From Where I Stand: Step 132

As reported last week a jury found a counselor at a Youth Correctional Facility here in the great state of California had violated the civil rights of four of the wards at the facility. Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office represented all three defendants: the counselor, the superintendent of the facility, and the state director of juvenile justice. They were ordered to pay awards totaling more than a million dollars, and attorney fees plus punitive damages that the judge is working to assess. To date there has been no response from Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, anyone associated with the campaigns for governor, or any of the major media outlets in the state.

Perhaps Meg Whitman found herself too busy defending her own actions. In an article in Friday’s Los Angeles Times, Whitman, who was the CEO of EBay in 2007 when the incident took place, stated, “Young Mi Kim and I had a verbal disagreement and it escalated and I actually, as the New York Times accurately reported, you know escorted her out of the room and then I went back to what I needed to do in that meeting.”

It is unlikely we will ever know the exact content of the disagreement, or the level of force exerted to escort Ms. Kim, but whatever it was Kim reportedly received a $200,000 settlement. This figure is slightly less according to my source than the quarter of a million dollars the attorney general spent for expert witnesses whose purpose was to solidify the defense of the aforementioned correctional officials.

When asked if Attorney General Jerry Brown knew about this expenditure my source responded by asking, “What do you think? Who else is going to approve spending that kind of money?”

During the past week I also learned that while the attorneys for the plaintiffs have spent six years putting this case together none of them have been compensated, and may have to wait for the outcome of any appeal the state may file on behalf of the defendants. Meanwhile, I also learned, outside counsel retained to assist the state was paid for by the prison guard union.

Again, this is the same union that is contributing large sums of money to elect Jerry Brown governor of California. Of course if Meg Whitman continues to have questions raised about her temper, management style or abuse of employees, there may not be anyone qualified other than the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights to ask why when a unanimous jury finds “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendants violated the civil rights of these four former wards is the state still considering their appeal.

A logical person might further question whether this civil case warrants some form of criminal prosecution. As I recall, Jerry Brown was the tough on crime mayor of Oakland, and has spent time as attorney general portraying himself as a protector of innocent victims. Naturally the burden of proof is different in a criminal case, but at least it might say the state of California cares about its citizens, even incarcerated ones, more than someone who uses his position as a state employee to abuse those citizens.

What do you think? Tell us in the comment section. Or, write Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman and tell them what you think about this case.

From Where I Stand: Step 125

When we sat down for bagels and juice the discussion quickly moved beyond the lack of diplomacy by BP CEO Tony Hayward and the ridiculous apology he received from Texas Congressman Joe Barton to the intriguing results of a trial where all twelve jurors found an official at a Youth Correctional Facility in Chino, California had violated the civil rights of four wards by forcing them to have sex. Mitch, who was barred from discussing the matter for the five months of trial where he represented one of the plaintiffs, said the attorney general’s office had refused any effort to resolve the matter during the six years he had been working on the case. Now, he says they are considering an appeal.

When Dan asked why he had not heard about the case in the news Mitch explained that only the San Bernardino Sun had written an article about the outcome. He said other media might be waiting to see if an appeal is filed. In the meanwhile the judge is determining punitive damages and attorney fees, which the defendant has been ordered to pay. Were the attorney general to decide to appeal the state would have to put aside a promissory note one and a half times the total of the awards and fees, according to Mitch.

Manuel wanted to know if that meant his money, as a taxpayer would be set aside for this case. Mitch assured him that is what would be done.

So, what pray tell, we all wanted to know, was the basis for the defense? Mitch said they had a number of expert witnesses, none of whom had ever visited this facility, state this kind of behavior could not have happened. One expert on prison culture claimed to be writing a book with research to support the defense’s argument. Apparently none of the twelve jurors were buying the expert testimony nor do I foresee any of them running out to purchase the book.

It occurred to me the individual found to have perpetrated this act might be represented by the correction officers’ union. While Mitch could not substantiate whether or not this person was a member of the union he did say the prison guard union was well known to be one of the most powerful organizations in the state. Of course this stems from a multiplying of the prison population in recent years, but that’s a conversation for another day.

When I got home I found in the Sun article both the superintendent of the facility and the head of the California Youth Authority at the time of the incident were found responsible for imprisoning the four youths in conditions “that exposed them to a substantial risk of serious harm and/or sexual abuse.” One of the attorneys stated, “They have to take affirmative action to protect the wards. Prison staff were warned repeatedly that Shelby was a sexual predator, and absolutely nothing was done about it.”

So one might wonder, is there a point of law that merits appeal in this case? Or, is there reason to speculate that since attorney general Jerry Brown is running for governor support by the correctional officer’s union might influence such a decision. While no direct link to my knowledge has been established it is essential his office repudiate the slightest whiff of impropriety or be subject to the wrath of the voters, or at least Meg Whitman.

One group, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights seeks support for a petition asking Attorney General Brown to let the judgment in this case stand.

What do you think? Please let us know in the comment section.

From Where I Stand: Step 55

Among the many dramas continuing to unfold this past week but not discussed around the table with bagels and juice was what did the pope, who was then Cardinal Ratzinger, know and when did he know it. The case involving an Oakland, California priest known to have molested two juveniles brings into question what actions or inaction did the then cardinal take and when did he or did he not take it. Kind of reminds me of questions surrounding Nancy Pelosi and what she knew and when after the CIA revealed she had been briefed on water boarding. I’m surprised such an issue didn’t arise during the health care debate. As if things were not difficult enough Pope Benedict learned late this week that the president of his predecessor, John Paul XII’s native Poland was killed in a plane crash. What we did discuss after volleyball this morning at the table over bagels and juice was a more local issue. Having received an oversized glossy card in the mail this week regarding an upcoming election here in the golden state I inquired as to who else had been privileged to get this important document. When the puzzled looks on their faces made it clear that wives had disposed without sharing the item I spoke of, Sam asked what it concerned. As soon as I said it was about a proposition Sam wanted to know if it had anything to do with electricity. Affirming his suspicion Sam said it was just PG&E, better known as Pacific Gas and Electric, attempting to control the market. No one seemed to think the proposition had merit, and Sam said he did not like the whole idea of propositions. For those of you unfamiliar with the process, a proposition is a way for citizens to make laws without the participation of the legislature. In theory, any person can propose an idea, gather enough signatures on a petition, and place the item before the voters. What usually happens is a special interest group finds the elected officials do not share its agenda and a proposition is used to circumvent the legislative process spelled out in national and state constitutions. Sam related how this impacted him recently when he went to a local mall and was approached by a person wanting him to sign a petition to lower his auto insurance rate. He asked the person how much compensation she received, and was told it was two dollars per signature. Wanting to know more Sam asked how she was doing. She told him she needed to gather about 200 signatures a day to pay for her travel and hotel expenses. I said it appears difficult for many people to trust the people they elect to make good decisions. I said I don’t decide someone I voted for is doing a bad job just because they don’t vote the way I want them to on every issue, but apparently some people do. Sam said we could just wait and see what Jerry Brown is going to do. Once again, for those outside of California, Jerry Brown was governor of California 35 years ago, and he’s running for that position again. Dan said the problem is we have one person who’s spent his life in government, referring to Brown, running against someone who has no idea how government works, referring to Meg Whitman, former E-Bay CEO, who has spent millions of her own money in a primary against the state insurance commissioner, Steve Poizner. I had to admit I admire her tenacity and enthusiasm. Your comments are appreciated.