Item 13 - OC Grand Jury's Investigative Report, Findings, and Recommendations Regarding Group Homes and the Orange County Animal Care Shelter

Home Browse Search

Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice back-up would not have a disabling conflict — that is, one or the other would be available to serve the Grand Jury in any investigation not directly related to the County Counsel's office itself. Back-up counsel advises the Grand Jury on those matters only when the primary attorney is conflicted. Early during its one-year term and early in its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that its primary counsel had a conflict of interest with its investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel's office explained, and the Grand Jury understood, that the services of the County Counsel's office would continue through the back-up attorney assigned for such circumstances. Initially, during the early stages of its OCAC investigation, the Grand Jury received the legal advice and assistance of the back-up attorney in the County Counsel's office. Later during its investigation of OCAC, the Grand Jury inquired into the shelter's prior TNR program and the program's termination in early 2020. The Grand Jury learned the program was terminated after a cease -and -desist demand to stop the program was --received from a lone individual residing outside of Orange County. The Grand Jury was informed that the County Counsel's office, in response to a request by OCAC to review the cease -and -desist demand, issued an opinion to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and OCAC about the shelter's TNR program that evidently led to a direction to terminate the program. In the course of the Grand Jury's investigation, including interviews with OCAC and OCCR staff and leadership, the County Counsel's office and its opinion were repeatedly cited as being the source of the decision to stop the TNR program. The Grand Jury understands County Counsel's role is to provide advice and counsel to the Board of Supervisors, County departments, and various County agencies, but that it has no decision -making authority over any division of County governance, except regarding its own internal functions. While the Grand Jury was skeptical that the County Counsel's office actually made; or had the authority to make, the decision to terminate the TNR program, the Grand Jury nevertheless understood that the County Counsel's opinion was pivotal to the decision. Therefore, the Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion to learn if there was a clear impediment to or prohibition on a possible renewal of the TNR program. The Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion from interviewees who were privy to the document or its contents. In addition, the Grand Jury asked the County Counsel's office for a copy of the opinion. In every instance, those requested told the Grand Jury the opinion is a privileged communication between the County Counsel's office and the Board of Supervisors and that only the Board of Supervisors has authority to release the document. Finally, the Grand Jury asked the Board of Supervisors, through its Chair, for ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 PAGE 28 OF 51