By J.P. Crumrine
News Editor
and Jack Clark
General Counsel

Disagreements about how the current Riverside County grand jury conducts interviews and investigations have evolved into public litigation and a specific grand jury report highly critical of Gregory Priamos, the current Riverside County counsel.

The dispute began this winter. In November 2014, Riverside County’s Auditor-Controller’s Office completed an internal audit of the Riverside County Information Technology agency. The completed audit, which covered the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, was submitted to the Board of Supervisors and was placed on the supervisors’ agenda for January 2015.

The audit found “… RCIT’s internal controls, especially the control environment, over the Information Security Program did not provide reasonable assurance that county operational and reporting objectives related to assessing, accepting and mitigating information security risks and compliance with A-58 Policy and standards were met.”

A specific finding stated, “RCIT and the seven consolidated IT departments have not performed required security assessments …”

The Auditor-Controller’s report to the board acknowledged that RCIT had met with its office to discuss the findings, but failed to provide a written response. Board policy requires audited agencies to respond in writing and as of April, IT had not complied with the policy.

Two weeks later, the grand jury requested a copy of the written response. In response to this, RCIT informed the grand jury verbally as well as by facsimile from the RCIT Interim CIO, dated Jan. 21, 2015, that the Office of County Counsel Riverside County had advised them to have all grand jury requests and questions directed to RCIT in writing, for county counsel to review all requests in advance, according to a June grand jury report.

In April, the grand jury filed its own report on RCIT, which report appeared on the Board of Supervisor’s April 28 agenda. The grand jury had four findings as to RCIT. The first was that board policy requires a written response to Auditor-Controller audits and RCIT has not responded.

Secondly, the grand jury faulted County Executive Jay Orr for not enforcing this board policy. Thirdly, the grand jury stated that county counsel was interfering in its oversight function. Finally, the grand jury stated that Auditor-Controller’s reports were not being sent to them.

Three citizens commented on the item and all encouraged the board to support the grand jury’s efforts. One said, “If the county counsel is refusing documentation to the grand jury, that only gives the appearance of impropriety and cover up … Their job is to look after the taxpayer.”

In a separate action in April, the grand jury filed a petition with the Riverside County Superior Court against the county counsel’s involvement in grand jury proceedings and filed its own formal grand jury report on June 10 as to county counsel’s actions.

The petition in the Superior Court came for hearing before Judge John W. Vineyard on May 1 and on May 22. The judge denied the grand jury’s petition.

In a transcript of that hearing, prepared for the Town Crier, Vineyard summarized the issue before him as follows: “My basic understanding of the issue is that the grand jury is investigating some aspects of County Counsel’s Office, and there is a dispute as to whether attorneys from County Counsel’s Office can provide representation to witnesses before the grand jury.” Both sides agreed with that statement of the issue.

Although Vineyard stated several times during the hearing that “under Penal Code 934, subdivision (a), the grand jury may request legal advice from county counsel and, when it does, county counsel is required to render that legal advice,” he then held that there was no attorney-client relationship between the county counsel and the grand jury, stating that the fact that county counsel attorneys trained this panel of the grand jury in its legal duties did not create such a relationship. He further held that there appeared to be no instance of confidential information passing to county counsel, which would be a second basis for disqualification. Therefore, he said, he had no basis for disqualifying county counsel from representing county employees before the grand jury — notwithstanding that Penal Code section 934, subdivision (a), specifies that unless the grand jury requests legal advice from county counsel, county counsel “shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury.”

Indications are that the grand jury likely will run a writ to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in an effort to overturn Vineyard’s ruling.

The grand jury also noted that Priamos, who was the former Riverside city attorney, had been admonished in a May 20, 2013, letter from then-County Counsel Pamela Walls, for revealing confidential grand jury information.

One of the grand jury’s objections is that county counsel’s claim that PC section 939.22, subdivision (a), would allow his office to accompany and represent all county employees during grand jury proceedings, while under PC section 934, county counsel is prohibited from doing so. The grand jury points out that nothing in PC section 939.22 relates to county counsel at all, and further believes this is a potential conflict, particularly for employees who may be whistle blowers or testifying to actions about their supervisor or manager. It also appears to be a conflict of interest in that county counsel is required to be available to advise the grand jury whenever it makes such a request of county counsel’s office.

There remain unanswered questions. One is with regard to any county records the grand jury may seek. The grand jury does not need to use the California Public Records Act, with its myriad exceptions and exemptions, in order to obtain county records. Directly under PC section 921: “The grand jury is entitled … to the examination, without charge, of all public records within the county.” The PC provides no exceptions. To what extent the grand jury has used this provision to obtain whatever county records it seeks is not known at this time.

A second question is: Who will be the grand jury’s attorney? At the hearing before Vineyard, Deputy District Attorney Michael J. Cabral announced his appearance “solely as the grand jury legal advisor.” Whether the DA’s office will continue to represent the grand jury before the Fourth District and before future trial courts is not clear.

Meanwhile, the grand jury has filed a formal grand jury report regarding the county counsel’s office, similar to the reports it has filed as to other county agencies and special districts. As to county counsel, the grand jury made findings that county counsel engaged in conflicts of interest and secrecy, obscured transparency and accountability “throughout the county,” made inaccurate, incomplete and misleading statements, violated the attorneys’ code of ethics, violated board policies and otherwise obstructed the grand jury’s investigations.

The grand jury report alleges that county counsel has sent an email advising departments of the county to run all requests from the grand jury through county counsel’s office, which the grand jury states “is a concerted effort to breach the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.”

County counsel has 90 days to respond to the grand jury’s findings and recommendations.

J.P. Crumrine can be reached at jp@towncrier.com. TC General Counsel Jack Clark contributed to this story.