On Tuesday’s County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda is a resolution that would authorize the District Attorney’s Office to accept grant funding from the California Department of Insurance for three 2010-11 grants in the amounts of $230,000 from the Workers’ Compensation grant, $38,942 from the Life and Annuity grant and $132,796 from the Automobile Insurance Fraud grant.
There will be no general fund impact, the staff report reads. According to the report, “These are continuing programs and funding will cover the associated costs.”
The grant will thus fund roughly $401,000 which will include a part-time Deputy DA, two full-time investigators including a Lieutenant (likely Dan Stroski) and an “extra help investigator.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with the DA seeking more grant funding per se, but it does illustrate some problems with the DA’s response to the Vanguard, that we have received a copy of.
The DA’s office responded to our September 27, 2010 article entitled, “Vanguard Investigation Finds Evidence of Exaggerated Crime Figures in DA Grant Applications.”
In their response, they write, “Initially, it should be noted that contrary to statements in the blog discussing the ‘huge’ role of grants, the District Attorney’s office has eight partially funded prosecutors (none are fully funded). The percentage of grant funding for these attorneys ranges from 7% to 50% (the rest of their salaries/benefits are paid through the general fund). Overall, grant dollars fund 16% of this office’s 31 attorneys’ salaries and benefits.”
This portion of their response already clearly omits a key point that is illustrated by the grant above, as they focus only the fact that the DA’s Office has eight partially-funded prosecutors, that none are fully funded, and that the percentage of grant funding ranges from 7 to 50 percent of their salaries.
Moreover, they claimed grant dollars fund 16% of this office’s 31 attorneys’ salaries and benefits.
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, because the biggest impact is not just on attorneys but investigators. There are a large number of investigators, secretaries and program coordinators whose salaries are funded by grants.
And we can use the DA’s own words against his office’s claim. In March, the Woodland Daily Democrat reported that Mr. Reisig gave a speech to the Woodland Chamber of Commerce, warning about staffing cuts as the result of the budget crisis.
“Reisig talked about ‘Maintaining Public Safety in Hard Budget Times,’ noting that a major factor in keeping services effective has been the use of grants by the District Attorney’s Office,” wrote the Daily Democrat on March 22, 2010. “He said between 30 percent and 35 percent of the DA’s Office is funded by grants, used to investigate and prosecute different areas of crime. The office employs 87 people and has a budget of $12 million.”
The 16 percent undoubtedly refers to the percent of money going to prosecutors, but the issue of investigators is dodged and may be far more important.
In June we reported that the Public Defender’s Office has 21 attorneys, but only four investigators. The Bar-recommended ratio is 3 to 1, and that would mean they should have seven.
The Public Defender’s Office is already at a disadvantage, with a budget of just $4.6 million.
Public Defender Tracie Olson told the Vanguard “In 2009-2010, my budget was about $4.6 mil and the DA’s was about $12.3 mil. The conflict panel had a budget of $1.8 mil. The math is way off, I know.”
She did say, “The one thing the County has been very good about, however, is maintaining an attorney staffing ratio between the two offices. The traditional ratio observed is 3:2. This accounts for the fact that the DA’s Office has some attorneys whose work doesn’t really produce criminal filings that involve my office – e.g., the consumer fraud/environmental attorney and the child abduction attorney are examples. However, the DA’s Office outstrips my office in support staff, hands down.”
This is a significant problem and it actually understates the magnitude of it. One reason the DA’s Office has such a vast resource advantage is that they have access to a large number of grants as we have previously reported on, that quite simply the defense does not.
According to research by Lawrence Benner, this is not just a problem in Yolo County, but is statewide.
Writes Professor Benner, “A majority of the certified criminal defense specialists also reported that the lack of investigative resources was a significant problem for their indigent defense system. In our examination of appellate cases, we discovered that the failure to conduct an adequate investigation was a major cause of ineffective representation.”
Professor Benner found that the average ratio of attorneys to investigators was one investigator for every 4.6 attorneys, with some counties having the ratio as much as 9:1. Again, the recommended standard is 3 to 1.
Think about this, the entire Public Defender’s department has four investigators, and the DA is getting funding for two full time investigators and another hourly one just by these three grants.
The grants are what gives a huge resource advantage to the DA’s Office.
It is, of course, not just the fact that the grants give the DA’s Office a huge resource advantage over the Public Defender’s Office that is a problem, it is what is done with those grants.
On October 20, we reported that secondary charges in the Michael Artz case may have been driven by the need to obtain grant money or use grant money for a prosecution it was specifically not intended to be used for.
