Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves shares why he wants to be Contra Costa’s next DA

By 2 Comments

Paul Graves speaks to the Friday Morning Breakfast Club in Antioch on Friday, August 4, 2017.

By Allen Payton

Speaking before the Friday Morning Breakfast Club in Antioch on August 4, Paul Graves, the Senior Deputy District Attorney for Contra Costa County, answered questions and explained why he wants to be the county’s next DA. He is one of five finalists to be the Interim DA in the Board of Supervisors’ appointment process, having made the first round cut from a list of 12 applicants.

A 22-year veteran of the Contra Costa DA’s office, Graves was the first candidate to enter the race for District Attorney in the June, 2018 election, before former DA Mark Peterson resigned. He was willing to take on his boss in response to the scandal over Peterson making false statements on his campaign finance statements about personal use of campaign funds.

“There was a cloud over the office,” Graves stated. “In the press, there was an impression something was wrong with the office. The people in that office are dedicated to the county. While that cloud was over the office, the people asked me to step up and run against the incumbent. But, I’m not going to disparage my former boss.”

“I’m not a politician,” Graves added

He announced his campaign in May following a vote of no-confidence by the Deputy District Attorneys Association and the Civil Grand Jury’s call for the removal of Peterson.

“It wouldn’t have been as big a deal if Mr. Peterson had not decided to run again,” Graves stated during the FMBC meeting. “I did not support Mr. Peterson in 2010. I was one of those who was punished. But even Mark recognized I’m a leader in this office. I was actually the solution to the problem.”

“I chose to stay when others left, because I’m committed to the county,” he shared. “We called it the ‘French Resistance’ back in 2010. We had two choices: quite or stay here and fight. I’m a fighter. So, I chose to stay and fight.”

In his brief announcement he said, “after careful consideration and consultation with my colleagues in the District Attorney’s Office and with others in law enforcement, I have decided to run for Contra Costa District Attorney in 2018. As a 22-year veteran of this office, I have a deep understanding of this community and the talented dedicated prosecutors that already serve the public. Simply put, I know I can make a difference.”

Graves expected to be demoted, again for running against his boss and planned on providing a more complete, public announcement later. But then Peterson resigned and the Supervisors decided to appoint an interim DA.

“Only two of us were candidates before the appointment process,” he said. The other one is Santa Clara County Deputy DA Patrick Vanier, who announced his campaign about a week later in May, also before Peterson resigned in June.

Graves explained to the FBMC members his plans if elected.

“I believe in a victim-centered approach,” he said. “It’s our obligation to give the best service to the victims in our office. It hasn’t changed for the past 22 years. It’s a crime-based structure. We need to look at restructuring the office.”

“People are people. Victims, witnesses and defendants,” Graves continued. He then said his overall goal is to “save lives and drive down crime in Contra Costa County.”

As to his approach in leading the office, he said, “I like to get out into the community. I like talking to the people. The office of the DA is the office of the people.”

“I will spend my time talking to the troops in my office,” Graves added.

“I’m running on my qualifications,” he continued. “No matter what happens (in the appointment process), I’m running. I do firmly believe I am the right person for the job.”

To learn more about Graves, visit his campaign website at www.paulgravesforda.com.

Unhappy with Supervisors’ appointment process, coalition sends Interim DA applicants questionnaire; will hold forum Aug. 12

By 1 Comment

Demand transparent, qualifications-based process to avoid conflicts of interest, secret deals

A press release issued on Friday, states “a community coalition of organizations and individual voters from Contra Costa County called on all candidates for the interim District Attorney position to complete a public questionnaire about where they stand on a variety of issues that matter to the organizations, ranging from bail practices and criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, worker and consumer protection to police accountability and the environment. The coalition issued the questionnaire after the Board of Supervisors failed to adopt a fully transparent and community-first process at their August 1 meeting. This coalition is also working with local organizations and volunteers to host a candidate forum on Saturday, August 12, in Concord.”

Of the twelve applicants, the Supervisors narrowed the field to five. (See related article, here).

The responses to the questionnaire will be made public before the forum.

View the questionnaire, here: CoCo Interim DA Community Questionnaire_FINAL

WHAT: Contra Costa Interim District Attorney Candidate Forum

WHEN: Saturday, August 12, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

WHERE: Church of the Nazarene at 1650 Ashbury Dr., Concord, CA

WHO: The forum is co-hosted by the ACLU of Northern California; Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE); Contra Costa AFL-CIO Central Labor Council; Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition (CCCRJC); Courage Campaign; #cut50; Democratic Party of Contra Costa County; East County NAACP; Safe Return Project; and Smart Justice California

According to their website, the ACCE “is a grassroots, member-led, statewide community organization working with more than 10,000 members across California…dedicated to raising the voices of everyday Californians, neighborhood by neighborhood, to fight for the policies and programs we need to improve our communities and create a brighter future” such as raising taxes on businesses and individuals to increase funding for education, working to preserve and expand affordable housing, and “raise the floor on wages and benefits.”

On the CCCRJC website it states that the organization is opposed to the expansion of the West County Detention Center.

The Courage Campaign states on their website that it “fights for a more progressive California and country” by focusing on three priorities of economic justice, human rights, and corporate and political accountability.

The mission of #cut50 is to “making communities safer while reducing the number of people in our prisons and jails.”

The press release also states that, “at a public hearing on August 1, the coalition pleaded with the County Board of Supervisors to adopt an open and transparent selection process for choosing the interim District Attorney that includes a community selection committee. The coalition urged the Board to avoid conflicts of interest by revealing whether they have ever received an endorsement or monetary support from any of the candidates, and pressed the supervisors to develop a system for ranking the candidates based on their qualifications and alignment with local values, over a consensus-based decision-making model that could be swayed by backroom deals. The coalition had previously sent a letter requesting similar action to the Board on July 6th, which was never acknowledged.”

A spokesperson for the coalition, Director of Contra Costa County Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) David Sharples, said, “We want a district attorney who reflects the values of Contra Costa voters. The selection process should focus on whether each candidate is qualified for the job, aligns with local values, has the highest level of ethical standards, and is ready to take on the challenges faced by our community, not the candidate who is the most well-connected. If the board won’t be transparent about this process, then we will go straight to the candidates so they have every opportunity to explain where they stand on the issues and why they are the best candidate.”

The coalition’s press release concluded with the following: “Contra Costa voters have bucked the position of their District Attorney and repeatedly voted for meaningful criminal justice reform over the last several elections. In 2012, 72 percent of county residents voted in favor of Proposition 36, which reformed California’s Three Strikes Law; in 2014, 66 percent of voters supported Proposition 47, which substantially reduced the penalties for several crimes; in 2016, 69 percent voted in favor of Proposition 57, which significantly expanded early parole opportunities for people serving time in California prisons; and 61 percent voted in favor of Proposition 64, which legalized marijuana and retroactively invalidated several types of prior marijuana-related criminal convictions.”

Supervisors plan to appoint Interim DA by Sept. 19 draws criticism

By 2 Comments

Ordinance on illegal solid waste collection postponed

By Daniel Borsuk

With the field of interim Contra Costa County District Attorney candidates pared down from 12 to 5, Contra Costa County Supervisors made it clear on Tuesday they’re determined to select an interim DA by Sept. 19, even in the face of increasing public criticism over the selection process.

On a 5-0 vote supervisors selected for further consideration Contra Costa Judge Diana Beckton, Contra Costa Judge Daniella Douglas, Contra Costa Assistant District Attorney Tom Kensok, Contra Costa Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves and Santa Clara Supervising Deputy District Attorney Patrick Vanier.

