Last week a reader pointed out to us the front page of San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos’ website. It was updated on August 27, 2010 with this statement:
8/27/2010 District Attorney Reform Proposals
For nearly seven years the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, through its Public Integrity Unit, has been a constant observer of city, county, school and district governmental operations through the review, evaluation and investigation of over 500 complaints. For the last three years, the Unit has conducted an intense investigation of the functioning of the San Bernardino County government. That experience has resulted in the several observations and recommendations for reform. San Bernardino County government is woefully imbalanced. The Board members have become “Super” Supervisors who exercise both broad executive powers, in addition to their critical legislative role. Both directly, and through their staffs, the Board regularly directs County employees to perform, or not perform, certain tasks and functions; to avoid or target enforcement efforts; and to hire, fire or promote certain staff. Additionally, they often intervene in personnel and other critical Human Resource functions. County employees feel they have no choice but to comply with Board direction, even when they strongly disagree. The County Administrative Officer (CAO) is the chief executive for the County’s 19,000 employees. However, until the current CAO’s contract, the CAO could be dismissed at any time for any reason by any three members of the Board. Accordingly, there was always powerful pressure to set aside the public interest when that direction displeased a majority of the Board. The CAO had only as much authority as the Board was willing to allow. The American system of checks and balances between co-equal branches of government is non-existent in San Bernardino County. The opportunities for residential and commercial development are huge in our vast County. To have influence over the County’s most powerful government officials could be a great advantage. That advantage is easily obtained in a County where there are no campaign contribution limits. The combination of an imbalance of power and unlimited money in County politics is an easy formula for government corruption. Prosecution can interrupt, but can never bring an end to corruption under such a system. County reform recommendations: • Non-Intervention Provisions: The adoption of non-intervention provisions that would prohibit a member of the Board of Supervisors from instructing or interfering with County employees in the performance of their duties or from interfering in litigation. (San Diego, Los Angeles and Monterey Counties all have such provisions.) • An Independent CAO: The contractual provisions for the current CAO requiring a 4/5’s vote for removal for specific reasons should be made into law. Further, a CAO could have a four-year term during which they could not be removed except as above. Every four years the Board could re-appoint or select another executive leader. This would help to re-establish the co-equal authority of the executive branch of County government. (Sacramento County has some of these provisions.) • No-Gift Policy: In a County tainted by corruption, there is every reason to adopt a countywide no-gift policy, such as one in effect in Orange County. Campaign Finance reform recommendations: • Campaign Contribution Limits: San Bernardino County needs a thorough review of its campaign finance laws. The County should adopt campaign contribution limits, such as are in effect in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Cruz, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Diego and San Francisco counties. This County should never have another election where many thousands of dollars in contributions come from any one source. • Instant Reporting of Campaign Contributions: Transparency should not only occur at specified times but should be a daily commodity. The County should adopt provisions that require the instant reporting of contributions over a specified level. All elected County officials and candidates for county office should be required to have official websites where such information must be immediately posted. • Regulation of PACs: Provisions should be adopted that will prevent the abuse of Political Action Committees (PACs). PAC officers and directors should be clearly specified; no expenditure of a PAC should occur without a meeting and vote of their directors; minutes of every such meeting should be kept, noting all present; no PAC should be permitted to contribute to another PAC; and PACs should be completely transparent with instant online reporting of contributions made and received. Implementation: Over 100 jurisdictions in California have laws stricter than those in the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq). The Act specifically allows for Cities and Counties to have their own, more stringent, provisions. San Bernardino County should no longer be the exception with regard to fundamental campaign reform. Coupled with the additional government recommendations noted above, I believe that such a program of reform could substantially improve and promote a fair, and effective County Government focused on service to our citizens. These are all concepts that should be thoroughly discussed. I invite public input. If there is support for these provisions, I would look forward to working with the public to explore the most effective and timely way to implement them. Michael A. Ramos San Bernardino County District Attorney
What you see above is exactly how the site currently appears and apparently has appeared for more than two weeks. The lack of style and paragraphing reminds us of documents commonly received from individuals incarcerated in state prison or a state mental hospital or a manifesto from a madman. We cannot be sure what Ramos was thinking when he authorized this to be placed on the front page of his site but we assume it was meant to further his political agenda.