In this case, the defendant was accused primarily of forced oral copulation with a younger classmate, but acquitted of that charge. He was, however, convicted of sexual contact with a minor and having a conversation with that minor about sexual contact.
According to the language in the grant instructions, “The goal of the SRVP [Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution] Program is to increase vertical prosecution of adults having sexual intercourse with minors.” Vertical prosecution refers to the practice of having the same prosecutor handle a case from beginning to end.
The SRVP Program also notes that the intent is not to subsidize the prosecution of cases for forcible rape, or child molestation cases. “The intent of the SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute adult offenders engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. It is not the intent of the SRVP Program to subsidize prosecution of these cases for forcible rape or child molestation cases.”
Did the need to obtain grant money necessitate the adding of additional charges? Was the use of grant money, in this case, a violation of the terms of the program by subsidizing prosecution of a forcible rape case?
That is part of the problem here.
The worker’s compensation fraud unit may also be prosecuting questionable cases such as the case of Linda Vela, a former employee of the Sacramento Bee who became incapacitated by carpal tunnel syndrome, to the point that she was unable to work.
A few years later, after receiving disability for three years or more, she learned that the Bee had requested fraud prosecution from the Yolo County District Attorney. Apparently the Sacramento DA was uninterested in the case, but the grant-funded Yolo County DA’s Office was perfectly willing to do so.
They have since learned that Lt. Investigator Daniel Stroski, the probable beneficiary of this particular current funding, had been conducting surveillance videos. On the other hand, a few years ago Mr. Stroski claimed that the DA’s Office lacked the resources to investigate the worker’s compensation fiasco that involved David Bell, the worker at Agraquest who fell ill but was denied coverage.
The Vanguard saw these videos during the preliminary hearing and they showed Ms. Vela perhaps engaging in the clapping of her hands, and perhaps doing very limited work on her garden for a brief amount of time. These videos were heavily dependent on subjective interpretation and are mitigated by rather extensive medical testimony to the contrary.
Judge Richardson found enough evidence to allow the case to proceed, but this is a very weak case. Nevertheless, Ms. Vela has been arrested and this case has gone through the system.
In the intervening time, Ms. Vela’s mental condition has deteriorated to the point which she is no longer fit to stand trial. And yet the DA’s Office persists on the fraud claim. Her hearing on competency will be next week. This is the kind of case that this grant is funding, which seems a huge waste of time and resources for Yolo County – except of course it is not on Yolo County’s dime, apparently. But, apparently, in order to justify the need for such grants, cases like these pop up.
The county on Tuesday is likely to rubber stamp the grant award, without any kind of scrutiny. There is no oversight over the process. It is a difficult situation in that the elected County Board of Supervisors is being asked to oversee the activities of another elected official, the Yolo County DA. However, that is its responsibility.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I hope the Board of Supervisors thinks about checking out what is happening with these grants. I know they are saying that they don’t have jurisdiction over someone who has been voted into office, but they do have the responsibility to protect the rights of the citizens of Yolo County. If they are approving funds to be accepted on behalf of the citizens of Yolo County, then they should take some responsibility to be sure those funds are being used appropriately and in the best interests of the citizens.
Considering there is already an imbalance of resources between the Public Defender’s office and the DA’s office, it is even more important that the County Supervisors support an investigation into these grant allegations to be sure that justice is being served.
“This is the kind of case that this grant is funding, which seems a huge waste of time and resources for Yolo County – except of course it is not on Yolo County’s dime, apparently. “
Actually there is still the cost of the Judge and all the people employed at the courthouse, the cost of the jurors (and their place of business) for missing work, and the huge cost on the individuals being charged and their families. Not to mention clogging up the court rooms with trials like these. This is where the “get tough on crime” mentality is getting us. The real crimes and criminals should always be punished, but there are so many other solutions to all of these smaller crimes than trials and jail time. The grant money being pursued should be divided up with the Public Defender’s Office. This would at least even out the playing field.
Big surprise, DA Jeff Reisig picking on some lady that is mentally incapable of standing trial, but since Mr. Reisig needs his statistics for money, what a better target than some mentally challenged woman that can’t fight back.
Reisig is such a coward, I can’t believe he is allowed to hold office.
Hey Mr. Reisig, I hear there are lots of old feeble people in nursing homes, perhaps you can go convince them that you need money to protect them and get some easy campaign cash.
dmg: “This portion of their response already clearly omits a key point that is illustrated by the grant above, as they focus only the fact that the DA’s Office has eight partially-funded prosecutors, that none are fully funded, and that the percentage of grant funding ranges from 7 to 50 percent of their salaries.”