Candidates not making the cut were former Contra Costa prosecutor and current private attorney David Brown, San Francisco deputy district attorney John Delgado, Contra Costa Bar Association Criminal Conflict Program Attorney William Green, private attorney Richard Madsen Jr., San Francisco assistant DA since 1996 Michael Menesini, Stanislaus County Prosecutor Brad Nix, and 50-year prosecutor veteran with the Alameda and Los Angeles DA offices Michael Roemer.

With the two judges as candidates, supervisors learned there might be a potential legal barrier where Judge Beckton and Judge Douglas might be found in violation of a state conflict of interest ruling that a sitting Superior Court justice cannot simultaneously serve as a county DA.  The supervisors decided to have each judge weigh in on whether they are in violation of the state conflict of interest law during the upcoming August 15 finalist interviews.

Supervisors forged ahead showing scant concern that there could potentially be a court injunction filed blocking their process to fill the $258,181 a year DA post that was vacated in mid-June when then DA Mark Peterson resigned from office after pleading in Contra Costa Superior Court to 15 felony charges that he illegally spent $66,000 of campaign funds for personal use.

In exchange for a no contest plea Peterson was sentenced to three years probation.  State prosecutors dropped 11 other counts of perjury and one count of grand theft.  The State Bar of California took steps to disbar Peterson last week.

Critics accused supervisors of privately meeting or consulting with interim DA candidates and some opponents said it is pointless to appoint a short-term DA when county voters could be electing a new DA next year.

“There is no need for the board to appoint an interim DA within a year of an election,” protested Marcie Garrett of El Cerrito.

“The Democratic Party of Contra Costa County calls for the board of supervisors to delay action to another date,” said Maria Alegria, chair of the county Democratic Party.

Alegria said the board needs to do more work to screen candidates because of the county DA office’s history of misconduct.  She referred to the recent Peterson case and the 2008 rape case involving DA Michael Gressett, who was accused of raping a junior DA colleague that resulted in a $450,000 out of court settlement.

Mainly because of the DA office’s track record, Walnut Creek resident Julie Davis commented, “I prefer that you consider candidates not in the Contra Costa District Attorney Office.  I’d prefer candidates from outside.  Your selection process is long, yet needs more transparency.”

Concerned about the rising human trafficking situation in the county, Judith Tannenbaum pitched to supervisors that they need to select Contra Costa Office Deputy Senior DA Paul Graves because of his work combatting human trafficking.

Concord Police Chief Guy Swanger representing the Contra Costa Police Chiefs Association encouraged supervisors to select an interim DA who will cooperate with police departments.  “Whoever you choose make sure your choice will work with us,” he said.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill attempted to defended the transparency criticism lodged against the board.  “This is a transparent process the board is using.  Everything is online,” she said.

Mitchoff also said state law requires the board of supervisors to appoint an interim DA under the circumstances the county faces.

“This is a challenging situation and ultimately the people of Contra Costa county will have to decide who will be their DA,” said District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville.

“We’re not going to please everyone, but I look for someone who will defend racial justice, is fair, shows leadership style, and can move forward,” Board Chair Federal Glover of Pittsburg added.

Mitchoff was surprised to learn that the Bay Area Newspaper Group had filed in the past two days a public records request that the county disclose personal information that the five finalists provided in their applications.   The newspaper group had complained the county had redacted personal information and that it should now be public information.  That information will now be unredacted.

Ordinance on Illegal Solid Waste Collection Postponed

In other business, supervisors postponed action until their August 15 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would take aim at cracking down on the illegal solid waste collection and transportation operations in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.

The county environmental health department has identified more than 41 illegal solid waste transfer stations located in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county and 32 of those operations have been closed down, since early 2015.

In order to regulate the solid waste collection industry, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department has been developing an ordinance where persons engaged in this business in the county would be required to apply for permits, have collection and transport vehicles undergo inspections, and operators must post bond.

