Jul 23, 2008

Supes: Committee clarity needed

County will detail scope of oversight investigations

By Shaun Bishop / Daily News Staff Writer

A committee authorized to investigate elected San Mateo County officials accused of wrongdoing could go on "witch hunts" unless its reach is clearly defined, supervisors said Tuesday.

That was one of the concerns expressed when the Board of Supervisors got its first look at the idea for such a panel, one of several proposals to establish greater oversight of elected officials in the wake of a scandal more than a year ago involving Sheriff Greg Munks' visit to a Los Vegas brothel.

Supervisors Jerry Hill and Adrienne Tissier introduced their idea for an ad hoc citizens' review panel to probe into suspected "serious misconduct" of elected officials. At least four of the five supervisors would have to approve such a committee.

The board continued discussion of the committee proposal to its next meeting pending some clarifications.

As envisioned by Hill and Tissier, the panel could subpoena witnesses and documents and hire its own investigative teams. Ultimately, it would recommend action to the Board of Supervisors, ranging from censure to referral to the civil grand jury for possible indictment to contacting law enforcement if criminal activity is involved.

Their three colleagues seemed supportive of a citizens' review committee, but Supervisor Mark Church said the guidelines for what it could investigate need to be better defined. Though the panel would be guided by the county's Civil Service Rules or other departmental regulations, Church said some requirements such as a clause prohibiting insubordination don't make sense for elected officials.
"Obviously, there's nobody above an elected official except for the electorate," Church said.

Church said the ordinance should include a specific list of things the committee can investigate.

Hill and Tissier agreed that a list could be drawn up. "What you're thinking of, Mark, is to try to avoid a witch hunt," Hill said. Church nodded.

Still, Hill said, the board should have the power to hold elected leaders to most of their departments' standards.

"If you don't perform the duties of your office, or you do them in a manner that (harms) the county and your employees ... then it's the responsibility of the board to look at this and investigate it in some form, and this creates a vehicle," Hill said after the meeting.

Although County Counsel Michael Murphy came prepared to dissect Hill's initial idea to amend the county's charter to give supervisors the power to remove other elected officials, Hill said he now favors the committee idea because it offers supervisors a larger range of options.

The panel would be picked from a pool of retired judges, former county or city administrators, former grand jury forepersons, or former county counsels, city attorneys or district attorneys. Tissier said that should take politics out of the equation.

"The real concern I have is, we have an independent body," Tissier said.

Supervisor Rich Gordon also sought more clarity on how the committee would adhere to open meeting laws but also preserve the privacy of those being investigated.

Tuesday was the first time the board held a full discussion related to the Munks scandal, 15 months after the sheriff was caught by federal and Las Vegas authorities in an illegal brothel two miles off the Strip. Still, the man who sparked the debate was never mentioned by name.

Munks was never charged with a crime and said he "believed he was going to a legitimate business," but he has refused to speak about the incident beyond a brief written statement shortly after it happened.

Supervisors kept quiet on the issue for months, but after a Daily News investigation in April prompted Congresswomen Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo to chide them for not holding Munks accountable, Hill proposed the charter change and the county counsel began researching other options.


E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.