I’m not following what key point has been omitted…
dmg: “The 16 percent undoubtedly refers to the percent of money going to prosecutors, but the issue of investigators is dodged and may be far more important.”
I’m not following your point here…
dmg: “…that the Public Defender’s Office has 21 attorneys, but only four investigators. The Bar-recommended ratio is 3 to 1, and that would mean they should have seven…”
So how is that the fault of the DA?
dmg: “we reported that secondary charges in the Michael Artz case may have been driven by the need to obtain grant money or use grant money for a prosecution it was specifically not intended to be used for.”
And you can read the mind of the DA and conclude the need for grant money is why they charged Artz for forcible rape?
dmg: “The SRVP Program also notes that the intent is not to subsidize the prosecution of cases for forcible rape, or child molestation cases. “The intent of the SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute adult offenders engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. It is not the intent of the SRVP Program to subsidize prosecution of these cases for forcible rape or child molestation cases.”
If an adult sexually molests a child, then how is that not a crime that can be covered by the SRVP program? It seems as if these quotations have been taken out of context. Either that or I am missing something here…
dmg: “They have since learned that Lt. Investigator Daniel Stroski, the probable beneficiary of this particular current funding, had been conducting surveillance videos. On the other hand, a few years ago Mr. Stroski claimed that the DA’s Office lacked the resources to investigate the worker’s compensation fiasco that involved David Bell, the worker at Agraquest who fell ill but was denied coverage.”
Was the grant funding available at the time of the Bell case? And was the issue of Bell a civil rather than a criminal one? I’m not familiar w the Bell case…
dmg: “The Vanguard saw these videos during the preliminary hearing and they showed Ms. Vela perhaps engaging in the clapping of her hands, and perhaps doing very limited work on her garden for a brief amount of time. These videos were heavily dependent on subjective interpretation and are mitigated by rather extensive medical testimony to the contrary.”
I can see where someone seeing such a video like that could have probable cause to believe Ms. Vela was possibly committing fraud. As you admit “Judge Richardson found enough evidence to allow the case to proceed…”
dmg: “In the intervening time, Ms. Vela’s mental condition has deteriorated to the point which she is no longer fit to stand trial. And yet the DA’s Office persists on the fraud claim.”
Did her mental condition deteriorate bc she got caught out in fraud perhaps…
dmg: “This is the kind of case that this grant is funding, which seems a huge waste of time and resources for Yolo County – except of course it is not on Yolo County’s dime, apparently. But, apparently, in order to justify the need for such grants, cases like these pop up.”
Frankly, your complaint should be placed more at the foot of the door of the Obama administration. Enforcement against white collar crime and fraud of the sort your describe is a cornerstone of the current national administration’s policy. They are determined to root out fraud and waste wherever it occurs. Their mantra has been lets stamp out Medicare/Medicaid fraud and waste, IHSS fraud, and fraud that involves taxpayers’ dollars such as worker’s comp fraud. That way Obama and the Democrats actually look like they are doing something useful they believe. And now you are seeing some of the downsides to that sort of unfettered policy…
Elaine: I think the point that David is trying to make is that the DA is not telling the whole story about his dependence on grant money. The DA’s response was that he has only 8 prosecutors partially funded by grants–so what is the big deal. David’s response is that you have a whole lot of staff (besides those 8 prosecutors) funded by grants–especially investigators. And that these grants give the DA’s office a distinct advantage over the Public Defender’s office.
The second part is that this grant money seems to be a motivating factor for the way the DA’s office chooses to set up charges in particular cases.
Finally, an independent investigation by federal officials as you proposed might be what is needed to get to the bottom of these issues.
FAI: “And that these grants give the DA’s office a distinct advantage over the Public Defender’s office.”
Would you prefer the DA not to go after grant money? How is it the fault of the DA for going after grant funding? It is perfectly legal and appropriate. The Public Defender’s office is free to go after available and appropriate grant funding, in so far as I am aware. There is a lot of grant funding floating out there to improve justice to the underserved and that sort of thing…
fai: “The second part is that this grant money seems to be a motivating factor for the way the DA’s office chooses to set up charges in particular cases.”
The operative words are “seems to be”. No one can get into the mind of the DA and read what his motivations may or may not be. In short, proof?
fai: “Finally, an independent investigation by federal officials as you proposed might be what is needed to get to the bottom of these issues.”
Independent investigation of what exactly?
Did anyone else pickup the fact that we have the Yolo DA claiming dependence on grant funds or Yolo won’t be able to prosecute cases (March of this year), yet they are prosecuting a Sac County case. Why? If they don’t have enough funds for our own county it’s upsetting that our tax dollars go to prosecute for another county. We already have extremely limited funds. I’d rather the Yolo DA’s office carefully review cases for their merits than act like they have an unlimited bank account with our tax dollars, be they county tax dollars or federal tax dollars.
Elaine: “Would you prefer the DA not to go after grant money? How is it the fault of the DA for going after grant funding? It is perfectly legal and appropriate. The Public Defender’s office is free to go after available and appropriate grant funding, in so far as I am aware. There is a lot of grant funding floating out there to improve justice to the underserved and that sort of thing…”
Of course, it is o.k. to go for grant funding to help with costs. If the DA was only using grant funds for cases that he would normally prosecute, then there is no problem.
Unfortunately, David has shown us that the DA is prosecuting and overcharging cases that under normal circumstances would not be pursued to the same extent. The DA chooses to pursue these cases because he needs to fulfill criteria to keep the grant funds coming. It is not the grants that are bad–it is how the DA allows them to affect his judgement.
Second, the grant funds are not available to the Public Defenders office. This is something that should be rectified.
Elaine: “Independent investigation of what exactly?”
For starters how about investigating the allegations in David’s report on exaggerating crime data on the DA’s grant applications to make them more competitive. And then follow up with how the grant funds are being utilized.
[quote]Would you prefer the DA not to go after grant money? How is it the fault of the DA for going after grant funding? It is perfectly legal and appropriate.[/quote]
My concern is twofold:
1. It creates an incentive structure to prosecute some cases over others
2. It creates an inequity between the DA’s office and the PD’s office
[quote]There is a lot of grant funding floating out there to improve justice to the underserved and that sort of thing… [/quote]
This is simply untrue. There are no parallel grants for the PD’s office to pursue for investigators. This is a huge problem because the DA’s office has the local law enforcement and their own investigators, the PD’s office has four people for the entire office to investigate claims.
What I find annoying is that the DA pled out the ED of Yolo County Casa to one count.With all this grant funding couldn’t they have come down harder on this one.
ERM… you didn’t answer my question on another thread… what should the salary threshold/cap for either a DA or Public
Defender position be if they have 20 years of experience and are competent? You have criticized public employee compensation. Depending on your answer, what should their supervisors be paid? The managers?
dmg: “This is simply untrue. There are no parallel grants for the PD’s office to pursue for investigators. This is a huge problem because the DA’s office has the local law enforcement and their own investigators, the PD’s office has four people for the entire office to investigate claims.”
How is that the fault of the DA? Fault the county, not the DA…
hpierce: “ERM… you didn’t answer my question on another thread… what should the salary threshold/cap for either a DA or Public
Defender position be if they have 20 years of experience and are competent? You have criticized public employee compensation. Depending on your answer, what should their supervisors be paid? The managers?”
If I remember rightly, I thought your question was in relation to city employees and those in management positions like a city manager, county manager, state offices and the like. I didn’t realize you were referring to the DA and Public Defender specifically. I have no idea what salaries they make or should receive. But I am very concerned when a city attorney is making $200 – $400 per hour to vet a contract, and fails to do it properly, but charges the city full price. And it has come out recently that the manager of the city of Bell was making $800,000, the police chief over $400,000. The city manager of Vernon was making over $800,000 for a city of less than one hundred, holding down as many as 6 jobs to collect that kind of pay. The state of CA is now paying the former manager of Vernon more than a $500,000 a year pension. I suspect these are not isolated incidents, but happen all over the country. This kind of waste just cannot be tolerated on the taxpayers’ collective dime. Hope that answers your question…
dmg: “My concern is twofold:
1. It creates an incentive structure to prosecute some cases over others
2. It creates an inequity between the DA’s office and the PD’s office”
So do you feel it is wrong for the DA to go after the grant funding in the first place? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I am trying to understand your position here…
[quote]This is simply untrue. There are no parallel grants for the PD’s office to pursue for investigators. This is a huge problem because the DA’s office has the local law enforcement and their own investigators, the PD’s office has four people for the entire office to investigate claims. [/quote]
You miss the reason for DA Investigators, this is a power grab for DA’s. This gives DA’s the ability to have their own cops do what they want and how they want. The DA does not have direct control or ability to fire local cops, so trying to get them to find the answer you want is not as easy as if you have your own cops find the results you want.
When DA’s have to use the local police to do their follow up investigation, their political influences is much less. However, when a DA has his own cops (DA Investigators) do his investigations, it is much easier to get the outcome and results you want and the DA likes that.