Supervisors narrow list of Interim District Attorney applicants to five

By 1 Comment

County to Host Public Forum on Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Five applicants remain under consideration to serve as the Interim District Attorney for Contra Costa County. The Board of Supervisors found all 12 applicants to be highly qualified, but during its August 1, 2017, public meeting, decided that only five individuals would move on to the next stage of the selection process. The finalists will be invited to participate in a moderated discussion to be held on Tuesday, August 15, beginning at 6:00 p.m. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments in advance beginning at 5:00 p.m.

The five applicants continuing in the process are: Diana Becton, Danielle Douglas, Paul Graves, Thomas Kensok and Patrick Vanier. Application materials for all 12 of the original applicants are available online. Background investigations will now be conducted on the five finalists. (See the related article.)

At the public forum on August 15, a discussion with the applicants will take place, moderated by former Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Steve Weir. The forum will be held in the Board of Supervisors Chamber at 651 Pine Street in Martinez. While the public will have an opportunity to offer questions and comments that evening, you can also provide your input electronically prior to the event. Find out how at the District Attorney Recruitment Information website. If you are unable to attend the forum in person, it will also be televised live on CCTV and streamed live online.

The June 14 resignation of Mark Peterson from the position of District Attorney created a vacancy that will extend until the current term of office expires on January 7, 2019. The next election for the District Attorney will take place in June of 2018, with a potential runoff election in November of 2018.

Following the August 15th public forum, the Board of Supervisors will interview the final applicants at the September 12th public meeting; a decision could be made that day, or possibly at the following meeting on September 19, 2017.

County Supervisors approve ordinance limiting flavored tobacco retail sales

By 1 Comment

Begin review of marijuana regulations

By Daniel Borsuk

Retailers of menthol and flavored tobacco products that are located within 1,000 feet of a public, private school, playground, park, or library in Contra Costa County will be required to sell off their inventory by the end of 2017 now that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on Tuesday to approve an ordinance creating tobacco sales restrictions and a cap on tobacco retail licenses.

Supervisors limited the number of tobacco retailers in unincorporated Contra Costa at 90.

Supervisors drafted the ordinance after conducting public hearings on how menthol and flavored tobacco products have serious health consequences for teenagers congregating at schools, playgrounds, parks or libraries that are within 1,000 feet from a store selling those tobacco products that are known to lead to heart and cancer health problems later on in life.

Some of the ordinance’s provisions include:

  • Failure to obey the new law could mean a retail license suspension of 30 days for the first violation, up to 90 days for a second violation within two years after the first violation, and up to one year for a third and subsequent violation within two years after the first violation.
  • Although the county tobacco law sets requirements on the how retailers sell cigars, including little cigars that must be sold in a package of at least 10 cigars, the ordinance states “This requirement does not apply to cigars that have a sale price of at least $5.”
  • The ordinance bans retailers from posting tobacco displays on their premises.
  • The law prohibits pharmacies from selling tobacco products.
  • The ordinance also requires retailers to “examine the identification of a person who reasonably appears to under the age of 27 before the tobacco retailers sells tobacco products or paraphernalia to that person.”

“The National Association of Tobacco Outlets opposes this ordinance,” said Jaime Rojas, a NATO representative, “because it represents a bad case of government overreach. You are forcing retailers to sell off an inventory within six months or face consequences.”

“You are taking a big step towards improving public health,” said Dr. Phillip Gardner of the University of California at San Francisco.  He hailed the supervisors action because it will help reduce the influence of menthol flavored tobacco products especially on the African American community.

During the supervisors’ meeting, nothing was disclosed about how the ordinance will be enforced between the Sheriff’s Department, Health Department and perhaps Planning Department and at what cost to county taxpayers.

“Currently we have no idea what the costs will be to enforce this ordinance,” County Administrator David Twa told the Contra Costa Herald after supervisors voted.  “Just wait when the board adopts the recreational marijuana ordinance (see item below).  Expenses will go up dramatically then.”

“We will not begin enforcement on whether a retailer is within the 1,000-foot buffer until Jan. 1,” said District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville.

