But maybe some gunshot residue…
We submitted our Public Records Act request for information related to the suspension of former Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison back on November 3, 2023 because there was speculation that Ms. Cubbison’s suspension was an orchestrated, pre-planned exercise, the result of the Supervisors’ extended and growing program of frustration and complaint which we referred to as Operation Get Cubbison.
So we asked the County for:
Emails, cell phone text messages, and correspondence for the time period January 1 through November 3, 2023, for:
(a) the five individual supervisors with the District Attorney;
(b) for the five individual supervisors mentioning Sara Pierce, Chamise Cubbison, or the Auditor-Controller, and
(c) between any staff within the CEO’s office with any staff within the Sheriff’s office.
2. Meeting agendas and attendance logs for all supervisors closed session meetings in 2023 where Sara Pierce or the County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector were discussed or when the District Attorney was present either in person, on the phone, or by electronic means.
3. A current list of Deputy CEO’s, their responsibilities, and their educational backgrounds and training records.
4. Deputy CEO Sara Pierce’s resume, educational background, and training record.
After weeks of delay and postponement, Assistant County Counsel Charlotte Scott responded first on Monday, December 11, 2023, then again on Friday, December 22, 2023.
As to Item #1, Ms. Scott replied, “…There is no centralized retention storage for cellphone text messages held by the County (and/or the Sheriff’s office) and the cellphone carrier does not retain text message content for any extended period of time. Instead, a search for responsive cellphone text messages must be performed by manually searching the individual County-issued cell phone through the assistance of the individual County user. The County has reached out to the individual Supervisors as to any responsive text messages (for 1(a) & (b)) and relevant Executive Office staff for 1(c). The County will produce all non-privileged/non-exempt cell phone text messages specific to your request.”
Ms. Scott first provided emails and text messages responsive to #1a and #1b for Supervisor Gjerde, adding, “I will provide a further release of records on or before December 22, 2023 (and on a rolling basis until I complete review).”
Instead of closed session agendas and attendance logs, Ms. Scott simply referred us to the Board’s agendas and minutes and videos. She added, “The County may neither confirm nor deny whether there have been any closed session meetings in 2023 referencing the topics you have identified.”
Regarding the Deputy CEOs and their qualifications, Ms. Scott provided basic duties and educational/training info, but nothing else, saying, “Resumes that may be included in personnel files are exempt as personnel or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Ms. Scott provided a miscellaneous collection of emails and attachments, most of which were unrelated ordinary correspondence between Supervisor Dan Gjerde and Supervisor John Haschak and the Auditor’s office. These included notes from constituents or local government staff related to specific accounting practices and tax matters with little information on responses, resolution or follow-up.
The only small bit of Cubbison suspension info in the Gjerde material was a short text message exchange on October 17 (the same day Cubbison was suspended) between Sara Pierce (who was appointed to replace Cubbison) and Gjerde:
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?”
Gjerde: “Yes, I think Eyester [sic] should want to explain his reasoning for his hands-off of Lloyd. I have not heard — but left wondering. Is it because: 1) Lloyd is gone and can no longer do harm, 2) he believes Chamise made contradictory and untrustworthy statements to investigators, 3) all of the above and something else.”
Lloyd Weer was Cubbison’s predecessor as Auditor-Controller (before she was elected to the combined office of Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector (ACTTC). Of course DA Eyster hasn’t explained his reasoning beyond his fairly cryptic court filings and he has complained that people shouldn’t even ask or talk about the case. We don’t know what “harm” Gjerde thinks Weer may have done; we know of no public complaints of that nature. We assume that whatever statements Ms. Cubbison may or may not have made to investigators (either Sheriff’s or DA’s) — what Eyster “believes” is irrelevant, what he can prove is what matters — will be addressed during the prosecution of her case. But we agree with Ms. Pierce that Mr. Weer should have been interviewed and we expect that if the case goes forward he will be, if not by Eyster, then by Cubbison’s defense.
The material about the Deputy CEO’s was skimpier and less interesting than we had expected; we were surprised that there are only three “Deputy CEOs” (two now, since Sara Pierce has been appointed ACTTC) — Cheryl Johnson, Steve Dunnicliff and Sara Pierce — apparently most of the CEO’s 18 senior staff have titles like “senior analyst” or the like.
Since Sara Pierce has a BA in Business Administration from the Adventist College in Napa County and has been with Mendocino County for about three years; it appears she meets the minimum qualifications required by government code for appointment to the “acting” position she now fills.
In the second set of materials, there were inquiries from Haschak and Mulheren to the Auditor about cannabis tax receipts and a few other routine, unrelated matters.
However, there was this exchange between Haschak and Third District constituent Janet Orth the day after Cubbison was suspended.
