A question raised by acting Auditor Sara Pierce in Mark Scaramella's recent “No Smoking Gun” piece goes to the heart of District Attorney David Eyster's attempt to criminally prosecute suspended Mendocino County Auditor Chamise Cubbison.
Scaramella quotes from a recently released county document:
Pierce: “Cubbinson’s [sic] suspension and indictment was an awakening, but Eyester [sic] has a lot of baggage. We shall see. Why does Loyd [sic] Weer get off scot free?”
Many people are asking that question.
As a journalist working on the criminal filing last October, I immediately called Weer seeking comment on Cubbison's contention that the extra pay resulted from an agreement between him and Kennedy. I made repeated calls in the days that followed to his personal cell number and left numerous messages. Weer never responded.
Then DA Eyster in a document filed earlier this month with the Superior Court claimed that Weer and Kennedy denied any mutually agreed arrangement when questioned by investigators. Eyster declared that Weer and Kennedy instead blamed Cubbison for allowing an obscure county code to be used to make the officially unauthorized payments to Kennedy.
Those contentions raised immediate questions of why Cubbison would agree to what Eyster alleges is a “pay scheme” and to what end?
The extra pay began in October 2019 when Weer was still the elected Auditor, and Cubbison had been his assistant for about 18 months.
Cubbison's attorney Chris Andrian has repeatedly said there is no evidence Cubbison personally benefited from the extra salary paid to Kennedy for work done, a contention which also does not seem to be in dispute.
It also was Cubbison who placed Kennedy and Weer — who by then was retired and working as an outside consultant to the office — on administrative leave although not quickly enough, according to County administrators. Cubbison, by then Acting Auditor, acknowleded several weeks might have passed before she acted after learning of the pay dispute. It was during a time, however, when the office was swamped with incomplete audits, staff shortages, and a malfunctioning software system, according to the Auditor. Within a few months, payroll functions were shifted to the County Executive Office and Kennedy was eventually fired for her role in the unauthorized pay. Weer’s contract work apparently was terminated at the same time.
The public for now is left to wonder about former Auditor Weer’s role in a high profile criminal case that has roiled county politics, and raised the specter of substantial taxpayer expense if it goes to trial.
Cubbison has hired her own attorney. Weer reportedly has done the same. Kennedy, however, is represented by a County Public Defender. What it will cost taxpayers if DA Eyster brings his case against Cubbison and Kennedy to trial is unknown, as are the costs of the Sheriff’s office and DA investigations surrounding Cubbison, Kennedy, and the uncharged Weer.
One of the basic tenants of Ethics training, (required of all public officials under AB 1234) is that public officials shall “Avoid any actions that would cause the public to question whether your decisions are based on personal interests instead of the public’s interests.”
More excerpts from this required training for public officials:
“In short, public service ethics is not only about doing the right thing, but also about the public’s confidence that indeed the right thing has been done. Public servants must maintain a high standard of ethical conduct that promotes public confidence that public officials’ actions are motivated solely by the public’s interests.”
“ Ask yourself whether your constituents will reasonably question your ability to put your personal interests and relationships aside and put their, the public’s, interests first. You can decide to voluntarily abstain if you are concerned that your constituents would reasonably question whether you should be involved in the decision-making process. Remember the law is a floor, not a ceiling, for public service ethics.”
I guess DA Eyster needs to review his basic ethics training as there is undoubtedly a public perception that the DA is not a disinterested party in the Cubbison legal battle. Why not have someone else prosecute this case? Eyster’s participation looks and smells bad under ethics rules.
You nailed the ethics issue. Thanks for posting.
Eyster’s not the only one.
https://theava.com/archives/158865/comment-page-1#3
McGourty, County Counsel, Grand Jury, the DA and state Fair Political Practices Commission all blew this complaint off without explanation or response. All he had to do was recuse himself from decisions regarding Russian River water allocations. But no. McGourty went right on as if there ws no conflict or appearance of conflict. Therefore McGourty has no business being a supervisor since he can’t or won’t make these rather basic distinctions. Not that anyone in Mendo cares. Even blatant conflicts like this were ignored by him, his colleagues, the electorate and the authorities. Eyster is just following the pattern.
I really love his wife Jan and her work towards helping the mentally ill in the County. When he’s gone I hope she resumes being the person she was before he was elected.
Marmon
I agree, and she got out of the Measure B gaggle when the get’n was good.
Naturally, her reasoning was her husband’s Supervisorial candidacy, but…
Laz
The County might be prudent to give Ms. Cubbinson a hefty buyout and issue her a public apology, with her walking away.
However, the DA would likely have to eat some of it also. But after seeing him in action, that is unlikely.
Be well,
Laz
Can’t buy her out, she is elected. They could certainly settle a lawsuit before a jury trial would occur where Cubbison could be awarded a huge settlement. Remember the voters are her boss and BOS has overstepped their duties in putting her on unpaid Administrative Leave. Which is the basis for a lawsuit.