COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Counsel

 

DATE:

July 30, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 5, 2008

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Michael P. Murphy, County Counsel

SUBJECT:

Ordinance Creating an Independent Citizens Review Panel to Review Allegations of Serious Official Misconduct on the Part of An Elected County Official

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 2.04 to Title 2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code relating to the creation of an Independent Citizens Review Panel to review allegations of serious official misconduct on the part of an elected County official.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal(s): Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

 

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting of July 22, 2008, the Board endorsed in concept the proposal of Supervisors Tissier and Hill to create a process for the formation of a Citizens Review Panel to investigate allegations of serious official misconduct by County elected officials. The Board directed the County Counsel’s Office to report back with a proposed ordinance which would establish the process.

 

DISCUSSION:

The ordinance presented would establish the process for consideration of allegations of serious misconduct on the part of an elected official, and incorporates matters raised by Board members at the July 22nd meeting. In summary, the ordinance does the following:

 

1.

Sets forth the purpose for the ordinance, which is grounded in the Board’s authority and responsibility to supervise the official conduct of all County officials, including elected officials. The purpose statement recognizes that elected officials are accountable to the electorate in the first instance, and reflects the importance of striking the right balance between the Board’s legitimate authority to protect the integrity of government institutions and the constitutional and statutorily prescribed duties of elected officials.

   

2.

Defines “serious official misconduct” for purposes of the ordinance. In line with comments made by Supervisors Church and Hill, the definition includes the specific actions taken from the San Bernardino ordinance, and adds a section which allows reference to the County’s Civil Service Rules and departmental rules of conduct for guidance in determining whether an elected official has engaged in “serious official misconduct.”

   

3.

Sets forth, in detail, the process for the Board’s determination of when to form an Independent Citizens Review Panel, and refer a matter for its consideration. The process allows the Board, in the first instance, to determine that an allegation is unfounded, or to refer the allegation to the elected official for response.

   

4.

Strikes a balance between the “open meeting” requirements of the Brown Act, and the privacy interests of the elected official being investigated and others who may be part of the process, with direction that such interests shall be protected, consistent with the law, and with the additional direction to consult with County Counsel for guidance. This provision is added to address a concern expressed by Supervisor Gordon.

   

5.

Incorporates a provision that ensures that criminal investigations that are ongoing or which may arise are not compromised by any investigation, by requiring suspension of proceedings and consultation with appropriate criminal investigative authorities. This provision addresses remarks made by Supervisor Tissier at the last meeting.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact will vary depending on how often an investigation is undertaken, and how involved the investigation becomes, and may include staff time, and the cost of investigative services retained by the Panel.