Grand Jury’s Responsibility to Point Out Inefficiencies

I can appreciate the requirement of brevity in news reporting. However, a short editorial or several short stories provide the reader with little or no factual knowledge of the Orange County Grand Jury’s composition, expertise and investigations.

The 1984-85 grand jury was composed of 19 competent Orange Countians chosen from more than 300 applicants. Those who applied were thoroughly investigated by the district attorney’s office, and the 30 best prospects were selected by a committee of Superior Court judges. Of the 30 finalists, 19 names were drawn from a lottery box to become members of the 1984-85 Orange County Grand Jury. The remaining 11 were alternates.

These members were all involved community residents with past experience and expertise that collectively equalled or surpassed the ability and perception of our elected officials and their staff.

Now about investigations: The first five or six weeks, the Orange County Grand Jury visited many county facilities where we were greatly impressed with the efficiency of their operations. Later, when our committees investigated some of these agencies on our own (because we received letters of complaint), we found, to our dismay, that we had originally been subjected to well-orchestrated guided tours.

Before committee reports were written, we visited facilities over and over again, spoke with involved personnel, rode along with social workers and other county employees, took tours, talked, observed--and questioned. We spoke to officials of other counties and compared administrative methods.

We found waste, negligence and indifference in many cases. We observed instances of bureaucracy and red tape that could have been overcome, but were so ingrained that nobody would risk the reprisal of their superiors to correct them.

The Board of Supervisors, composed almost entirely of people who entered politics with little or no previous county experience and with staff personnel whose functions seem to include protecting their bosses from political criticism, has accused the grand jury of being amateurs. Because these elected officials won a popularity contest in an election does not make them more expert than a jury composed of educators, successful businessmen, officers of the various armed services, engineers and community leaders.

Now understand that not everything we found in county government was inefficient, but certainly when the grand jury found outmoded methods of hiring and department heads who followed the old rule of CYOR (cover your own rear), we felt that we were mandated by law and obliged by our own sense of responsibility to bring them to light. Also, the grand jurors did not hesitate to commend those in county government we felt deserved it.

The 1984-85 Orange County Grand Jury did not serve for high salaries, glory or political advancement. We worked an average of 35 hours a week for a pittance, and had no ax to grind except to offer constructive criticism when our studies showed the need.

IRVING WAGNER

Garden Grove

Irving Wagner was a member of the 1984-85 Orange County Grand Jury that completed its work June 30.