Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish has apparently been on leave since his failed bid to win a judgeship seat from Dan Maguire this past June. According to several sources, Mr. Parish has not returned to work since the June election.
The County Human Resources Department could only confirm that he is a current employee for the county, and could not reveal whether or not he is on leave.
Clinton Parish ran for judge against Judge Dan Maguire, appointed in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did so initially with the backing of key law enforcement figures, DA Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Ed Prieto.
However, after a series of misleading attack mailers against his opponent, many of his key endorsers would pull their support. With the controversy, Mr. Parish was handily trounced at the polls, receiving just over 7000 votes to the more than 24,000 (77%) by Judge Maguire.
Even before the mailer controversy, Mr. Parish was a controversial candidate, opposed by defense attorneys, the bar associations and the entire Yolo County Bench.
Following the election, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg told the Vanguard, “The entire Yolo Superior Court is extremely thankful for the vote of confidence by the citizens of this county. The challenger to Judge Maguire campaigned on the basis of a vast misunderstanding of the role of a Judge.”
He added, “We, on the Bench, are no more ‘pro-law enforcement’ than we are ‘pro-prosecutor,’ or ‘pro-defense,’ or ‘pro-anything.’ Our job is to make sure the law is followed, that people are treated fairly and respectfully, and that everyone’s rights are protected.”
From the start, it would have been an uphill battle for the ten-year prosecutor in Yolo County. However, Mr. Parish clearly fatally harmed himself when attacks in a mailer proved to lack foundation and his campaign appeared to have failed in its due diligence to perform the kind of research that would have been expected of a deputy district attorney, let alone a judge.
Indeed, even his concession speech showed how little he learned.
His release stated, “Although I am disappointed in the results, I am glad that Yolo County had the chance to vote for their government. I still believe that every branch of our government should be elected by the people of this country.”
He added, “I am very grateful to live in a country that allows us to have such a voice in our own government.”
Mr. Parish has never been willing to acknowledge that the appointment process has important checks that are absent in a popular election.
One of the key charges dealt with the decision by Governor Schwarzenegger to commute the sentence of Esteban Nuñez, son of former Speaker Fabian Nuñez – a move that angered many and that the former governor acknowledged was a favor to a friend.
The flier attacks Dan Maguire, who was said to be “part of Arnold’s inner circle, Dan Maguire was part of Arnold’s legal team that made decisions including commuting the sentence of convicted murderer Esteban Nuñez…” Later in the flier it said, “Dan Maguire received a political appointment (never elected) and took the bench only three weeks before Arnold’s last-day Commutation of Esteban Nuñez’ sentence.”
When the Vanguard inquired about substantiation of this charge, Kirby Wells, campaign communications for Clinton Parish, pointed toward this You Tube video of the Santos Family, the victim’s parents.
The problem is that it appears that Dan Maguire was appointed to the bench of Yolo County on October 18, 2010 while the commutation occurred at the last minute on January 2, 2011.
For his part, Dan Maguire says he had no involvement in the decision to commute Mr. Nunez’s sentence and learned about it on TV.
Meanwhile, Mr. Parish, who has not responded to Vanguard requests for an interview, backed off the entire charge when he spoke to the Davis Enterprise, which paraphrased him saying that “the ads don’t claim that Maguire played a part in the reduced sentence.”
“The point is that he worked for the legal team that made that and other bad decisions,” he said. “It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for. Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”
The dominoes fell quickly as Sheriff Prieto, an early backer of Clinton Parish, pulled his endorsement.
“I don’t support that kind of campaigning,” Sheriff Prieto said. “You have to run a campaign on your merit and your skills, not by tearing down your opponent. I do not want to be a part of that.”
At first, DA Jeff Reisig would stick with his support for his subordinate, despite his expressed disapproval for the tactics – tactics that he himself had used in his run for DA in 2006.
“I previously gave him my endorsement and I’m not going to change that,” Mr. Reisig said. “But I don’t agree with the negative mail piece and I told him that.”
