TS - Letter to the Editor
On July 11, District Attorney Paul Gallegos appeared before Humboldt County's Code Enforcement Task Force and shared what the press reported as “his frustrations about” a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field” (Eureka Reporter, 7-12), and he isn't “comfortable with deputizing code enforcement investigators if they are not his employees” (Times-Standard, 7-12). As is often the case with Mr. Gallegos, the truth is otherwise.
For over seven years I was employed by the California District Attorneys Association as a “circuit prosecutor,” in which I was deputized by elected district attorneys in three counties, including by Gallegos. As my legal authority flowed from these elected DA's to me, at all times I answered in my actions as a deputy DA directly to them. On numerous occasions I pointed out this fact to my supervisors in Sacramento, who sometimes felt that they, as my employer, could direct me in my exercise of the DA's authority.
Mr. Gallegos seeks to have it both ways. He has deputized these peace officers, who act under his authority as code enforcement officers, yet claims he cannot control them as his deputies. This is hogwash. The solution is obvious: Insist that these deputies operate subject to his oversight or remove their authority.
It remains unfortunate that our chief law enforcement officer refuses to take responsibility for his actions, placing blame elsewhere. Citizens should rightly expect leadership and honesty, not platitudes and excuses.
Paul Hagen
Eureka
***
Update: July 22, 2008 Well! That drew a response from the long dormant Salzman Communications Director, once again struggling to defend Paul Gallegos. What don't you know? The Emperor's clothes are spun of the finest silk! With 24 karat gold embroidery on the hem, and the finest jewels on the bodice. Can't you see it? If you can't, according to the chief deceptor Michael Twombly, you must be a "disgruntled" ex-employee. One who was FIRED thanks to Gallegos. Michael Twombly must be the last rat on this sinking ship. Looks like he's trying to thwart anyone running against his boy.
Hagen should do his homework - Letter to the Editor
Mr. Hagen's screed about the District Attorney's problems with Humboldt's code officers (Hogwash, Mr. Gallegos) a is little but a disgruntled ex-employee's self-serving run-up to challenging Gallegos in the next DA election.
Mr. Hagen's circuit prosecutor position with the DA's Association in years past is not comparable to the “mutant structure” in which Gallegos has no legal authority over code enforcers, but as DA has official responsibility for their irresponsible, dangerous and provocative activities.
This is an obviously intolerable position for any district attorney and needs to be fixed.
In fact, Gallegos states that that deputies must either operate responsibly under his authority or lose their deputy status under the DA's office.
This seems pretty reasonable.
Mr. Hagen needs to do his homework before throwing his hogwash hat in the ring.
Michael Twombly
Bayside
Scared, Mr. Twombly. So quick to jump to the defense. Of the utterly indefensible.
Showing posts with label Code Enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Code Enforcement. Show all posts
7.22.2008
7.12.2008
Gallegos bemoans lack of authority over code enforcement
Gallegos bemoans lack of authority over code enforcement
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos told the Code Enforcement Task Force Friday that he is no longer comfortable with deputizing code enforcement investigators if they are not his employees.
He and his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reviewed the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office's involvement in the code enforcement process, which has been at the heart of a political firestorm in recent months.
Code enforcement investigators are deputized under his office, but Gallegos told the task force that because they are not his employees, he has little authority over them.
”I see it as analogous to the Sheriff's Department and the tribal police,” Gallegos said.
Tribal police officers are deputized by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, but are not department employees, and are therefore not supervised by the department command structure.
When the code enforcement investigators set up an operation, they submit a “raid plan” to Hislop that delineates how many officers will be on site, contingency plans and other surface details. That plan is reviewed and approved by him, but it does not outline the manner in which the raid will be conducted, Hislop said.
Prior to his arrival at the District Attorney's Office two years ago, there wasn't even that level of oversight from the office, Hislop said.
After such operations are completed, there are no reviews by the office of how the action went down.
Gallegos said he'd be willing to accept oversight of the program, and thereby take it away from the County Counsel's Office, if the Board of Supervisors requested it and if he were given the resources to meet the demand.
”I cannot afford to subsidize code enforcement by pulling people off of other law enforcement responsibilities,” he said.
Gallegos has temporarily suspended the deputization of code enforcement investigators while the task force looks into alleged excesses, including the unnecessary drawing of weapons.