Orth: “I was disappointed that you voted yesterday to suspend Chamise without pay. I can see a suspension while the case plays out, but why take such quick and punitive action when we have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing? There has not yet been a court hearing. Also, was Chamise informed of the emergency agenda item? She was not present for the vote. Had this been on a noticed agenda, I think there would have been more public comment. In past actions we’ve seen you take a wise stance even when in the minority, and that’s what I had expected yesterday, so I was surprised by your vote. I do appreciate your asking the questions that you did. This is my individual, personal opinion based on my long work experience dealing with the County Auditor’s office, and just a logical, compassionate mindset. So I’m contacting you as my Third District Supervisor. Is there any chance of a move to reconsider? Thanks for your attention to this matter. — Janet Orth”
Haschak replied: “Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can't talk about the situation because it is a criminal and HR matter. It wasn't a quick or lightly taken decision. As for a vote to reconsider, I know that it wouldn't go anywhere. Best to you and Tony [Janet Orth’s husband],
John.”
Janet Orth: “Thanks for the response, John. Then why was it not in closed session? Or was some of it? I just thought it should be administrative leave or suspension WITH pay.”
Haschak: “Hi Janet. We have had several closed sessions about this. John.”
“Several closed sessions”?
We went back through the County agendas for the months leading up to the Cubbison suspension and there is nothing in any of the closed session agenda titles to indicate a discussion of Cubbison or the Auditor’s office.
On October 19, 2023, Supervisor Maureen Mulheren asked Deputy CEO Cherie Johnson: “The rumor is that there was a mass-exodus of people from the Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector office after the merging of the Elected Officials office. Is it possible to find out how many people have left vs how many have been hired?”
There was no response to this question in the emails the County provided.
One of Supervisor Mulheren’s constituents, Suzanne Farris, asked: “I just wanted to share that I’m quite skeptical of this action, and it makes the impression of being politically motivated.
With the background of DA Eyester [sic] not liking Cubbison’s questioning some of his use of funds (which she’s not alone in) and Ted Williams pushing about certain things, it seems rather convenient. And the fact that she is an elected official makes it rather dicey to remove her also. I have to say further, that the decision of the board of supervisors to consolidate the two departments, of auditor/controller and treasurer/tax collector, comes back again to bite them as the poor decision it was. I wish I could feel more confident in the actions and motivations of the Board.”
Mulheren responded: “I can’t comment on criminal matters.
The Board has not consolidated two departments yet there are still considerations on going.
Our constituents deserve financial transparency and that is what I will continue to work towards.”
Farris: “Thanks for responding.
I’m not sure what you say when you refer to consolidation of two departments. That was done in 2021. I’m attaching a piece of an article the Sunday’s Ukiah Daily Journal that refers to that action. Maybe you are referring to the rumored intent of some at the board of Supervisors to create some other system? A Department of Finance, or something…? A non-elected position possibly, which is also questionable. But you did vote for the consolidation, back in December of 2021. I’ve attached a screenshot of that event in Jim’s Shield’s UDJ article on Oct 23, 2023. The whole article is worth reading.”
Mulheren: “The elected offices were merged. Future changes to the department have not been better [?] by the Board that was a separate agenda item that will include consideration of oversight of an elected official and which functions they would have, that change would like to [?] before the voters but County Counsel has not returned with the legalities one way or another.”
* * *
That’s what we have. Perhaps a little more will be forthcoming since Ms. Scott says she’s still looking for additional responsive materials.
What can we make of this?
Supervisor Mulheren’s replies to Ms. Farris were incoherent and lame. She was not asked about any “criminal matter” — she was asked why the abrupt suspension without pay and why they consolidated the departments.
Supervisor Haschak’s replies blowing off Ms. Orth’s legitimate questions were dismissive and insulting. At no time did either Supervisor attempt to explain or justify their abrupt suspension. Hiding behind charges being filed or “an HR matter” to justify their action is bogus. There was nothing automatic about the suspension since nothing has been proven and no imminent harm being prevented was cited. Nor is there an “HR matter” angle, since Cubbison is an elected official, not hired help.
There’s no clear evidence of a orchestrated plot to get rid of Cubbison. However, Haschak’s reference to “multiple closed sessions” about the matter which we cannot find any evidence of is troublesome. That would be a Brown Act violation and perhaps an indication of an orchestrated ouster. Ms. Scott’s seemingly unnecessary claim that “The County may neither confirm nor deny whether there have been any closed session meetings in 2023 referencing the topics you have identified” when such matters should have been on an itemized closed session agenda is also suspicious for the same reason. We are considering further follow up on this question.
It’s also clear from the materials provided that the Board had a cordial and respectful relationship with Cubbison and her office during most of her tenure. There is no tone of annoyance, frustration or grievance in any of the materials. There is nothing from the Board asking repeatedly for the undefined reports they claimed to have requested (but never did provide the examples they said they’d provide) and not received.