Although the presentation of this document may be peculiar, the content is disturbing. We are asking ourselves if our district attorney ever read the Charter of the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Code or looked at what his Public Integrity Unit has not accomplished.
Ramos claims that the Public Integrity Unit has reviewed over 500 cases for corruption in the past seven years. That figure is not hard to believe considering the number of people we talk to who say they have filed a complaint. But it is misleading. The more important figure is the number of convictions. Mr. Ramos, how many public officials has your Public Integrity Unit won convictions against in the past seven years? We thought so.
Ramos states that the members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors have become “Super” supervisors with broad executive powers. He goes on to say, “The County Administrative Officer (CAO) is the chief executive for the County’s 19,000 employees.” He is wrong. San Bernardino County is unlike any other in that our founders specified that the Chairman of the Board is the county executive and the County Administrative Officer answers to him.
Article 1, Section 5 of the Charter of the County of San Bernardino states in pertinent part:
The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors shall be the general executive agent of the Board. It shall be his duty, subject to regulation and control by the Board, to exercise general supervision over the official conduct of all County officers and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of County charged with the assessment, collection, safekeeping, management, or disbursement of public revenue; also over all County institutions, buildings and property.
If that is not enough, section 12.0206 The Codified Ordinances of the County of San Bernardino states:
Under the supervision of the Board of Supervisors, and subject to the approval and direction and control thereof, the Administrative Officer shall be responsible for the performance of such duties and ministerial functions as may be placed in his charge by the Board of Supervisors, and in connection therewith, shall report to the Board from time to time the status and enforcement of the Board’s policies, rules and regulations.
The supervisors answer to the voters. The district attorney cannot expect to take away their authority and at the same time hold them accountable for county governance. Citizens do not judge their elected county officials based on their latest speech but rather on the performance of county employees/agencies in their districts. Supervisors must have the ability to intervene on behalf of their constituents.
Ramos, in what seems to be an Uffer-esque proposal, wants a County Administrative Officer in place with practically totalitarian powers. Removing a CAO for any reason or no reason at all with a 3/5ths or 4/5ths majority is necessary to maintain a balance of power. The San Bernardino County Code allows for it to be done with 3/5ths approval. The current County Administrative Officer negotiated a 4/5ths clause requiring cause, which is more than restrictive enough to assure that he will not be terminated for political whim.
Our district attorney proposes campaign contribution limits yet he is one of the biggest offenders of taking money that borders on bribes from donors looking for something in return. He has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for his campaigns. The contributions from the Conflict Panel, San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians are prime examples. We can’t think of a more substantial conflict of interest or obstruction to justice.
Ramos wants instant reporting of campaign contributions but again he has been one of the worst offenders by making it difficult for the public to review his campaign finance forms. He has been fined once already for failing to properly report his contributions and expenditures. The Fair Political Practices Commission has an ongoing investigation into a second complaint where he hid thousands of dollars in expenditures by charging them to his credit card and not itemizing them as required.
Ramos talks about transparency while he is the same elected official who uses “deliberative process” as a means of hiding his expenses from the public. If he is serious about reform, then he should have no problem releasing all the of information for all of his expenditures from his campaign committee and from his county-issued credit card and his expense account. If he is going to use his prosecutorial powers to threaten other elected officials, he needs to hold himself to the same standard.
This document reeks of the political grandstanding Ramos has become so adept in pulling off to take the public’s eye away from the real corruption in San Bernardino County. Fortunately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not care less about the Mike Ramos Manifesto.
Ramos has two faces. Where is the justice?