Laserfiche WebLink
Mom. <br />Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice <br />a copy of the opinion or alternatively for an identification of the legal authority reviewed in <br />studying the issue, and stated the confidentiality of the document would be maintained, <br />whereupon the Board of Supervisors declined to consider or include the request in its <br />meeting agenda. Unfortunately, and not through a lack of trying, the Grand Jury has <br />been unable to review or assess the basis of the opinion. <br />During the Grand Jury's interviews, when various levels of leadership within OCAC <br />asserted that County Counsel made the decision to terminate the TNR program, the <br />Grand Jury always expressed its skepticism and inquired as to how County Counsel, an <br />advisor to the County and OCAC, and only an advisor, could be making policy decisions <br />for OCAC? The Grand Jury inquired and pressed its interviewees, asking if it was, in <br />fact, a decision made at some level within OCAC's leadership, or by OCCR, or by the <br />Board of Supervisors. When pressed, in every case, each interviewee modified their <br />explanation and affirmed the decision had been theirs or that they had taken part in the <br />decision, each taking personal responsibility for the decision. <br />The Grand Jury was determined to obtain documentation of the decision as it continued <br />to press for a copy of the County Counsel's opinion, The Grand Jury then requested all <br />internal OCAC communications documenting the decision and/or order to stop the TNR <br />program. The Grand Jury requested departmental communications instructing staff to <br />stand down from the TNR program, whether from the OCCR to OCAC, OCAC to animal <br />shelter leadership, or animal shelter leadership to shelter staff. <br />Departmental communications about the TNR program are policy and procedure <br />communications. The Grand Jury assumed that departmental communications would <br />point to how and by whom the decision was made. The Grand Jury understands such <br />communications are public records, not privileged communications. Nevertheless, the <br />Grand Jury's request for documentation was denied by OCAC with the reason that such <br />communications were privileged. <br />Coincidental to the Grand Jury's :efforts to obtain a copy of the County Counsel's opinion, <br />-- - - at the end of 2022, the County Counsel's office detached itself altogether from all <br />_._ matters related to the Grand Jury's investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel's office <br />informed the Superior Court and the Grand Jury that its entire office was conflicted with <br />_.. regard.to.the-investigation into OCAC and would recuse itself from assisting the Grand <br />---- - - Jury in its investigation into all matters related to OCAC. No back-up attorney was <br />provided and all communications ceased. <br />Of note, the Grand Jury's investigation was not an investigation of the County Counsel's <br />office. Rather, the Grand Jury was investigating an Orange County agency, a client of <br />County Counsel, just as every Grand Jury investigation into County agencies <br />represents an investigation into clients of the County Counsel. When the County <br />- Counsel's office recused itself from the Grand Jury's OCAC investigation, it did not <br />--explain or cite -any specific aspect of the OCAC investigation that makes it exceptional <br />-from any other of the ongoing Grand Jury investigations into County departments or <br />agencies. <br />Without the services of the County Counsel's office, the Grand Jury suffered a setback in <br />its investigation of OCAC. The pace of the investigation slowed as time and resources <br />ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 1 2023 PAGE 29 OF 51 <br />