Asked under what circumstances Gallegos would be comfortable deputizing those investigators again, Gallegos said that they would need to be his employees.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said that the current formulation of the code enforcement program, with the responsibility emanating from the County Counsel's Office, preserves the Board of Supervisors' nuisance abatement process and helps keep violations out of the realm of law enforcement.
The solution to the county's code enforcement conundrum will likely have to be a hybrid approach to preserve that process, and therefore not a wholesale transferring of the code enforcement authority to the District Attorney's Office, she said.
”The board recognizes that there were ... some deficiencies in this program,” she said, adding that the board is committed to working out the kinks, so the program can function as intended.
Toward the end of the meeting, Liz Davidson, one of three members of the task force from the Redway-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, asked fellow task force member -- and former code enforcement investigator -- Jack Bernstein if the investigators could effectively do their jobs without deputization.
Given the various roles code enforcement investigators play in this county, Bernstein said, the answer is no.
”For your safety, you have to have the police authority,” he said.
The assertion was vehemently challenged by task force member Bonnie Blackberry, also of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project: “We need guns here ... because why?”
Code enforcement investigators can ask for assistance at any time from the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, she said, so why do they need guns?
”I don't think I could say anything to you that would convince you that anyone should ever carry a gun,” he said.
But given the role the investigators play -- and the often dangerous situations they find themselves in -- they need to be able to protect themselves, he said.
James Faulk can be reached at jfaulk@times-standard.com or by calling 441-0511.
Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/12/2008 01:30:41 AM PDT
James Faulk/The Times-Standard
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos told the Code Enforcement Task Force Friday that he is no longer comfortable with deputizing code enforcement investigators if they are not his employees.
He and his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reviewed the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office's involvement in the code enforcement process, which has been at the heart of a political firestorm in recent months.
Code enforcement investigators are deputized under his office, but Gallegos told the task force that because they are not his employees, he has little authority over them.
”I see it as analogous to the Sheriff's Department and the tribal police,” Gallegos said.
Tribal police officers are deputized by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, but are not department employees, and are therefore not supervised by the department command structure.
When the code enforcement investigators set up an operation, they submit a “raid plan” to Hislop that delineates how many officers will be on site, contingency plans and other surface details. That plan is reviewed and approved by him, but it does not outline the manner in which the raid will be conducted, Hislop said.
Prior to his arrival at the District Attorney's Office two years ago, there wasn't even that level of oversight from the office, Hislop said.
After such operations are completed, there are no reviews by the office of how the action went down.
Gallegos said he'd be willing to accept oversight of the program, and thereby take it away from the County Counsel's Office, if the Board of Supervisors requested it and if he were given the resources to meet the demand.
”I cannot afford to subsidize code enforcement by pulling people off of other law enforcement responsibilities,” he said.
Gallegos has temporarily suspended the deputization of code enforcement investigators while the task force looks into alleged excesses, including the unnecessary drawing of weapons.
Asked under what circumstances Gallegos would be comfortable deputizing those investigators again, Gallegos said that they would need to be his employees.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said that the current formulation of the code enforcement program, with the responsibility emanating from the County Counsel's Office, preserves the Board of Supervisors' nuisance abatement process and helps keep violations out of the realm of law enforcement.
The solution to the county's code enforcement conundrum will likely have to be a hybrid approach to preserve that process, and therefore not a wholesale transferring of the code enforcement authority to the District Attorney's Office, she said.
”The board recognizes that there were ... some deficiencies in this program,” she said, adding that the board is committed to working out the kinks, so the program can function as intended.
Toward the end of the meeting, Liz Davidson, one of three members of the task force from the Redway-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, asked fellow task force member -- and former code enforcement investigator -- Jack Bernstein if the investigators could effectively do their jobs without deputization.
Given the various roles code enforcement investigators play in this county, Bernstein said, the answer is no.
”For your safety, you have to have the police authority,” he said.
The assertion was vehemently challenged by task force member Bonnie Blackberry, also of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project: “We need guns here ... because why?”
Code enforcement investigators can ask for assistance at any time from the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, she said, so why do they need guns?
”I don't think I could say anything to you that would convince you that anyone should ever carry a gun,” he said.
But given the role the investigators play -- and the often dangerous situations they find themselves in -- they need to be able to protect themselves, he said.
James Faulk can be reached at jfaulk@times-standard.com or by calling 441-0511.
Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/12/2008 01:30:41 AM PDT
James Faulk/The Times-Standard
ER District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
6.28.2008
TS Task force takes steps toward compiling final report
Task force takes steps toward compiling final report
EUREKA -- The Humboldt County Code Enforcement Task Force has taken the first steps toward compiling a report to the board of supervisors, but it may not be done until late September.
The members voted unanimously Friday to ask the board to extend of the task force and the moratorium on inspection warrants until Sept. 26.
The extension will allow more time to arrange a session with Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. Gallegos, as part of the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee, had been invited to appear before the task force at Friday's meeting, but was not present.
Second District Supervisor Johanna Rodoni suggested -- and the balance of the task force agreed -- that a second, strong invitation be issued to the district attorney.
”I think we need to emphasize they're a critical piece of this,” she said.
Part of that urgency deals with which county department will house the code enforcement unit and the district attorney's concerns over granting police powers to Code Enforcement Unit officers.
The task force scheduled its next meeting for the afternoon of July 9 from 1:30 to 4 p.m. to better accommodate Gallegos' schedule.
Meanwhile each of the members will begin the process of drafting findings and recommendations for the final report, a process that is likely to continue through several sessions. And there's more information to gather.
Liz Davidson, one of three Civil Liberties Monitoring Project presentatives on the task force, expressed a desire to converse with Sheriff Gary Philp, Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard and the district attorney.
”I see the need for at least one more meeting for information gathering,” she said.
The task force agreed earlier to devote one of its sessions to review of the code enforcement manual.
However, the information gathering proceeded Friday with 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith's testimony on his attendance at Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee meetings. The committee is comprised of County Counsel representatives, supervisors John Woolley and Smith, the sheriff and the chief building representative.
Smith said his primary reason for attending these meetings was to track projects within the 1st District. But the supervisor wasn't able to shed light on inspection warrant-related questions that have emerged at most of the task force's sessions, including what triggers a warrant that allows inspection without advance notice and what role does the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee play in that determination?
”None, that I know of,” Smith said.
The challenge, 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist reiterated, has been ascertaining who determines what necessitates an inspection warrant. As of yet, that question remains unanswered.
But, Smith did recount his own experiences making numerous visits to sites with problems in his district including one that offered a glimpse of the potential danger CEU officers may face. He had been keeping tabs on a health and safety violation in the Pine Hill area -- essentially garbage accumulation -- on his way home. One day, one of the residents repeatedly used his hand to simulate gunfire in Smith's direction.
Despite such occasional animosity, the CEU has been remarkably successfully in their efforts despite a small staff, Smith said.
”Without the Code Enforcement Unit,” he said, “I think we'd be in a lot more trouble.”
Jessie Faulkner/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 06/28/2008 01:15:38 AM PDT
EUREKA -- The Humboldt County Code Enforcement Task Force has taken the first steps toward compiling a report to the board of supervisors, but it may not be done until late September.
The members voted unanimously Friday to ask the board to extend of the task force and the moratorium on inspection warrants until Sept. 26.
The extension will allow more time to arrange a session with Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. Gallegos, as part of the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee, had been invited to appear before the task force at Friday's meeting, but was not present.
Second District Supervisor Johanna Rodoni suggested -- and the balance of the task force agreed -- that a second, strong invitation be issued to the district attorney.
”I think we need to emphasize they're a critical piece of this,” she said.
Part of that urgency deals with which county department will house the code enforcement unit and the district attorney's concerns over granting police powers to Code Enforcement Unit officers.
The task force scheduled its next meeting for the afternoon of July 9 from 1:30 to 4 p.m. to better accommodate Gallegos' schedule.
Meanwhile each of the members will begin the process of drafting findings and recommendations for the final report, a process that is likely to continue through several sessions. And there's more information to gather.
Liz Davidson, one of three Civil Liberties Monitoring Project presentatives on the task force, expressed a desire to converse with Sheriff Gary Philp, Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard and the district attorney.
”I see the need for at least one more meeting for information gathering,” she said.
The task force agreed earlier to devote one of its sessions to review of the code enforcement manual.
However, the information gathering proceeded Friday with 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith's testimony on his attendance at Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee meetings. The committee is comprised of County Counsel representatives, supervisors John Woolley and Smith, the sheriff and the chief building representative.
Smith said his primary reason for attending these meetings was to track projects within the 1st District. But the supervisor wasn't able to shed light on inspection warrant-related questions that have emerged at most of the task force's sessions, including what triggers a warrant that allows inspection without advance notice and what role does the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee play in that determination?