On the theory that incompetence explains more than intrigue or conspiracy, and on the basis of what’s on the record in open session, we can only conclude that the Board simply wanted a more compliant and cooperative Auditor-Controller/Treasurer Tax Collector who would make nice and tell them what they want to hear and not argue with them or point out failings of other departments, the Board, or the CEO’s office. So they used the DA’s charging of misappropriation as an excuse to abruptly and mindlessly fire Cubbison and replace an inconvenient elected official with an unelected staffer of their own choosing for no stated or substantial reason.
* * *
Reversion To Form — Impressions from the Inland Democrats’ Ukiah candidate forum on Saturday, December 23…
Maybe it was the Inland Democrats who, like the Women’s Political Caucus candidate affairs in the past, water down all political discussion by filtering public questions through a selective schoolmarm moderator and feverishly wave signs at the candidates with strict time limits.
Maybe our expectations were too high.
Maybe it’s the political anesthesia that infuses and de-energizes almost all public discussion in Mendocino County.
Maybe it was a combination of the above.
Whatever it was, the “candidate forum” was as dull and devoid of substance as the Supervisors meetings.
Here we have a Board of Supervisors which has done nothing to address their alleged $10 million deficit, blew up the County’s financial offices, failed to address millions of dollars of uncollected taxes due, failed to honor a single voter approved measure, wastes hours of meeting time on pointless discussions, picked a pointless fight with the Sheriff that cost almost $400k in lawyer fees…
And what did the candidates talk about?
None of that.
Incumbent District 2 (Ukiah) Supervisor Maureen Mulheren opened by saying she was “proud” of her work as a Supervisor during her three years in office, citing the routine distribution of PG&E settlement money, “a lot of progress reducing homelessness,” and “actively working to see that Measure B money is used as voters wanted.” Mulheren defended the borrowing of Measure B money to help cover the jail expansion overrun without a payback plan by saying that they had no choice since the state required it and the contractor was lined up with a bid that was about to expire. Mulheren also bragged about her membership on 21 boards and committees, adding, “When you do too much, people think you do nothing.” Mulheren defended the ill-considered and knee-jerk merging of the County’s financial offices without a plan not by citing alleged benefits, but by saying “the timing was right” with the retirement of Lloyd Weer and Shari Schapmire (who retired in disgust after the Board had decided to merge the offices) and that she was waiting for a merger plan from County Counsel. Nevermind that nobody has asked County Counsel for such a plan and the Board should have developed one before even discussing the merger.
Instead of focusing on uncollected taxes, Mulheren’s opponent, Jacob Brown, offered “business growth,” “carbon sequestration,” and “cap and trade,” as solutions to the County’s financial problems. But in one of the bright moments of the “forum” he pointed out that the suspension of the Auditor-Controller Treasurer Tax Collector was done “to consolidate power and to put more power in the CEO’s hands.” Brown also criticized the lack of a repayment plan for the borrowed Measure B money.
In the race for the Redwood Valley/Potter Valley seat (District 1) candidate Trevor Mockel, of course, touted his brief tenure as an intern and junior staffer for two state senators. But when asked what he would do to fix or improve things, Mockel replied, “The funding problem will not be solved in Mendo. It will take Federal and state involvement.”
Adam Gaska again demonstrated his thorough knowledge of the water situation in the Ukiah Valley. Gaska also criticized the Board’s failure to address personnel and staffing for the new jail wing. “There’s no plan for services,” said Gaska. “We need a net for people who are there who need help. So far we are failing them.”
Candidate Madeline Cline came across as quite polished and well-spoken. She criticized the borrowing of Measure B funds to cover the huge jail expansion overrun saying that “the voters lose trust when the Board goes against the voters and uses the Measure B money for the jail.” She added that although she agreed the County had to fund the expansion, “What happens when we go back [to the voters] for another program?” — if there’s no payback plan.
Candidate Carrie Shattuck, who is usually direct and blunt in her many public comments at the Supervisors meetings, appeared to be pulling her punches, focusing on how hard it is to get information from the County. She did however complain that “only one supervisor interacts with the public,” presumably a reference to Supervisor John Haschak. “You can’t even talk to a supervisor,” said Shattuck. After the meetings “they go in the back and make no effort to hear what you have to say.” But Shattuck undermined her positive tone by saying during her concluding remarks, “We need more shopping options.”
Of course, these are only a few highlights from the two-hour forum. Overall, we were disappointed by the lack of energy and specifics, the absence of bluntness, and the candidates’ avoidance of the Board’s major failures.
This is not a time for niceness as usual.
We’d like to be hopeful that future candidate discussions will be better, but…
Be First to Comment