But that was before the Bee issued forth a scathing editorial, arguing “Parish shows he’s unfit to be a judge.”
In it they argue: “Parish didn’t apologize for making the mistake. Instead, he sought to shift blame, telling the Bee that the campaign worker who gave him the information no longer works for the campaign. He didn’t identify the individual.”
“On Wednesday, Parish continued to defend his lowdown hit piece, although he did back off, somewhat, from an allegation that as a private attorney, Maguire somehow was involved in a case involving a bribe,” the Bee writes. “Lamely, Parish told the Bee that the connection wasn’t as close as he had been led to believe. The allegation is, in fact, false. Parish should have said so.”
The Bee directly implicated Mr. Reisig, which seemed to be enough for the DA to pull his endorsement, as they wrote: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish. By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”
Mr. Reisig sent an email to the Davis Enterprise stating: “Having considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding judicial candidate Clint Parish’s attack mail piece, including recent explanations from his campaign, I have decided to retract my endorsement of his candidacy.”
The Sacramento Bee article may have been the most critical factor, both in the pulling of the endorsement by Mr. Reisig and in the ultimate decision, it appears, to ask Mr. Parish to find another job.
Back in 2008, James Walker, another Deputy DA, would run against Judge Timothy Fall. Two years after a sizable defeat to the sitting judge, James Walker would leave the Yolo County DA’s office for private practice.
He recently told the Vanguard that he was never forced out by the DA, but did venture that they made his life increasingly miserable.
Following the election, the Vanguard asked how quickly these mistakes would hasten the exit of Mr. Parish. Now perhaps we know the answer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My goodness, you DID get overworked on Labor Day.
I am sorry but paid leave? What is justification? Only in public sector would this go on. How much taxpayer $ is this costing us?
“My goodness, you DID get overworked on Labor Day. “
I assume you are referring the quantity of stories today – every so often reporting is like a drought and dam experience. I send out a bunch of leads and every so often I get multiple confirmations back at the same time.
Yes, today…and yesterday.
Good question, SODA. On first reading, I figured it meant he’s been using his own earned leave. I can see being placed on paid leave when under investigation or unpaid leave if running for office keeps someone from work.
You must not have worked in the “public sector”–people don’t get paid, even with tax money, for not showing up to work, no matter how disappointed they might be with the election results.
Except that he is not showing up on the system as doing anything other working. Looking further into this.
One can’t imagine how a public employee would receive paid leave except by using accumulated time in the form of vacation credit or something similar.
The “paid leave” descriptor is probably a catch-all payroll term used by County Human Resources. It would appear that Mr. Parish wants to remain on the payroll while seeking employment elsewhere. Should he not succeed in a career change, he would still be employed by Yolo County.
SODA wrote:
> I am sorry but paid leave? What is justification?
> Only in public sector would this go on. How much
> taxpayer $ is this costing us?
Then Phil wrote:
> The “paid leave” descriptor is probably a catch-all
> payroll term used by County Human Resources. It would
> appear that Mr. Parish wants to remain on the payroll
> while seeking employment elsewhere.
I think that a lot of taxpayers are getting upset when we read more and more often about people in the public sector getting paid for not working. One of the most famous recent stories was (as reported by the NY Times) the 550 “rubber room” teachers that NY was paying $30 million a year to do nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html
I just recently read about a bunch of LA teachers that have been on “paid leave” for years but did not get lucky with a quick Google search. I did find an interesting LA Times story from 2009:
“For seven years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has paid Matthew Kim a teaching salary of up to $68,000 per year, plus benefits. His job (along with 160 others costing LA $10 million a year) is to do nothing.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/local/me-teachers6
I spent a year working out of an office in a big private sector law firm and attorneys that didn’t bill enough for three months in a row were canned, it makes me laugh thinking of anyone asking (the workaholic senior partner) to take a few months off “and” get paid…
“It would appear that Mr. Parish wants to remain on the payroll while seeking employment elsewhere.”
