At one point in the intense cross-examination of the key investigator in the Chamise Cubbison criminal case last week, Superior Court Judge Ann Moorman turned to the prime prosecution witness and demanded an answer.
Moorman asked whether it cost County taxpayers “a single dime” to pay for extra work that all parties – investigators, prosecutors, county officials and the Auditor’s Office — seem to agree that Paula June Kennedy, the County’s former payroll manager and Cubbison co-defendant, had put in during the three years of the Covid pandemic.
Sheriff’s Lt. Andy Porter looked startled, and then he replied softly, “No.” Kennedy had not taken anything more than what everyone involved agreed she had earned, said Porter.
However, County taxpayers are footing far bigger bills stemming from District Attorney David Eyster’s decision to pursue criminal prosecution of Kennedy, and elected Auditor Chamise Cubbison.
Local taxpayers are also on the hook for Cubbison’s civil litigation targeting the County Board of Supervisors for immediately suspending her without pay and benefits without giving the Auditor a hearing to defend herself.
Documented taxpayer costs are already nearly twice the disputed $68,000 in extra pay DA Eyster cited 16 months ago when he filed the felony misappropriation of public funds against both Cubbison and Kennedy.
So far, the County of Mendocino has been billed $119,243 by two outside law firms engaged in prosecuting the criminal case and defending the County Board of Supervisors in the related civil lawsuit.
That figure, however, does not represent additional county costs of investigative and court related services, and the burden on the county Public Defender’s Office to provide a legal defense for co-defendant Kennedy, who qualifies because of her inability to pay for a private defense.
Cubbison is experiencing significant costs of her own by having to hire private attorneys and staff to defend herself against the DA’s criminal charges, and to pursue civil litigation for damages against the County that could cost local taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars more if she succeeds.
The costs documented so far were provided by the County Counsel’s Office after requests made under the California Public Records Act.
The results are just the beginning.
Typically, felony trials are expensive no matter who is paying the bill. In addition, civil litigation can drag on for months, even years, requiring major legal costs.
Records released by County Counsel Charlotte Scott show the San Francisco law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has already billed the county $97,172 for fees related to defending the County against Cubbison’s pending civil lawsuit. Attorneys for that firm had advised the Board of Supervisors at the time of Cubbison’s suspension that its action was proper and legal.
Cubbison’s civil attorney Therese Cannata of San Francisco recently won a favorable court ruling to continue deposing retired Auditor Lloyd Weer, a central figure in both the civil and criminal cases, and to preserve for trial the complete deposition of retired County Treasurer-Tax Collector Shari Schapmire.
The depositions are seen as critical to Cannata being able to show that DA Eyster waged a behind-the-scenes vendetta against Cubbison, with the help of some members of the Board of Supervisors. Internal documents and a video of Eyster’s public appearance before the board damning the Auditor document how Eyster quarreled with Cubbison for three years over his own office spending before seizing on the disputed extra pay as an issue to accuse Cubbison and Kennedy of criminal misconduct.
In her defense Cubbison contends it was Weer who was engaged in setting up the extra pay for Kennedy beginning in late 2019 while he was still in charge of the office. Cubbison was Weer’s assistant before he abruptly retired in September 2021. Cubbison was later elected to lead a merged Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector office as mandated by the Board of Supervisors.
Special Prosecutor Traci Carrillo’s law firm of Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz of Santa Rosa has already billed the county of Mendocino $22,070 for her services through December. The amount does not include Carrillo’s fees and expenses covering four days of the preliminary hearing before it stalled and was delayed until Feb. 24.
If the Cubbison case is bound for trial after the preliminary hearing, taxpayer costs for prosecutor Carrillo alone will escalate sharply to cover her $400 per hour fee. In January 2023, after resisting calls to step aside because of his personal conflicts with Cubbison, Eyster finally hired Carrillo at that hourly rate – high by Mendocino County standards — and agreed then to pay her law firm a $10,000 retainer.
Lt. Porter, County CEO Darcie Antle, former Auditor Weer and other witnesses have all testified during the preliminary hearing that there was no doubt Kennedy worked the hours during the Covid pandemic that she collected pay for, prompting Judge Moorman’s question about County taxpayer cost.
At issue is whether Kennedy, as Payroll Manager, was given the nod by either Cubbison or Weer, or decided to act on her own to use an obscure payroll code to reimburse herself because she had exhausted compensatory time off that salaried county employees can draw in lieu of overtime.
On the last day of the (incomplete) preliminary hearing, a former County payroll clerk testified that documents seem to show that Kennedy adjusted her own pay after overall department payrolls were reviewed and signed off by Cubbison and Weer.
The preliminary hearing in the criminal case is scheduled to resume February 24. At the conclusion Judge Moorman is expected to decide whether to bind the defendants over for trial or approve pending defense motions for dismissal.
When one looks at all the facts now, it is hard to imagine why the supervisors would have gone along with this DA scheme unless they were in it to bring the A/C/T/TC functions under their full control and obfuscation. Many of us advised against the consolidation and had serious concerns about the timing. Now their argument is going to be, oh well, we are already along the journey of getting rid of these independent offices and it would just create more confusion trying to put it back as it was.
After the dust settles on the criminal charges, I think we, as citizens and voters, need to demand they put it back as it was for two reasons. First, so we maintain the independence and accountability of the separate offices. Two, to send a message if you try these shenanigans we are not going to let you get away with it.
This experience is going to cost our county A LOT of money. We should also make sure the two remaining supervisors in this debacle go down the road and find another place to practice their mayhem. As for the DA’s use of the law, I think it is pretty clear who he was protecting. We should demand better.