Ordinance No. 04430

[Michael Stogner]

ORDINANCE NO. 04430
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Chapter 2.04.010 Purpose
The County of San Mateo has a paramount interest in protecting the integrity of its governmental institutions, and to ensure that County government serves the best interest of the citizens of San Mateo County. Government Code 25303 provides that the Board of Supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers, including elected officials, and additionally provides that the Board shall see that county officers faithfully perform their duties.

Its to bad Thomas Casey III didn't know about this GC 25303 when he was San Mateo County's Counsel. For years he advised the Board that they had no authority over our elected officials.

Independent Citizens Review Panel

(b) Panel members shall be chosen at random from a list compiled and maintained by the County Counsel of citizens from among the following categories:

Retired Judges

Former County or City Administrators

Former Grand Jury Forepersons

Former County Counsels.........(Thomas Casey III ?)

City Attorneys and or District Attorneys.........(James P. Fox when he retires)

The good news is these Citizens won't have to live in San Mateo County to make decisions about our business, here is a list of the only counties that this small group of people can live in. Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara.

Also nothing to fear, this group of Citizens will have a limit scope to investigate.

(e) The manner and scope of the investigation shall be determined by the panel consistent with the directions given by the Board.

I think it is fair to say that this Citizen Review Panel will never be called by the current Board of Supervisors. They all support Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos being CUSTOMERS of Underaged Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Operation Dollhouse 4/21/07 Las Vegas Nevada, and willfully making a false official statement 4/24/07. No County Funds were spent. a violation of 2.04.020

[Taylor]

civil grand jury to look into why so many doctors failed to report Dr. Ayres for molestaion, even though they were aware of it. The Grand Jury did nothing. They were too afraid to.

[Michael Stogner]

civil grand jury to look into why so many doctors failed to report Dr. Ayres for molestaion, even though they were aware of it. The Grand Jury did nothing. They were too afraid to.

Not sure if they were afraid to. They were being advised by James P. Fox when he should have recused himself.

He should have prosecuted Dr. William Ayres in 1987.

[Taylor]

not being advised by Fox. On their own, they were afraid to look into it.

[Michael Stogner]

of the Daily News group did a follow-up article today.
"Many had no idea they were on the ethics panel.'

Those who are on the list have nothing to worry about ever being called to serve, thats the fun part. In order to be called the Board of Supervisors would have to determine that an elected official (lets take Munks for example) has behaved badly before they would call on this panel.

Now since the entire BOS does not believe that OUR SHERIFF being a CUSTOMER of underaged human trafficked SEX SLAVES is a bad thing there is little chance they will be disturbed about any behavior in the future.....

Thank You to Shaun Bishop for the story and being interested in what happens in San Mateo County.

Welcome to San Mateo County

[Michael Stogner]

County elected officials are elected by the people of San Mateo County, and are accountable in the first instance to the people. Nevertheless, the Board's obligation to oversee the official conduct of elected county officials may, in the case of well-founded allegations of serious official misconduct, require that the Board take action in response to such allegations. In carrying out its oversight responsibilities, the Board must be mindful that it does not interfere with the constitutional or statutory responsibilities invested in the County's elected officials.

To further the Boards interest in protecting the integrity of its governmental institutions and to ensure that County government serves the best interest of its citizens, this Chapter will set forth a process to guide the Board as well as other County elected officials, when investigating allegations of serious misconduct of County elected officials. this process shall be in addition to any other authority the Board of Supervisors may have to carry out its supervisory responsibilities under Government Code 25303.

2.04.020 Definition and Description Of Serious Official Misconduct
(1) For the purposes of this Chapter "serious official misconduct" shall include:
(a) Flagrant or repeated neglect of duties:
(b) Misappropriation of public property:
(c) Violation of any law related to the performance of the elected official's duties as set forth by federal law, state statue, ordinance, regulation or the San Mateo County Chapter:
(d) Willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document.

(2) To assist in determining wether an elected official has engaged in serious misconduct for purposes of this Chapter, consideration may be given to the various internal rules of conduct relating to the conduct of County employees, such as the County's Civil Services Rules, or other such similar department and administrative practices and procedures, except that any such rule which by its terms cannot be applied to the conduct of an elected official cannot serve as guidance in determining wether the elected official has engaged in serious official misconduct.

[Michael Stogner]

Any Board member may refer to the Board an allegation or allegations of misconduct by an elected official. The Board may choose, in its discretion , to take no action with respect to the allegation, refer the allegation to the elected official for a response, or refer it to another agency if it appears that such other agency may have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the allegation. If the Board, in considering the allegation or allegations, makes a determination that the allegation on its face meets the prima facie definition of serious official misconduct, and further that the allegations appear to be well founded, the Board of Supervisors may appoint an independent Citizens Review Panel pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter

[Michael Stogner]

(a) The Board of Supervisors may appoint a five member Independent Citizens Review Panel, with the option of appointing either a three member or seven member panel, if deemed appropriate at the time of the appointment. A majority of the panel members shall constitute a quorum.

(b) Panel members shall be chosen at random from a list complied and maintained by the County Counsel of citizens from among the following categories: retired judges, former County and city administrators; former grand jury forepersons; and former County counsels, city attorneys and or district attorneys.

