Also on Tuesday, the Board tried to deal with the State Auditor’s recommendation that the Board adopt policies regarding the District Attorney’s asset forfeiture spending. Before the discussion even began, newly hired former County Counsel and now current “interim” County Counsel Kit Elliott passed along as her own DA Eyster’s argument that neither the Board nor the County Auditor had any authority over the DA’s asset forfeiture spending.
Board chair/Supervisor Bernie Norvell immediately saw through that argument saying, “The DA told us the same thing,” adding that he didn’t understand why the issue was on their agenda if the Board had no say in the matter.
As usual, Elliott went in to garbled filibuster mode. Elliott said the Board could address documentation and “transparency,” but, in direct contradiction to the State Auditor and the State Auditor’s attorneys, had no authority to the tell the DA how to spend asset forfeiture money.
Elliott: “I want to understand better in terms of direction from the state audit is they – again if there’s such a broad discretion on what specific issues do they have. I know they describe them, but I’m not sure – in terms of if you look at the actual documentation or reasons for what they are doing, uh, the DA, the Sheriff, um, that they don’t not meet, uh, the, the, the, the things that they can spend money on.”
Supervisor Ted Williams: “Until we get clarification, are those expenditures paused? Or will business continue as normal?”
Elliott: “I think, again I am hoping – well, just for information, I’m, uh, Ben Rosenfeld? and I have met. I am trying to help in terms of the overall and assistance – in terms of the communication and oversight of the moneys – I do think this is very important. I think it’s very important to the public to understand this and of course I can see that it’s very important to the board to understand what their duties – and not fall down on those duties. So if I see an issue, I will be very willing to make sure that comes back before the board, if I believe you have a decision to be made. I can promise you that I will be trying to oversee this and I do not want fights between the electeds. Um, I do want this board as much as possible to really remain focused on the bigger issue at hand and that is where are the general fund money is coming from, where are they going, what are you doing with this, how are you making sure that we are doing a correct procurement process, contracting process, etc. But this will not be… It’s not off the table. I guess it is been paused in a certain sense. But certainly, the DA will be going forward with their expenses, and again I will be trying to oversee in terms of just documentation, etc.”
When Supervisor John Haschak tried to get a direct answer about the State Auditor’s statement that the money couldn’t be given to religious organizations or private entities like the Broiler restaurant, Elliott ignored the Broiler question and filibustered on about the fine points of religious activities that may be ok.
Got that, you fools? If you don’t realize that the DA can spend asset forfeiture money according to his own rules, we’ll just keeping heaping legal gibberish on you until you give up.
Accordingly, Elliott wanted to ask the State Auditor to explain their recommdation further, thus avoiding and postponing the issue indefinitely as the DA proceeds as he chooses while the Executive Office will “work with the County Counsel for a response.”
For the record, let’s take one more look at what the State Auditor said:
“We believe that one expenditure we reviewed constituted a gift of public funds. In February 2025, the District Attorney’s Office used $3,600 of asset forfeiture funding to pay for room space and dinner service for an end-of-year staff gathering—which the office described as a continuing legal education and team building business meeting—at a steakhouse. The office paid based on the number of individuals in attendance, and its records indicate, and the District Attorney’s Office acknowledges, that attendees included both its office’s staff and their guests. The District Attorney’s Office shared its perspective with us that including spouses and significant others at this event fosters a more inclusive and positive work environment. It also stated that the CEO preapproved this expenditure, although we saw no independent evidence of that approval. Determinations about whether an entity’s expenditures serve public purposes must be made by a governing legislative body. None of the records we reviewed showed that the State’s Legislature or the county board approved of the expenditure of public funds for the end-of-year gathering. Because of this, we believe that it constitutes a gift of public funds. Such gifts are violations of the California Constitution’s prohibition of gifts of public funds. This use of asset forfeiture funds is another example of why Mendocino must take steps to better control and oversee this funding.”
“Documentation supporting this [Broiler dinner] expenditure does not show why it was a prudent use of public funds to hold an end-of-year gathering and dinner event at a restaurant. We conclude that this was a gift of public funds.”
Later in the meeting both Cubbison and DA David Eyster chimed in on the subject.
Cubbison said she couldn’t just take the DA’s word for the legality of those particular expenses. She said she would need an independent legal review, not just the DA’s, adding that she “could incur personal liability by letting those go go through.” “County Counsel needs to get in touch with me,” added Cubbison, “because I have additional requests from the District Attorney,” most of which she said seemed fine and approvable.