In the meantime, the passage of the ordinance put retailers on notice they should not be reordering flavored tobacco products if they are located within the 1,000-foot buffer zone, said District 1 Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond.

Review of Marijuana Regulations

In other business, Supervisors also kickstarted the review process on how to regulate commercial cannabis enterprises in unincorporated Contra Costa County in compliance with the voter approved State Proposition 64, the legalization of recreational marijuana sales.

During the presentation, supervisors were shown eight preliminary land use maps of where outdoor and indoor cannabis enterprises could potentially operate in unincorporated county.

Planning officials were instructed to present at a future meeting revised land used maps showing other buffer configurations.

The board voted 5-0 to permit County Administrator David Twa to negotiate with the consulting firm of Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates to prepare a study with recommendations on options for taxation for various cannabis activities.

Twa did not disclose what the county will pay the Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates because the price has yet to be negotiated.  Twa said information from the Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates study would be used to draft a proposed countywide cannabis tax measure that would need to go before voters at the next general election, November 2018.

“If the tax fails to pass, so does the marijuana law in the county,” Twa told supervisors.

Gita Dombroski, owner of an Oakland cannabis nursery who said he has $4 million in the bank and wants to expand his nursery operations into Contra Costa County, warned supervisors that they are heading in the wrong direction by potentially levying high taxes.

“You need to be realistic. Your taxes are going to be too be too high and they will dissuade prospective businesses from coming to your county,” he said.

Instead of investing in Contra Costa County, Dombroski said he will open up another nursery in Oakland.

Cannabis proponent Max Fogarty objected to the county proposal of establishing a 1,000-foot buffer between cannabis businesses and public and private schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries, and a 500 foot distance from existing tobacco retail establishments.

“Why 1,000 feet from a school, playground or library.  It does not make sense,” said Fogarty

“Not everyone feels the way you do. We need to protect our communities” said Gioia in defense of the buffers.

Supervisor Glover announces $1.3 million in Keller Canyon grants to the community

By Leave a Comment

Youth activities, health improvement, safety strategies, senior meals and beautification efforts in Bay Point, Pittsburg and Antioch benefited from the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation grants.

Over $1.3 million were awarded to community-based organizations and public agencies, including county departments, from the grant program administered by the District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover. The grants were approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, Tuesday morning, July 18.

“I’m inspired by the number of good people doing good work to enhance our community,” said Glover. “They sometimes get overlooked by the media, but they continue to work behind the scenes to help our young people, the elderly, the hungry and the sickly.”

The mitigation fund was negotiated by the County in the 1980s to offset the impact of having the landfill in Keller Canyon, just south of Pittsburg and Bay Point off of Bailey Road. The amount of the fund is based on the tonnage of debris, waste and trash brought to the dumpsite.

Some of the programs receiving grants this year include:

•         Antioch Arts & Cultural Foundation;

•         Opportunity Junction job training and placement program;

•         Crossing guards for Bay Point schools;

•         Feeding programs for senior citizens;

•         Code enforcement and beautification efforts;

•         Violence prevention programs; and

•         Tutoring programs for youth

“The programs and services offered by these agencies help improve the quality of life in our community,” said Glover.

For a complete list of the grants, click here.

Supervisors slap distance limits on tobacco retailers

By Leave a Comment

Accept Grand Jury report on overcrowded Antioch Animal Shelter

By Daniel Borsuk

Up to 94 retailers of tobacco products located in unincorporated parts of Contra Costa County will need to comply with a new ordinance designed to protect youth from using tobacco products, a leading cause of heart and lung disease related deaths in the United States.

County supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday in approving a Tobacco Retailer Ordinance, a law that took two years in the development process at the Planning Commission level until earlier this month when the commission passed a resolution recommending that supervisors reject the proposed law.

The Planning Commission’s resolution stated denial is based on “the proposed Tobacco Retail Business Ordinance is not necessary and places an undue burden on existing tobacco retailer businesses.”