(c) Less than a quorum of the panel may be members chosen from the categories listed in subsection (b) who reside in counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. A quorum of members must reside in the County of San Mateo.

(d) At its intial meeting, the panel shall select one of its members to be the Chair.

[Michael Stogner]

(a) Upon referral by the Board under section 2.040.030, the independent Citizens Review Panel shall plan and conduct an appropriate investigation of those allegations of serious misconduct by an elected County officer, and report back to the Board with written findings and recommendations concerning action to be taken.

(b) In carrying out its responsibilities, the Independent Citizens Review Panel shall not interfere with the constitutional and statutorily designated investigative and prosecutorial functions of the District attorney or Sheriff, nor shall it interfere with the constitutional or statutorily designated responsibilities of any other County elected official.

(c) The recommendations of the Independent Citizens Review Panel to the Board of Supervisors shall be limited to the following; a vote of censure or "no confidence"; referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency; and /or referral to a civil grand jury for it determination of wether removel from office is warranted under existing law.

(d) The Board can accept, modify or reject the recommendations of the Independent Citizens review Panel. the Board retains responsibility for taking final action on the recommendations.

(e) The manner and scope of the investigation shall be determined by the panel consistent with the directions given by the Board.

continued

[Michael Stogner]

(f) Open meeting requirements of the Brown Act shall apply to the Independent Citizens Review Panel. In the conduct of its investigation, the Independent Citizens Review Panel shall, to the extent authorized by law, protect the privacy interests of both the elected official being investigated and any other persons who are involved in any way with the investigation. The Chair of the panel shall consult regularly with County Counsel for guidance in the determination of wether specific information which may implicate privacy concerns may be protected from public disclosure.

(g) Requirements of and exemptions contained in, the California Public Records Act shall apply to documents generated and considered by the panel. A determination shall be made by the Chair, in consultation with County Counsel, as to wether upon the facts of a particular case, the public interest is served by not disclosing any and all documents clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of such documents.

(h) Investigations conducted by the Independent Citizens Review Panel shall be conducted with the degree of formality appropriate to the subject matter of the investigation. Every effort should be made to obtain documents, witness statements, or oral testimony on a voluntary basis. The Chair of the panel shall have subpoena power to call witnesses and to obtain documents for the panel if necessary. The Chair of the panel is authorized to retain investigative and other expert assistance to the panel as deemed necessary.

(i) County Counsel shall provide assistance to the panel as requested by the Chair.

[Michael Stogner]

If, in the course of the Board's consideration as to wether to pursue allegations of official misconduct on the part of an elected official, or in the course of the independent Citizens Review Panel investigation, it becomes apparent that there is an ongoing criminal investigation, or that the allegations may support a criminal investigation, such consideration by the Board or investigation by the Independent Citizens review panel shall be suspended and County Counsel shall immediately consult with the appropriate criminal investigative authority to determine further action by the Board or Panel may compromise the criminal investigation.

2.04.070 Sections found invalid.
If any provision, clause, section, sentence or paragraph of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such validity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are declared to be sererable.

Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from the passage date thereof.

Regularly passed and adopted this 12th day of August 2008

[Michael Stogner]

Board of Supervisors, County of San Mateo, State of California.

An ordinance amending section 2.04.040 of Chapter 2.04 of title 2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code relating to the creation of an independent Citizens Review Panel to review allegations of Serious Official Misconduct on the part of an Elected County Official.

The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California
Ordains as follows:

Section 1. Section 2.04.040 of Title 2 Chapter 2.04 of the San Mateo County Ordinance is amended to read as follows;

2.04.040 Appointment and Membership of Independent Citizens Review Panel

(a) The Board of Supervisors may appoint a five-member Independent Citizens Review Panel, with the option of appointing either a three-member or seven-member panel, if deemed appropriate at the time of appointment. A majority of the panel members shall constitute a quorum.

(b) Panel members shall be selected at random from two lists, as described in subsections, (c) and (d) as follows: (1) in the event the Board convenes a panel consisting of three members, two members shall be chosen at random from the list of Public Members and one member shall be chosen at random from the list of Private Citizens; (2) in the event the Board convenes a panel consisting of five members, four shall be chosen at random from the list of Public Members and one member shall be chosen at random from the list of Private Citizens; (3) in the event the Board convenes a panel consisting of seven members, five shall be chosen at random from the list of Public members, and two shall be chosen at random from the list Private Citizens.

(c) A list of Public Members shall be compiled and maintained by the County Counsel of Citizens from among the following categories: retired judges; former County or City Administrators; former grand jury forepersons; and former County Counsels, City Attorneys and or District Attorneys.

(d) A list of Private Citizens shall be compiled from one or more names provided by each member of the Board of Supervisors at the time a panel is created. A new list of Private Citizens shall be compiled each time a panel is created.

(e) Less than a quorum of the panel may be members chosen from the categories listed in subsections (c) and (d) who reside in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. A quorum of members must reside in the County of San Mateo.

(f) At its initial meeting, the panel shall select one of its members to be the Chair.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from passage date thereof.