An indignant DA Eyster insisted that Mendo has no authority over asset forfeiture spending because it is a “field pre-emption,” meaning that the state’s rules take precedence over anything Mendo may say, and he follows those rules. “We disagree tremendously” with the State Auditor’s conclusion, said Eyster. “They were very difficult to work with. We gave them a 22-page legal brief on why we are right.” Eyster said the State Audit was “more of an ideology audit, a political audit, not a financial audit.” Eyster listed a number of local agencies and organizations that have benefited from his asset forfeiture grants of more than $1.2 million over his tenure. “I have been a very good steward,” insisted Eyster. “We have a process.” Becoming agitated, Eyster concluded: “Elected officials don’t worry about personal liability. They do the right thing. They don’t worry if it will cause them personal embarrasment. You do it for the public good and the public safety. They [the State Auditor] are inviting you to engage in litigation and you should be very cautious.”
But the issue remained unresolved with County Counsel Kit Elliott again saying she’d work with everybody and see what she could do.
MIKE GENIELLA:
Interim County Counsel Kit Elliott, individual members of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, DA David Eyster, and every voter should pause and reread the state Audit conclusion about “gift of public funds.” Eyster’s practices have been going on for years, representing use of asset forfeiture funds far greater than the $3,600 cited in the special year-long state audit that cost California taxpayers $800,000.
“We believe that one expenditure we reviewed constituted a gift of public funds. In February 2025, the District Attorney’s Office used $3,600 of asset forfeiture funding to pay for room space and dinner service for an end-of-year staff gathering—which the office described as a continuing legal education and team building business meeting—at a steakhouse. The office paid based on the number of individuals in attendance, and its records indicate, and the District Attorney’s Office acknowledges, that attendees included both its office’s staff and their guests. The District Attorney’s Office shared its perspective with us that including spouses and significant others at this event fosters a more inclusive and positive work environment. It also stated that the CEO preapproved this expenditure, although we saw no independent evidence of that approval. Determinations about whether an entity’s expenditures serve public purposes must be made by a governing legislative body. None of the records we reviewed showed that the State’s Legislature or the county board approved of the expenditure of public funds for the end-of-year gathering. Because of this, we believe that it constitutes a gift of public funds. Such gifts are violations of the California Constitution’s prohibition of gifts of public funds. This use of asset forfeiture funds is another example of why Mendocino must take steps to better control and oversee this funding.”
“Documentation supporting this [Broiler dinner] expenditure does not show why it was a prudent use of public funds to hold an end-of-year gathering and dinner event at a restaurant. We conclude that this was a gift of public funds.”
ATTORNEYS.
THE GREATEST WASTE OR DRAIN ON SOCIETY.
Speak in tounges, circles, condescending and arrogant.
We will tell you how to be forget reality. Our reality is the only thing that matters and you peons well…your peons. Shuffle along in your idiot ways WE ATTORNEYS ARE PERFECTION NOTHING ELSE MATTERS BUT OUR OPINIONS. Gag, cough, cough. That is why we are all screwed people.
If there isn’t already some nasty joke about a priest, a rabbi, and an attorney, one could be crafted to fit the occasion.
Chuck this CC before we get screwed again. Get em Chamise! Not listening to the brightest person in the room 2.0.
The usual blather. The real question, at it is in so many of these BOS quandaries-missteps-controversies, is what serves the best interests of our communities and people. That question gets lost and forgotten so often. Does anyone really believe that a bunch of entitled lawyers–hardworking as they no doubt are–and their wives should enjoy a fancy night out on the public dime, when no other County employees receive this benefit? I think the answer is pretty much no. Now we go on, the real issues obscured by blather and ego and lack of common sense…And then, as we all know, the worst of it is the whole Cubbison nightmare, a direct result of this smaller, but important issue. Eyster, a public servant, and the BOS, public servants also, have lost track of what matters. Move on, admit a mistake, do your jobs for the public good.
The DA should be sued for the time he took to write 22 pages of garbage according to the state audit, trying to cover his fat ass. Simply explain the expenditure properly for our Auditor/ Controller. Made a war out of nothing. Should be charged. Oh ya, ain’t no one to do it. Nice gig.
Another example of government at its finest. Reminds me of an orchard abatement case some years ago where the opposing attorneys put everyone asleep arguing over
what constitutes an abandoned crop.
It is not just attorneys. It is all of the sheriff department employees including the correctional officers from the jail that get to have dinner at the Broiler, along with their families & friends.
