Experts Question Role : State Grand Juries Failing Civil ‘Watchdog’ Function

California grand juries, the powerful and secretive citizen panels long associated with the investigation of crime, are failing badly in what has become their principal mission--monitoring the integrity and effectiveness of the state’s 58 county governments.

Most of more than 50 public officials and former jurors who talked with The Times said that grand jury members often lack the resources or skills needed to carry out their responsibilities, and that they frequently do not clearly understand what they are supposed to do. As a result, their recommendations too often are of little value, and much of their work is ignored.

Many of the grand jury’s so-called “watchdog” responsibilities, first bestowed by the Legislature more than 100 years ago, have been assumed in recent decades by other, more able agencies, some said.

The question of how well grand juries perform their civil duties is critical for at least two reasons:

California is one of only two states requiring grand juries annually to look into the operation of local government, and, in recent years, California prosecutors have all but abandoned the grand jury as a means of filing criminal charges. Grand juries in the state now spend almost all of their time and money on civil inquiries.

“My opinion is that they come up with nothing of value,” said San Fernando Valley businessman Bernard G. Ramos, foreman of the 1983-84 Los Angeles County Grand Jury. “I don’t think there’s any role for the grand jury in the civil area, none at all.”

In California’s rural Gold Country, Kenneth D. Britt, foreman of Tuolumne County’s 1984-85 Grand Jury, wrote, “The grand jury lacks the time, expertise and resources to effectively investigate and monitor the workings of the various agencies of county government.”

For example:

- Thirty-six California grand juries, responding to a survey by jurors in Sonoma County, reported that their work was hampered by poor attendance, the inability of members to communicate clearly and jurors’ health problems, especially poor hearing and eyesight.

- In a final report issued last year, the foreman of the Alpine County Grand Jury wrote, “On only one occasion after (the Grand Jury) was impaneled were we able to gain a quorum. This . . . greatly impairs the ability of the grand jury to perform.”

- The general feeling is that the grand jury effects slow change, “if any at all,” the Ventura County Grand Jury reported in a summary of its 1982 poll of panels in 41 counties. One respondent noted that “short of a criminal indictment, it appears the Grand Jury has very little real power.”

- National legal experts and the district attorneys of California’s largest and smallest counties said they have reservations about the extent to which grand juries should involve themselves in non-criminal matters. “I don’t think that we need a grand jury with a civil function,” said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner.

Still, many officials and former jurors said the California grand jury’s “watchdog” role should be preserved because it is the only opportunity afforded the citizen to take a direct role in monitoring local government.

Valmer G. Cavey, founder and president-emeritus of the 240-member California Grand Jurors’ Assn., called the civil oversight function “the only vestige of independent privilege, power and action available to influence and control (the) political and social . . .” authority of local government officials.

‘A Pretty Good Institution’

“You have to go back to what this country’s based on,” said Bruce T. Olson, a Davis-based researcher who has studied the state’s grand jury system for 10 years and who offers an annual seminar for new jurors. “If you really believe that there’s value to citizen participation (in government), this is a pretty good institution for that purpose.”

Even supporters acknowledge that the California system is beset by problems.

“How would I go about designing an ineffective institution?” asked Olson. “I’d call people into it who have absolutely no background in what they’re doing. I’d create a situation where they can’t even have (independent) counsel to help them. . . . I’d give them a horrendously broad mandate. I wouldn’t give them any training at all. . . . And I’d create the grand jury as we know it today.”

‘Expecting an Awful Lot’

Both supporters and critics said that many grand jurors find it difficult to grasp the intricacies of agencies whose operations are becoming more complex and technical.

“You really are taking people who, for the most part, do not have a lot of experience in government affairs,” said Scott Thorpe, a deputy attorney general who advises grand juries in 30 of the state’s smaller counties. “You put them in that position for a year and tell them to go out and look at various aspects of county government, try to understand it and try to tell the board of supervisors how to improve it. That’s expecting an awful lot.”

Said William J. Zacker, a retired contractor who resigned from the 1984-85 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: “Forget the civil side completely. It’s sort of ridiculous. . . . We’re just like babes in fairyland when we go down there (to the grand jury room), we don’t know what the hell we’re doing.”