But county supervisors did not accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reject the ordinance. 

When supervisors initially received the Tobacco Retailer Ordinance it included a 10-year non-conforming use provision, but supervisors decided to eject that clause on grounds it would be too much of an economic burden on store owners that was lobbied by retail groups like the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO).

Even then Jaimie Rojas of NATO criticized the ordinance saying it is an example of “government overreach.”  Rojas said the ordinance will also spark economic impacts by forcing retail owners to lay off employees and will “ignite consumer confusion.”

The Tobacco Retailer Ordinance imposes distance limits on existing and new tobacco retailers and operators of hookah lounges and vapor lounges even though there are no hookah and vapor lounges in operation in the unincorporated areas of the county.

The county ordinance prohibits new tobacco retailers from being located within 500 feet of any other existing tobacco retailer, hookah lounge or vapor lounge.  The new law that goes into effect next month, also prohibits these new businesses from being located 1,000 feet of a public or private school, playground, park or library.

Existing businesses can be within 500 feet of another existing tobacco retailer or within 1,000 feet of a school, park, playground or library, but the retailer, hookah lounge or vapor lounge owner but will not be permitted to expand its tobacco retail use.

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond hailed the ordinance commenting “There will be no new ones (i.e. tobacco retailers) in unincorporated Contra Costa County.”

Next week supervisors are expected to adopt an ordinance with similar distance requirements to be applied to tobacco retailers selling flavored tobacco products marketed heavily to youth under the legal smoking age of 21.

The supervisors’ action is expected to trigger action from city councils around the county to pass similar ordinances designed to clamp down on the 636 tobacco retail, hookah lounge and vapor lounge businesses in incorporated areas.

“I think I have been a leader on this issue,” proclaimed board chair Federal Glover whose District 5 includes Bay Point that has one of the highest concentrations of tobacco retailers, 16, located nearby schools, parks, playgrounds or libraries.  “I am also pleased with the ordinance’s grandfathering provision,” he said.

District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood said she was concerned about how the ordinance’s 500-foot limit might have a major economic impact on retailers in a small tourist town like Bethel Island.

“I don’t want it to punish these businesses,” Burgis said.

District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville branded the ordinance as being “reasonable” based on how the new law will stymy new tobacco retail businesses from opening within close proximity of existing businesses or from being located within 1,000 feet from a school, playground, park, or and library. 

The supervisor said it is mainly because of the easy availability or accessibility of tobacco products that “It’s shocking to see 12, 13, and 14-year-old little league baseball players chomping on chewing tobacco during games.”

Grand Jury Report on Antioch Animal Shelter

Supervisors accepted a Civil Grand Jury report on the over-populated Antioch Animal Shelter. 

The City operated shelter has been regularly over-populated with dogs and cats, of which many of the animals are dropped off by out-of-town Antioch residents.  In 2016, the average daily animal count at the shelter was 196, when the recommended daily animal count based by the American Humane Society should be 101 at 2017 daily standards.

To help remedy the animal overpopulation problem at the shelter, the grand jury asked the Board of Supervisors to respond to two recommendations. 

One recommendation calls on county supervisors to consider funding a study to “examine the feasibility of establishing a county shelter in east county.”

The second recommendation suggests that the City of Antioch and county negotiate a memorandum of understanding whereby the Antioch shelter accepts all animals, but animals identified as non-city of Antioch animals should be regularly picked up by County Animal Control Officers and transported to the county shelter. 

County organizations ask Supervisors for transparent process in Interim DA appointment

By Leave a Comment

Following is an open letter to the Board of Supervisors from the organizations in Contra Costa County, listed below:

Dear Chairman Glover, and Supervisors Andersen, Burgis, Gioia, and Mitchoff,

We the undersigned would first like to commend the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for holding the special June 23rd meeting to discuss the appointment process for our next district attorney and for posting the process and timeline on the county website. While we believe your intent is to engage in a transparent, community-first process to appoint the interim DA of our county, we have serious concerns about the current process as laid out.