When someone is (or thinks they are) “above the law”, there are other ways voters and other citizens can “take care” of the situation… if you know what I mean.
They work for us, not for themselves. Or at least that is the way it is supposed to be.
They show no interest in doing what is truly right, yet the DA claims that is what he does? Was his plot to go after our auditor controller the right thing to do? Maybe for himself but not for we the general public.
What is right for who?
For himself & his little family of criminal swine?
On a subject unrelated to Broiler Dave, pacific.net seems to have disappeared into the Philippines, of all places. What the puck? (Bob Abeles, white courtesy phone, please.)
To Our Esteemed Editor: It looks like pacific.net has evaporated into a P.O.B. in Santa Rosa, leaving behind an abandoned presence on a server shared with a company in the Philippines. It’s time to abandon ship, although there’s not much ship left to abandon.
I, too, remember when pacific.net was a decent local outfit. I mourn their passing.
PS. IN THE MEANTIME PLS DIRECT MATERIAL TO [email protected]
I see pacific.net is up and running today…
But for how long this time?
Be well,
Laz
If asset forfeiture funds are used to buy something from a private entity, does that constitute a gift of public funds? For my benefit there needs to be clarification here. What if those funds are used to buy something from a church?
By George, I do believe you’re onto something: A DA-approved, fully tax-exempt religious organization that serves steak and liquor as its sacrament.
That is interesting, too. Can asset forfeiture funds be used to buy paper and pencils off Amazon? How about buying gasoline from Shell or Chevron? Would these instances be gifts of public funds? I am trying to figure out how buying dinners from a restaurant is a gift to the restaurant. There must be something in the law I am unaware of, or maybe I am misunderstanding what is being stated.
In all seriousness, the gift of public funds wasn’t to the restaurant, it was to the employees and their guests in the form of a fine dining experience. The DA could have purchased each of the attendees a 5 gallon jerrycan of Chevron Supreme using the same asset forfeiture funds, and it still would have been an inappropriate gift of public funds. Again, that’s not a gift to the Chevron station operator, but to the employees and their guests.
If the Broiler is “fine dining” I have a bridge for sale. Its good enough but fine dining is stretching the truth. Oh hey!!! Standard practice for DAs and attorneys
I love me some snark. It pairs well with a fine whine.
The Broiler certainly knows how to grill a steak. They consistently have good salad, bread, and other sides. The service has always been good. Fine dining? No, but a meal there is the best one can get in the Ukiah Valley. I have never been disappointed or felt I paid too much.
The Broiler is immaterial, and should not have been mentioned. What should have been said from the beginning was the gift of public funds was to private individuals not working in the DA’s office. The meal for non-staff could have been baloney sandwiches on white bread with or without mayo with a side of water. If the meal was at the Broiler including drinks, and only DA staff were present, that would have been OK. Maybe even having one or two BOS members present would have been OK, too. Some mentions of “make sure you work safe” would have covered the required needs for the meal. I think I have it right.
So you’re saying that dipping into asset forfeiture funds for dinner and drinks for employees and maybe a couple of supervisors is OK?
Under the law, asset forfeiture funds may be used for several well-defined purposes, including law enforcement training. As it’s difficult to make the case that dinner and drinks for employees and guests constitutes training, it’s equally difficult to make the case that dinner and drinks for employees, plus or minus a couple of supervisors who are foolish enough to be there, constitutes training.
On the other hand, if the funds came from somewhere other than asset forfeiture, what you’re proposing might be legal without the guests, but would still retain an odor of impropriety.
I am not saying it is OK. I am saying it appears legal as long as only employees are present. The training requirement can be easily met. The Supervisors could be there to “provide oversight”. I suspect this sort of thing is more common than we know, though maybe not here in Mendocino County. The memo might read, “Staff training meeting at the Broiler Steakhouse 6:00 PM, Dec 12. Let us know if you can’t make it by Dec 5.” I don’t think there is a dam thing anyone can do about it.
From Mendocino County Policy #18:
“4.4.4 Food costs for departmental staff meetings either within or outside normal working
hours will not be reimbursed unless, under special circumstances, prior written
approval is first obtained from the County Auditor-Controller.”
What’s so hard about that? If someone does not like the policy, they should take action to have it changed. But until then, it is County Policy. Based on your post, I am glad you are not in government, George.
The county attorney says the county lacks oversight jurisdiction on asset forfeiture spending. The state auditor says it does.