that the District Attorney’s Office does not presently maintain records of Deputy District Attorneys that have lawfully applied for and been granted Concealed Weapons Permits either by a County Sheriff or Police Chief. In August 2003, I did possess a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon.
No recommendations for this finding
F17 Page 4
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. Partially Agree: The District Attorney’s Office does not presently have a policy regarding non-sworn employees that possess concealed weapon’s permits. The wording and inferences in this finding are that this is specific to the District Attorney’s Office and the reality is that an individual that possesses a concealed weapons permit may enter many offices and public places.
No recommendations for this finding
F18 Page 4
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. Disagree: I believe that this was taken out of context and embellished. The Reporter in question did in fact cross the street immediately in front of my vehicle, not once, but twice. Upon arriving at the office I made a comment to someone, in jest, that it was a good thing that my foot didn’t slip off the brake since if I had hit him, no one would believe that it was an accident. There were no comments as stated by the Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F19 Page 4
The District Attorney’s Office has not consistently trained staff on County policies. Partially agree: Each new employee is provided copies of specific policies on Violence in the Workplace, Harassment, and Drug Free Workplace. County Policies are available to all employees via the County Web site on the Internet. Office employees are encouraged to attend county provided training, but lack of resources does not permit everyone to attend. In addition, dependent on classification, staff attend professional training relative to their particular assignment. 20. The District Attorney has made jokes in the office about the incidents giving rise to County Counsel’s investigation. Disagree: I have never been privy to the reasons why the County Counsel chose to conduct a new investigation. I may have made light comments to someone regarding the investigation, however, I did not consider the investigation a “joking matter”. CONCLUSIONS 1. The actions of the District Attorney entering the office of an employee and displaying a firearm while making comments about a reporter constitutes a violation of the Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy. Those actions constitute an act of willful misconduct. Response: I disagree with the basis for this Conclusion and my response has been discussed in my answers to Finding’s # 6,7,8.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 6