In our June 22, 2017 letter to the Board, we expressed an interest in a transparent, community-first and community driven process to appoint the next DA. To us, this means the community is included in ALL decision-making points and is able to weigh in on substantive policy questions posed to each applicant. As currently outlined, we believe the process you have laid out excludes community input and fails to deliver on the promise of transparency.

Specifically, page 2 of the June 23rd press release[1] issued by the County Administrator’s Office states, “With applications due July 21, the Board of Supervisors will select finalists in early August. The Board of Supervisors will host a moderated candidate forum at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.” This indicates that while the community will be allowed to ask questions of finalists selected by the Board, the community will have no involvement in the selection of finalists from the initial pool of applicants. We believe that narrowing the pool to 3-5 candidates is a critical first step and involvement from the community in this step, and all other steps until appointment, is essential to rebuilding trust.

To remedy this, we urge the Board of Supervisors to revisit the interim DA appointment process before July 21 by placing it on a July meeting agenda and consider some options, including:

  • Create a community selection committee comprised of community leaders, reflective and representing the geographic and demographic diversity of the county, as well as representatives from the following constituencies and/or organizations: criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, formerly incarcerated individuals, victims’ rights, the Public Defender Union, the District Attorney Union, labor, consumer rights and law enforcement. This committee will be responsible for formulating questions for applicants to answer as part of the application process. This committee will also work with the Board in early August to select the finalists and the final rationale for why applicants were, or were not, selected as finalists.
  • Host at least two community forums with applicants, one which will include all applicants and a second which will include the finalists.
  • Disclose the following information in a timely manner: any past or present endorsement, campaign contribution, private meeting, and/or personal dealing between any member of the Board of Supervisors and any applicant for interim DA.
  • Require all applicants for interim DA to disclose if they share the same political consultant and/or fundraiser with any members of the Board of Supervisors.

We the undersigned and the residents of Contra Costa County demand integrity from our Board of Supervisors in this process. We will not stand for corruption, closed door meetings or the doling out of favors. It is important to remember that the DA is an elected official and is ultimately accountable to us, the voters. We are fully aware that whomever the Board appoints to be our interim DA will have the advantage of incumbency come the June 2018 election. It is for this reason that the Board must include the community in all phases of the process and why we continue to advocate for a fully transparent and community-first process.

If the Board refuses to modify the process and address the concerns outlined in this letter, the public will not let the Board move forward without significant resistance.

Thank you again for your consideration of our requests and we look forward to re-establishing trust between the community and government by way of a modified process. If you have any questions for our coalition, please contact Sharlee Battle from Safe Return Project at SharleeBattle@gmail.com.

Thank you,

County Supervisors begin recruitment for interim District Attorney

By 1 Comment

Board seeks input; goal to fill position in September

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors met Friday, June 23, 2017, to determine the process for filling the vacant office of the District Attorney.  When a vacancy occurs in an elective county office, the Board of Supervisors has the responsibility to appoint a successor to serve for the duration of the unexpired term.   The June 14, 2017 resignation of Mark Peterson from the position of District Attorney created a vacancy that would extend until the current term of office expires on January 7, 2019.  The next election for the District Attorney will take place in June of 2018, with a potential runoff election in November of 2018.

The Office of District Attorney is provided in the State Constitution.  The District Attorney represents the people of the County in prosecuting all public offenses in the Superior Courts, including all felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile criminal offenses, and certain civil offenses, including high-tech crimes, environmental crimes, and many instances of fraud.

Although the Board of Supervisors has discretion in how to fill the position, there are some minimum requirements for the job.   To qualify, a candidate must be at least 18 years old, a California citizen, a registered voter in Contra Costa County at the time of appointment, and admitted to practice law in the California Supreme Court.   The Board of Supervisors is seeking candidates with experience in criminal law, familiarity with criminal justice issues in California, and the ability to effectively manage a County department with an annual budget of $19.5 million and more than 200 employees.

All applicants must apply online at www.cccounty.us/hr and submit the information as indicated on the job announcement no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 21, 2017.  NOTE that a background investigation/fingerprint exam will be conducted on all finalists, and a permanent job offer is additionally contingent upon the successful completion of a thorough background investigation, which will include a criminal records investigation and an economic disclosure (FPPC Form 700).

The legislature does not specify a deadline for making an appointment like this, but according to the California Attorney General, the appointment should be made within a “reasonable time.”   With applications due July 21, the Board of Supervisors will select finalists in early August.  The Board of Supervisors will host a moderated candidate forum at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.  Members of the public will be invited to submit questions for consideration that may be asked of the finalist candidates.   The Board will interview those candidates during a public meeting on Tuesday, September 12, with the goal of making a selection in September as well.

The June 23 meeting of the Board of Supervisors is available online in the video library found on the County’s homepage at www.ContraCosta.CA.gov.   It will also be replayed in its entirety on Sunday, June 25, at 6:00 p.m., Monday, June 26, at 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, June 29, at 6:00 p.m. on Contra Costa Television (CCTV.) CCTV can be viewed on Comcast Channel 27, Wave Channel 32, and AT&T U-Verse on Channel 99.

 

Groups recommend process for appointing Interim Contra Costa District Attorney

By Leave a Comment

Following is a letter from six groups in the county to the members of the Board of Supervisors:

Dear Chairman Glover and Supervisors Andersen, Burgis, Gioia and Mitchoff,

Our community was shocked and angered last week to hear that former District Attorney Mark Peterson pled guilty to felony charges related to the illegal use of campaign funds, leading to his resignation. This unethical and dangerous abuse of power by the elected District Attorney is deeply concerning to us and we write today in the spirit of working to rebuild trust between local government in Contra Costa, including law enforcement and the District Attorney’s office, and the community they are meant to serve.

We believe a critical first step to rebuilding trust is for the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to engage in a fully transparent and community-centered process for appointing an interim District Attorney.

On behalf of Contra Costa County voters, we urge our Board to commit to a transparent, community-first process in making its selection of an interim District Attorney. In addition, we believe it is important for the Board to only consider applicants who have not filed to run in the June 2018 primary.

The District Attorney is one of the most powerful elected officials in county government and is the most powerful actor in our criminal justice system. The decisions made by the District Attorney impact every county resident, not just those who are directly involved in the criminal justice system. From determining when and what charges to file in individual cases; to making policy decisions that affect local communities as well as county and state budgets; to holding law enforcement accountable for unfair policies and practices, the Contra Costa District Attorney holds significant power and responsibility for the protection of our civil rights and freedoms.

For these reasons and more, it is critically important that our Board protect and uphold the right of the people of Contra Costa County to an inclusive and transparent process for appointment of an interim District Attorney.

In a transparent, community-first process, the Board of Supervisors should consider the following:

  1. Publicly post a proposed process and timeline for appointment of an interim District Attorney;
  2. Allow for public comment on the proposed process for appointment, consider comments, and post final process;
  3. Only consider applications for interim appointment from individuals who are not currently running for District Attorney of Contra Costa County in 2018;
  4. Solicit applications from lawyers in the community to apply for interim appointment and make submitted applications available for review by the public;
  5. Hold public hearings at times convenient to working people with commute schedules, to receive input about nominees and other recommendations; and
  6. Hold a final public hearing to vote for the interim District Attorney.

Due to the recent resignation and guilty plea by former District Attorney Mark Peterson, the people of Contra Costa County deserve transparency and fairness in the appointment of the interim District Attorney. It is incumbent upon the Board to begin to remedy the breakdown of trust between the community and government by taking the lead to ensure a fair and community-first process. We welcome the opportunity to support the efforts of our Board of Supervisors to achieve these very important goals.

Thank you,