Recommendations Criticized

Roy Ulrich, a public interest attorney in Santa Monica who briefly studied the California grand jury for the Los Angeles chapter of Common Cause, said, “The idea of having citizens working in government on a year’s basis sounds compelling and wonderful and we all want it.” But, he added: “Look at the last two or three years of grand jury reports and you can ask yourself the following questions--One, is there anything in here worth looking into? And two, is it worth the paper it’s printed on?”

In far too many cases, critics said, recommendations are trivial, poorly researched, overly broad or self-evident.

For example:

- The 1985-86 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, after studying the problems of freeway congestion by, among other things, taking a trip in the Goodyear blimp, urged supervisors to consider converting some major Southland arteries to toll roads. The jury quoted a study that suggested toll stations might relieve clogged freeways by “rationing limited highway capacity during peak periods.”

- The predominately white and elderly San Diego County Grand Jury two years ago released a two-page report, drafted without research, that concluded that bilingual education programs are “impractical, expensive and in a sense un-American.” The report prompted angry citizens to organize a group known as the Coalition for a Responsible Grand Jury.

- Following a detailed investigation of the problem of truancy in schools, the Education Committee of the 1979-1980 Los Angeles County Grand Jury concluded, “Children who are truant frequently spend substantial amounts of time in unsupervised, non-productive activity with others who are resisting authority.”

- The Siskiyou County Grand Jury last year identified drug abuse as one of the county’s major problems. The jury devised a six-point program to combat the threat, which is quoted here in full: “1. Neighborhood watches. 2. School, church and home education. 3. Economic improvement. 4. Welfare reform. 5. Severe penalties for offenders. 6. Approve funds for ‘buy’ money.”

- The Criminal Justice Committee of the 1982-83 Los Angeles County Grand Jury studied the process by which police agencies investigate accusations against their own officers. The committee’s report stated: “No new conclusions were derived from the committee’s endeavor. The survey supported assertions that police conduct requires continuous thoughtful examination as police officers possess awesome power.”

- The Education, Library and Recreation Committee of last year’s Alpine County Grand Jury neglected to turn in any report.

In rebuttal, several former grand jurors pointed with pride to recommendations that, in their view, made a difference.

A San Francisco Grand Jury study of police conduct during the riots that followed the 1978 assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk has become required reading for many police officials, Olson said.

Cavey, founder of the California Grand Jurors’ Assn., cited a 1977 study of San Diego County’s fleet of cars and trucks. The study, conducted for the Grand Jury by the accounting firm of Arthur Young & Co., found that the cost of repairs often exceeded the value of the vehicle, and that authorities maintained lax controls over gasoline and other assets, including spare parts. The Grand Jury estimated that its 51 recommendations, 33 of which were adopted, would produce savings of $75,000.

Proud of Study

And in Los Angeles County, Grand Jury members said they were proud of a study released in June that laid responsibility for the fiscal woes of the Los Angeles Community College District on trustees and administrators, who have repeatedly blamed state government. The study, also researched by Arthur Young & Co., concluded that officials have been unable to control expenditures in the face of declining enrollments. It made 40 recommendations for belt-tightening.

Like many of the grand jury reports cited for thoroughness and thoughtfulness, the San Diego and Los Angeles studies were the work of private accounting firms. When grand juries rely on their own talents, the results are usually less satisfactory, some critics say.

Some suggested that the institution has outgrown its usefulness.

Numerous Studies

“They perform a valuable function, but not well,” said Reiner, the Los Angeles County district attorney. “And that function could be performed so much better by say, an auditor general or an auditor controller.”

A 1983 study in Los Angeles County (commissioned by the Grand Jury) found that various agencies of government, in the previous three fiscal years, had conducted a total of 673 management studies, fiscal audits and reviews of county departmental operations.

Three agencies in particular--the management services division of the Chief Administrative Office, the Auditor-Controller and the county Commission on Economy and Efficiency--are specifically charged with many of the watchdog responsibilities that previously had been assigned only to the grand jury.

Debate Hardly New

The debate over the grand jury is hardly new. In 1906, Philadelphia attorney George J. Edwards Jr. noted that the “institution has been attacked with great vehemence by writers of acknowledged ability, both English and American.”

But the focus of the complaints has changed. Until recently, most criticism had been directed at the broad powers that grand jurors exercise in criminal prosecutions.

Meeting in secret, the grand jury has the authority to compel witnesses--with the threat of jail--to produce documents and give testimony under oath. Most importantly, the grand jury has the power to decide whether a suspected wrongdoer will bear the burden of defending himself at a criminal trial.

The specifics vary by jurisdiction.

California prosecutors, like those in 24 other states, may file criminal charges without consulting a grand jury.

Chosen From Voter Rolls

In most jurisdictions, grand juries include between 12 and 23 citizens chosen from voter rolls or from among candidates nominated by judges. In some states, such as Connecticut, courts may authorize a single person, usually a judge, to exercise the grand jury’s powers.

In California, grand juries of 19 citizens (23 in Los Angeles County) sit for one year. Some meet once a month; others, especially in larger counties, meet as many as four days a week. In other states, terms of grand juries may be as short as 30 days.

Civil libertarians have argued for years that the grand jury can be abused in criminal proceedings to harass and trap unwary witnesses. Some states have adopted laws that, among other things, allow grand jury witnesses to be accompanied by an attorney.

However, few legal scholars have paid serious attention to the debate over the grand jury’s ability to carry out its civil responsibilities.

‘Watchdog’ Function

In part, that may be because the “watchdog” function, which had its origins in 12th-Century England, has survived in few jurisdictions outside California.

According to one authority, grand juries in only seven other states have any substantial duties unrelated to criminal investigations, such as inspecting county jails. In Georgia, for example, some county grand juries retain the power to appoint school board members.

Only California and Nevada require counties to convene grand juries annually to act as a “watchdog” over local government--interviewing public officials, inspecting official records and, in some cases, hiring outside consultants to study the management practices of county and city agencies.

The watchdog function now accounts for more than 90% of the grand jury’s time.

Returned 2 Indictments

For example, the 1985-86 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, which met four days a week for 50 weeks, returned just two indictments (naming four individuals). By contrast, the 1964 Grand Jury voted more than 200 indictments. Although comparable statewide statistics are not available, officials in other counties reported a similar trend.

The shift resulted largely from a 1978 decision by the California Supreme Court--James Hawkins vs. the Superior Court of San Francisco--that virtually stripped grand juries of their criminal responsibilities.

The Supreme Court found that criminal defendants indicted by a grand jury are denied many rights afforded to those charged directly by prosecutors. Chief among those rights is the opportunity to have their case reviewed by a lower court before proceeding to trial. “The grand jury is independent only in the sense that it is not formally attached to the prosecutor’s office; though legally free to vote as they please, grand jurors virtually always assent to the recommendations of the prosecuting attorney,” the justices wrote.

Prosecutors Steer Clear

To remedy that inequity, the court declared that anyone indicted by a grand jury would henceforth have the right to a preliminary hearing.

As a result, prosecutors in recent years have largely steered clear of the grand jury, preferring to present their case once, before a magistrate, rather than offering evidence first to the grand jury and then again to the lower court.

The grand jury now is used most commonly to decide politically sensitive cases in which a prosecutor wants a panel of citizens--not his office--to be the final judge.

Nevertheless, the words “grand jury,” even in California, still conjure up images associated exclusively with the investigation of crime--the crusty mob boss, the overbearing prosecutor, the surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation, the secret witness.

‘Equals Indictment’

“A grand jury strikes fear into the heart of everyone, because it has a mystique to it,” Reiner said. In the minds of most citizens, he said, “Grand jury equals indictment.”

That lesson was an unpleasant one for John Dyer, general manager of the Southern California Rapid Transit District. In a 1983 debate on the proposed Metro Rail subway system, Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge), an opponent of the project, told a packed auditorium that the county grand jury had begun an investigation of the “boondoggle.” Stunned, Dyer spent most of the night on the defensive.

In fact, the “investigation” actually was a routine civil inquiry--later abandoned. But Fiedler left some who attended the debate with the erroneous impression that the RTD was suspected of criminal wrongdoing.

Three years later, it was Fiedler who publicly decried the grand jury’s power to tarnish reputations--after she was indicted for allegedly trying to pay a rival candidate to bow out of a U.S. Senate primary. The charges were later dismissed.

Next: Who are grand jurors?