”None, that I know of,” Smith said.
The challenge, 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist reiterated, has been ascertaining who determines what necessitates an inspection warrant. As of yet, that question remains unanswered.
But, Smith did recount his own experiences making numerous visits to sites with problems in his district including one that offered a glimpse of the potential danger CEU officers may face. He had been keeping tabs on a health and safety violation in the Pine Hill area -- essentially garbage accumulation -- on his way home. One day, one of the residents repeatedly used his hand to simulate gunfire in Smith's direction.
Despite such occasional animosity, the CEU has been remarkably successfully in their efforts despite a small staff, Smith said.
”Without the Code Enforcement Unit,” he said, “I think we'd be in a lot more trouble.”
Jessie Faulkner/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 06/28/2008 01:15:38 AM PDT
4.25.2008
McKP - Mintz on Code Enforcement
Capping a process that has been ongoing but was quickened by recent controversies, District Attorney Paul Gallegos has notified the county that he’s rescinded the deputy DA status of code enforcement officers.
Collaborations between the county’s two-man Code Enforcement Unit and police has triggered criticism and at a recent community meeting in Garberville and an April 8 Board of Supervisors hearing, it was loud and impassioned. Supervisors responded to it by ordering a 45-day stop to code inspections done under warrants, and Gallegos has informed the county he’s done something he says he’s been trying to do for awhile – remove code officers’ deputy DA status.
Members of the Code Enforcement Unit carry guns and have police authority under the deputization, which has been in place since 1994. The code unit operates as an arm of the County Counsel’s Office, however, not under Gallegos. It has become a conspicuous issue with dissatisfaction over the handling of recent warrant actions by code unit officers accompanied by Sheriff’s deputies.
At the April 4 Garberville meeting organized by the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project (CLMP), hundreds of residents vented and questioned a panel of law enforcers that included Gallegos and Jeff Conner, one of his deputies. Gallegos was pointedly asked about his office’s deputization of code officers, and he told a sometimes hostile crowd that it’s an arrangement he also has doubts about.
“It was suggested that since I do not have authority of the investigators, that I rescind my deputization authority. I said that was a fair request because I thought it was,” Gallegos said in an e-mail exchange. “Accordingly, after that meeting, I notified county counsel that I was rescinding my deputization of County Counsel’s Investigators.”
In an interview last week, Sheriff Gary Philp said he’s also concerned about how his deputies are supervised when they work with the code unit. The teaming of code officers and his deputies has become “more and more frequent,” he continued.
How Gallegos’s decision will be implemented is somewhat uncertain. Assistant County Administrative Officer Philip Smith Hanes said there has been internal discussion on it, but no resolution. “I believe where the issue was left is that (code officers) are just not going to carry guns under Paul’s authority until we get this straightened out,” he continued.
Gallegos said he has tried to change the way things are done and took action after a series of code unit/police encounters with residents of the Elk Ridge and Woods Ranch areas inflamed the issue. “There have been discussions about deputization being done by the Sheriff’s office instead of my office because if I am going to deputize them, I want them as my employees,” Gallegos said. “There was delay. Then there was delay. Then there were the incidents in Southern Humboldt.”
Gallegos explained why he took action. “I did not do because I believe they or anyone did anything wrong,” he said. “I am not in a position to say whether they did or did not. Nor should my action be seen as indicating that, if they became my employees, I would not deputize them to allow them to carry firearms. That would depend on the nature of their work and the need for such weapons. It was done because I felt I could not allow the arrangement which I perceived to be ill-conceived, at least as it related to my responsibility and authority, to continue any longer.”
Asked about the incidents people have complained about, he said, “I have done some cursory informal inquiries into some of the incidents but have not reviewed any report yet.”
County Counsel Wendy Chaitin was out of town and unavailable for comment. Members of the code unit have declined comment. Richard Hendry, a deputy county counsel and deputy DA who represents the county in code enforcement cases, said that he wasn’t at the Garberville meeting, but he did hear the public testimony at the April 8 supervisors hearing.
None of the departments involved were asked to respond to it, and Hendry questioned the accuracy of the portrayals. “I think there’s been misconception, to a great extent, on what happened and who was involved,” he said. “Some of the descriptions of what took place didn’t happen the way they were portrayed.”
