Grand Jury Plays Fetch

A county Grand Jury is supposed to be a “watchdog of government.” Jury panels have earned that label by keeping a careful eye on issues of public interest, alerting the public to problems and helping guide the county Board of Supervisors to solutions. But on the controversial issue of whether to separate the dual duties of the sheriff-coroner’s office, the current Grand Jury showed neither bark nor bite.

Its four-month examination of the issue was more a poll than a study. The panel reported interviewing 44 criminal-justice officials, 37 of whom felt that the combined duties carried an inherent perception of conflict of interest and believed that the offices should be separated.

And in the end the jury said to the county board, in effect, “Your guess is as good as ours.”

The public and the county board have the right to expect, and should get, more than that from a Grand Jury, whose main function is monitoring government operations.

The jury foreman said that the panel didn’t make a recommendation because it concluded that the decision should be up to the Board of Supervisors. He said that the panel made no recommendation because the jury found no conflict of interest--only perceptions of such a conflict.

People as astute as grand jurors must be aware that in public service perceptions are as important as reality. The jury acknowledged that perceptions of conflict in the Sheriff-Coroner’s Department create a loss of respect for government, lack of confidence in law-enforcement agencies, lowered morale among law-enforcement personnel and an increase in county vulnerability to legal actions.

The county supervisors expected better. Indeed, it was the board’s idea that the jury should study whether there was an inherent conflict of interest in the way the office was structured, with the sheriff having dual responsibilities. It is a serious public issue under serious discussion within the community. Legislation has been introduced in Sacramento to separate the offices. It is the kind of issue on which the public should be able to count on a firm view from a Grand Jury.

Making decisions on knotty public issues is the board’s responsibility. But traditionally the Grand Jury shares that responsibility, at least to the extent of helping focus the issues. The supervisors and the Legislature will be able to decide without the jury. But, as the people’s watchdog, the present panel looks more like a playful pup playing fetch by taking the issue thrown at it and laying it back at the board’s feet.