I got the distinct impression that mr. Parish wants to remain on payroll and keep his position, but is not getting a choice in the matter and is an at-will employee.
“Administrative leave” is often the term used for paid leave to avoid “wrongful termination” claims when an agency is in the process of discharging an employee, usually ‘for cause’, but the agency doesn’t have their ducks lined up. There are definite exceptions, particularly in Public Safety, particularly if a peace officer is involved in a ‘shooting’. The latter makes sense… if an officer has to fire their weapon and the result is an injury/death, the officer should NOT have to take personal time to ‘decompress’ and/or for the incident to be evaluated re: reasonable force, etc.
Admin leave due to political considerations, particularly some of the (IMO) egregious problems with the candidates campaign, in order to provide a ‘safe haven’ where their credibility is tarnished, to find another ‘place to land’ professionally would be a definite abuse of the system… if that is the case here, the higher ups in the food chain should be punished, and the leave rescinded, to the extent permitted by law.
[quote]”The “paid leave” descriptor is probably a catch-all payroll term used by County Human Resources. It would appear that Mr. Parish wants to remain on the payroll while seeking employment elsewhere.”[/quote]But, that catches way too much. If there’s a payroll term of “paid leave,” there’s its counterpart, “unpaid leave” (which could be the accommodation here).
As you say, a public employee doesn’t get paid without appearing unless on earned leave. Even the rubber room teachers have to show up at their rooms until they finally are fired.
JustSaying: I think you’re missing Reisig’s point in doing this. Parish embarrassed him. He supported ole Clint and Clint turned on him. But he can’t just fire Clint for a lot of reasons despite him being an at-will. He fires Clint, and Clint could turn on him like Walker did. So instead, he’s pushing him out, but giving him a soft landing. DAMAGE CONTROL.
[quote]”Admin leave due to political considerations, particularly some of the (IMO) egregious problems with the candidates campaign, in order to provide a ‘safe haven’ where their credibility is tarnished, to find another ‘place to land’ professionally would be a definite abuse of the system…”[/quote]I’m sure David’s sources would have spilled the beans if such a thing even was being considered. IYO, what could be the “for cause” rationale? Every losin’, lyin’ politician would get fired.
A co-worker resigned to run for Congress (with the private assurance that he’d be rehired if he lost). He lost. The “commitment” wasn’t honored, although it would have been offered up as a proud reminder to a successful candidate. No one’s more at a competitive disadvantage than a certified loser.
You just gave me a good idea, Just Saying.
[quote]”So instead, he’s pushing him out, but giving him a soft landing. DAMAGE CONTROL.”[/quote]If it’s true, that is. Then, the [i]Vanguard[/i] finally could finish its long-running soap opera (Reisig, the Felon). We’d before wait until David’s “several sources” get this issue clarified before we jump to analyzing the DA’s motives. Sounds convincing, though.
[quote]”You just gave me a good idea, Just Saying.”[/quote]Thank God, finally.
David – you wrote above that clinton parish “wants to remain on payroll and keep his position, but is not getting a choice in the matter and is an at-will employee.” This is not correct. All of the Deputy Distrcit Attorneys have civil service protection, and can only be fired “for cause”.
It is true, however, that clinton parish is probably not being given the choice to remain in the office. Civil service protection or not, Reisig will no doubt find a way to get clinton permenantly out of the office, just as he did with many former DDA’s and criminal investigators who didn’t show him the requisite level of unquestioned loyalty and who lacked the ability to apply his unethical approach to criminal prosecution. How much has the county paid out to settle personnel actions since Reisig took office? The real issue here is how much it’s going to cost the taxpayers for Riesig to rid the county of clinton parish.
Oh, and good riddance, clinton parish. You will not be missed.
Reisig does not give a soft place to fall unless it is one of his cronies that has dirt on him and Reisig has to protect him to hide his own secrets.
This is SOP for Reisig, by supporting Clint on Judge run, Reisig sent a message to the judge that if you cross him he will cause you grief, typical bully intimidation style of Reisig.
By supporting Clint, if Clint wins Reisig has a new crony on the bench that owes Reisig for helping him be elected. Moreover, if Clint loses then Reisig can get rid of him and play the good guy to the sitting judge that he got rid of the guy that ran against him.
Same thing he did to Walker, Reisig supported while he was running after he lost, told Walker to get out.
Reisig is supreme leader in the office, no one does anything without permission and approval or they know Reisig will fire them, trash them, run them out or make their life hell. He has done it over and over again and the spin people just keep spinning it to make Reisig look good. Anyone that thinks some Deputy DA just decides to run a campaign and does not get the support, endorsement, advice and directions from Reisig is living in CoCo puffs land.
Like most DA’s, it is their office, if you want to work for them you say good things, you don’t say no, you never go against the DA and if you are told to get results and win, you do whatever you have to do or you know you will pay the price. All Deputy DAs are at will employees, that is the only way to “keep them line”, if they had a union and protection, they could not pressured or coerced to do questionable and unethical things.
Clint got used and now he will be forced out just like many before him. It is funny how all the people that defend Reisig, do not work in the office? Those who do work in the office know what a ruthless cut-throat Reisig can be and they are too scared to challenge him or speak out against him. And is just the way Reisig wants it.
Another little secret, before Reisig agrees to give Clint a good reference, he will make Clint sign an agreement that he will not say anything negative about Reisig and will NOT run against Reisig in any future elections. This agreement will confidential and will only be used if the other party breaks it. Reisig is not a nice guy but he is not a stupid guy either.
[quote]Oh, and good riddance, clinton parish. You will not be missed.[/quote]
Funny you should say this, Clinton was Attorney of year a couple of years ago, an award that is picked and awarded by Reisig. But that was when Reisig needed someone to do his dirty work, now that he is of no use to Reisig, the smear campaign will begin. Reisig will trash him to others in the office and that is code that he is no longer on the A Team and if you like him you will not be trusted. So all the cowards looking to make points with Reisig and get on his good side and get a promotion will also start trashing and taking bad about Clinton.
That is the way you prove you loyalty to Mr. Reisig. You hate his enemies. Mr. Reisig believes a friend of my enemy is my enemy and you better learn it well if you want to keep working in his office.
Fear and intimidation been working to control others since the beginning of time. :0)
[quote]”All of the Deputy Distrcit Attorneys have civil service protection, and can only be fired ‘for cause’….Civil service protection or not, Reisig will no doubt find a way to get clinton permenantly out of the office, just as he did with many former DDA’s and criminal investigators”
“All Deputy DAs are at will employees, that is the only way to ‘keep them line’, if they had a union and protection, they could not pressured or coerced to do questionable and unethical things.”[/quote]What is that they say “You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.”
One of you must be correct.
In Yolo County, DDAs have always had civil service protection (unless Reisig had that changed recently). While they are not represented by a union, they are a part of a collective bargaining unit. Union protection would not shield Reisig’s DDAs from undue pressure or coersion. Granted, it would be easier to keep his troops in line from a practical standpoint if they were “at will,” but that has never stopped Reisig from ruling the office through fear and intimidation.
RR – please don’t mistake my loathing of clinton parish as some type of nod of approval towards Reisig. While dumping clinton parish is a good thing, it doesn’t mean that Reisig has suddenly become honest and/or ethical.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. I had been told the Deputy DA’s were at will. Thank you for correcting me.
“The point is that he worked for the legal team that made that and other bad decisions,” he said. “It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for. Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”
Isn’t it interesting that he lost endorsements after he spoke about judging him on what he AND his office have done.
I think based on his campaigning he should be investigated on how he did his job at the DA’s office. It’s hard to believe he would perform his job differently than his campaign. Hopefully, that is the reason for the leave. It would make me think the DA cared about the public perception of his office.