The code unit’s actions and its cases are reviewed every month by an oversight committee made up of the county’s environmental health director, county counsel, the DA’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department and the chief building inspector. Hendry added that the code unit operates under a policies and procedures manual, whose contents have been under review for about a year. “We’ve been looking at it and thinking of ways to improve the program, and in light of recent public hearings, that’s something we need to continue to do,” he said.
Policy and procedure changes are likely to be recommended by the task force that will convene during the 45-day warrant inspection freeze. Made up of three members of CLMP, Board of Supervisors Chairman Jill Geist, Supervisors Roger Rodoni, the county’s administrative office and three “at large” members appointed by supervisors, the task force will be authorized at this week’s supervisors meeting. That action marks the start of the 45-day moratorium.
At the April 15 supervisors meeting, a previous approval of the moratorium was clarified as not being applicable to code inspections that are done under property owners’ consent. Roby Tenorio of CLMP told supervisors that the involvement of police – and guns – is the root of the controversy.
“Our main concern is the use of law enforcement and the lack coordinated supervision,” she said, adding that the situation opens “potential for a very, very serious problem.”
By Daniel Mintz
Press Staff Writer
Collaborations between the county’s two-man Code Enforcement Unit and police has triggered criticism and at a recent community meeting in Garberville and an April 8 Board of Supervisors hearing, it was loud and impassioned. Supervisors responded to it by ordering a 45-day stop to code inspections done under warrants, and Gallegos has informed the county he’s done something he says he’s been trying to do for awhile – remove code officers’ deputy DA status.
Members of the Code Enforcement Unit carry guns and have police authority under the deputization, which has been in place since 1994. The code unit operates as an arm of the County Counsel’s Office, however, not under Gallegos. It has become a conspicuous issue with dissatisfaction over the handling of recent warrant actions by code unit officers accompanied by Sheriff’s deputies.
At the April 4 Garberville meeting organized by the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project (CLMP), hundreds of residents vented and questioned a panel of law enforcers that included Gallegos and Jeff Conner, one of his deputies. Gallegos was pointedly asked about his office’s deputization of code officers, and he told a sometimes hostile crowd that it’s an arrangement he also has doubts about.
“It was suggested that since I do not have authority of the investigators, that I rescind my deputization authority. I said that was a fair request because I thought it was,” Gallegos said in an e-mail exchange. “Accordingly, after that meeting, I notified county counsel that I was rescinding my deputization of County Counsel’s Investigators.”
In an interview last week, Sheriff Gary Philp said he’s also concerned about how his deputies are supervised when they work with the code unit. The teaming of code officers and his deputies has become “more and more frequent,” he continued.
How Gallegos’s decision will be implemented is somewhat uncertain. Assistant County Administrative Officer Philip Smith Hanes said there has been internal discussion on it, but no resolution. “I believe where the issue was left is that (code officers) are just not going to carry guns under Paul’s authority until we get this straightened out,” he continued.
Gallegos said he has tried to change the way things are done and took action after a series of code unit/police encounters with residents of the Elk Ridge and Woods Ranch areas inflamed the issue. “There have been discussions about deputization being done by the Sheriff’s office instead of my office because if I am going to deputize them, I want them as my employees,” Gallegos said. “There was delay. Then there was delay. Then there were the incidents in Southern Humboldt.”
Gallegos explained why he took action. “I did not do because I believe they or anyone did anything wrong,” he said. “I am not in a position to say whether they did or did not. Nor should my action be seen as indicating that, if they became my employees, I would not deputize them to allow them to carry firearms. That would depend on the nature of their work and the need for such weapons. It was done because I felt I could not allow the arrangement which I perceived to be ill-conceived, at least as it related to my responsibility and authority, to continue any longer.”
Asked about the incidents people have complained about, he said, “I have done some cursory informal inquiries into some of the incidents but have not reviewed any report yet.”
County Counsel Wendy Chaitin was out of town and unavailable for comment. Members of the code unit have declined comment. Richard Hendry, a deputy county counsel and deputy DA who represents the county in code enforcement cases, said that he wasn’t at the Garberville meeting, but he did hear the public testimony at the April 8 supervisors hearing.
None of the departments involved were asked to respond to it, and Hendry questioned the accuracy of the portrayals. “I think there’s been misconception, to a great extent, on what happened and who was involved,” he said. “Some of the descriptions of what took place didn’t happen the way they were portrayed.”
The code unit’s actions and its cases are reviewed every month by an oversight committee made up of the county’s environmental health director, county counsel, the DA’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department and the chief building inspector. Hendry added that the code unit operates under a policies and procedures manual, whose contents have been under review for about a year. “We’ve been looking at it and thinking of ways to improve the program, and in light of recent public hearings, that’s something we need to continue to do,” he said.
Policy and procedure changes are likely to be recommended by the task force that will convene during the 45-day warrant inspection freeze. Made up of three members of CLMP, Board of Supervisors Chairman Jill Geist, Supervisors Roger Rodoni, the county’s administrative office and three “at large” members appointed by supervisors, the task force will be authorized at this week’s supervisors meeting. That action marks the start of the 45-day moratorium.
At the April 15 supervisors meeting, a previous approval of the moratorium was clarified as not being applicable to code inspections that are done under property owners’ consent. Roby Tenorio of CLMP told supervisors that the involvement of police – and guns – is the root of the controversy.
“Our main concern is the use of law enforcement and the lack coordinated supervision,” she said, adding that the situation opens “potential for a very, very serious problem.”
By Daniel Mintz
Press Staff Writer
4.24.2008
ER - DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he has rescinded the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ police powers granted under his authority, but county staff said the move doesn’t stick.
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
As he told hundreds of angry residents at the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said he’s been concerned for a long time about the arrangement he inherited when elected and has been in discussions for months with the County Counsel’s Office to find a solution.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
While he listened to residents’ complaints during the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said his reversal has nothing to do with the officers.
“I am not saying they have done anything wrong,” Gallegos said.
Code Enforcement Unit activity is under a limited 45-day moratorium and its officers cannot engage in actions where search warrants are needed.
The Board of Supervisors ordered the moratorium and directed a Code Enforcement Unit Task Force to be formed to investigate the unit’s use-of-force policies and procedures following a meeting April 8 where hundreds of residents turned out to repeat the concerns raised during the Garberville meeting the previous week.
Reached Wednesday in Redding, Board of Supervisors Chairperson Jill Geist said she was learning about the DA’s decision from media.
“To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal request from the District Attorney’s Office to the board or the CAO’s Office regarding the code enforcement officers,” Geist said.
Geist said these were the issues she hoped would be the topics discussed by the task force, of which she and Supervisor Roger Rodoni are both members.
During their meeting Tuesday, the supervisors picked three at-large members to complete the nine-member task force, although no meetings have yet been held.
The code enforcement officers are moving forward with the more routine nuisance and cleanup abatement cases, which county officials say represent the majority of the code enforcement workload and don’t require armed officers.
All the county officials reached for this article agree the Code Enforcement Unit’s current cross-deputization structure between the DA and the County Counsel’s Office needs to be examined, which is expected to be done both internally and in the parallel process under the task force.
Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
As he told hundreds of angry residents at the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said he’s been concerned for a long time about the arrangement he inherited when elected and has been in discussions for months with the County Counsel’s Office to find a solution.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
While he listened to residents’ complaints during the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said his reversal has nothing to do with the officers.
“I am not saying they have done anything wrong,” Gallegos said.
Code Enforcement Unit activity is under a limited 45-day moratorium and its officers cannot engage in actions where search warrants are needed.
The Board of Supervisors ordered the moratorium and directed a Code Enforcement Unit Task Force to be formed to investigate the unit’s use-of-force policies and procedures following a meeting April 8 where hundreds of residents turned out to repeat the concerns raised during the Garberville meeting the previous week.
Reached Wednesday in Redding, Board of Supervisors Chairperson Jill Geist said she was learning about the DA’s decision from media.
“To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal request from the District Attorney’s Office to the board or the CAO’s Office regarding the code enforcement officers,” Geist said.
Geist said these were the issues she hoped would be the topics discussed by the task force, of which she and Supervisor Roger Rodoni are both members.
During their meeting Tuesday, the supervisors picked three at-large members to complete the nine-member task force, although no meetings have yet been held.
The code enforcement officers are moving forward with the more routine nuisance and cleanup abatement cases, which county officials say represent the majority of the code enforcement workload and don’t require armed officers.
All the county officials reached for this article agree the Code Enforcement Unit’s current cross-deputization structure between the DA and the County Counsel’s Office needs to be examined, which is expected to be done both internally and in the parallel process under the task force.
Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM