The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is expected to take-up the matter of the Ramos investigation and report next week. It would be nice to be a fly on the wall for this meeting.
Case law not only requires the disclosure of the report, but also other documentation from the four-month-long, $140,000 inquiry.
The controlling legal case governing the release is BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742.
The BRV case involved the release of an investigation report into the conduct of a school superintendent, who was eventually given a ’sweetheart severance deal”, which was a matter of public concern. A local newspaper filed a lawsuit to have the report and related materials released.
The Superior Court denied the request to release.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court and ordered the release. The California Supreme Court denied review.
Not only does the BRV case require disclosure of the report with certain identifying information redacted, it also requires the release of other supporting information.
Documents such as the findings, opinion, interview summaries, any memoranda written by the investigators, and any interview notes are all required to be released upon request.
Let’s face it. The three page memoranda issued last Friday by the county was a white-wash.
The focus of the memoranda was so narrowed after the fact that a competent investigator could have resolved the matter in a couple weeks and for a fraction of the cost. If you will recall county supervisors had to increase the appropriation for the investigating law firm of Curiale Hirschfeld and Kraemer from $75,000 to $140,000.
The reason given by the law firm was the expanding complexity of the investigation.
The original complainant says she was contacted in October 2009 by Human Resources Director Andrew Lamberto who informed her she wouldn’t be returning to a hostile work environment. This call was in the third month of the investigation.
The complainant participated in a follow-up interview with the aforementioned law firm at the conclusion of the investigation in November 2009. The complainant was told that everything looked good and that she was credible.
So what happened?
It looks like Curiale Hirschfeld and Kraemer is in the middle of a fire storm along with their report and associated working documents.
One can only speculate as to how wide the disparity is between the findings released last Friday and what is contained in the back-up documentation.
Clearly there is a “quid pro quot” in play here. Anything to get Ramos past the June primary and keep others from facing charges.
Go to www.inlandpolitics.com for the article in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment