Selection Process Seen as Haphazard : Grand Juries Crippled by Lack of Experience, Skills

In rural Alpine County, high in the eastern Sierra, folks say they have a hard time finding people with the talent and time needed to be good grand jurors. And with a tight county budget, money to pay for grand jury work is in short supply.

With 680 registered voters and an annual grand jury allocation of $1,200, those problems are hardly surprising.

But in Los Angeles County, which has more than 3.6 million voters on its rolls and more than $600,000 set aside for grand jury work, the complaints of local officials are virtually the same.

Of all the difficulties facing California’s grand juries, the most troublesome seems to be choosing a group of citizens who can rise to the difficult task of picking apart a complex government bureaucracy--without picking apart each other.

The California Penal Code requires only that a grand juror be a citizen, at least 18 years old, a county resident for at least a year and “in possession of his natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment, and of fair character.”

Whether those qualifications are sufficient to provide a “watchdog” grand jury with the skills needed to do its job is an open question, several former jurors said.

“Ninety-five percent of the people on that grand jury have absolutely . . . no background to sit there,” said Berny Schwartz, a management consultant who was foreman of the 1984-85 Los Angeles County Grand Jury until his mid-term resignation.

California law requires that grand juries every year “investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, or functions of” counties, cities, special districts and special agencies.

In addition, grand jurors must inquire into the misconduct of public officials and the condition and management of prisons and jails. They even have the power, although it is seldom used, to remove officials from office, even if the misconduct does not warrant criminal indictment.

Skills and Abilities

Looking into the operation of modern county government requires skills and abilities different from those needed to evaluate evidence in criminal cases, Schwartz said. Jurors, who are chosen through a combination of judicial nomination and a lottery, must quickly learn how the county bureaucracy operates, identify its significant problems, question officials and analyze official records, draw conclusions and write clear and concise reports.

“You take a road worker, you take a cattleman, a plumber, a carpenter, a schoolteacher, two housewives, a dental clerk assistant and you put them on the grand jury,” said David O. Zellmer, a three-time foreman of the Alpine County panel. “They’ve had no training whatsoever, no schooling whatsoever, but because they’re grand jury people, they’re (supposed to be) instant geniuses.”

Many jurors begin their service with little or no understanding of what they will be expected to do.

Because of their inexperience, grand jurors rarely have enough self-confidence--or knowledge--to question public officials aggressively, said Bernard E. Ramos, foreman of the 1983-84 Los Angeles County Grand Jury.

The officials, Ramos said, “roll out the red carpet--’Hey let’s butter up these people, let’s give them a nice lunch, let’s give them a walking tour, and shoot ‘em on to bother somebody else.’ And, of course, the grand jurors love this.”

Squabbling Can Hurt

Most people chosen as grand jurors are dedicated and conscientious, if inexperienced and at times naive, former jurors said. But too often, others said, inflated egos, petty jealousies and internal squabbling cripple grand juries.

“Some of the motives people have for wanting to be on the grand jury don’t necessarily coincide with the purpose of the grand jury,” said Ray Arce, director of the jury management division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. “There are people with personal agendas, and there are people who are unemployed and this is a means of employment, there are people who are seeking to be one up on members of the community, there are people looking for a social life. . . . “

One former grand jury foreman recalled that his panel became so polarized that one group of jurors avoided riding on elevators with members of the opposing faction.

In another case, the work of the 1984-85 Los Angeles County Grand Jury came to a virtual standstill for nearly three months last fall as a group of jurors sought to remove foreman Sam Cordova, who, they believed, had grossly exceeded his authority. Eventually ousted, the Sylmar businessman has since sued the county and eight former grand jurors over the incident.

‘Egotistical People’

“It wasn’t just the fault of the foreman,” said Charles Richardson, who succeeded Cordova. “We had some very strong minded, egotistical people on this jury, and they have not only caused problems at the first, they’ve been problems all through the year.”

One former juror, who asked not to be named, said the most significant crisis his panel faced occurred when county officials, in a move to save money, discontinued the practice of issuing special badges to members of the grand jury. Many of the jurors were more outraged by that decision than by all the examples of government waste or mismanagement uncovered during their term, he said.

Early this year, the critic said, a member of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury whose term ended June 30 posted on a bulletin board a photograph of Compton Councilman Floyd A. James, who had recently been accused of election fraud (and who is now awaiting trial in Superior Court). Under the photo, which remained on the board for months, a grand juror wrote: “Our first indictment.”

Health and other problems associated with age sometimes afflict grand juries.

In larger counties, where grand jury work demands more time, a higher percentage of grand jurors are older and retired. In Los Angeles County, where the grand jury sits four days a week, 50 weeks a year, the median age of the 23 jurors chosen for the 1985-86 panel was 67. Fifteen of the 23 were retired.

One Man Had to Leave

“One man had to leave our grand jury,” said Schwartz, “because he was physically unable to walk across the room without hanging on to something.”

A better mix appears more possible in smaller counties, said Irene Vann, who headed Tuolumne County’s 1985 grand jury, because panels there often meet only once a month.

Ironically, many of the complaints about those who are selected for grand jury service arose largely because of changes undertaken to safeguard the rights of criminal suspects.

“When I was a kid, the most respected citizens in the community were selected to be on the grand jury,” said Alpine County Dist. Atty. Henry G. Murdoch. “The president of the bank, the leading car dealer. . . . “

But during the early 1970s, the so-called “blue ribbon” grand jury came under increasing attack in the courts because it did not adequately reflect the ethnic and social composition of the community it purported to represent.

Random Selection

In response to a series of federal and state court decisions, some counties that previously had relied solely on judges to choose grand jury candidates began randomly selecting potential jurors from voter and motor vehicle license rolls. Others, such as Los Angeles County, allowed citizens to volunteer. Final selection in all counties is by lottery.

“The grand jurors are selected, not because of any skills, training or experience . . . but just simply to be reflective of the community generally,” said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner. “Which is a good criteria if you’re dealing with a jury that is just to try facts. . . . I don’t think that is the appropriate criteria when you give somebody the mandate to go out and make judgments about the transportation system.”

Suggestions by Jurors

In the last decade, scores of suggestions for improving the performance of California’s grand juries have come from judges, county supervisors, special commissions, associations of grand jurors, the state attorney general’s office, private auditing firms and the panels themselves. Some have been implemented, with little apparent effect.

Many of the proposals have focused on the process of choosing jurors.

“Instances of grand jurors ‘not in possession of their natural faculties’ and/or without other qualifications stipulated in the Penal Code have been reported,” noted a 1982 study of the grand jury conducted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., a private accounting firm. “This would indicate a less-than-sufficient selection process.”

Among the suggestions:

- Judges should spend more time interviewing grand jury candidates. Several officials told the Peat, Marwick auditors that “Superior Court judges do not consider nomination of potential grand jurors as one of their more important responsibilities.”

Most judges simply do not have time to conduct lengthy interviews of grand jury candidates, said Schwartz, the former Los Angeles foreman. Many judges do not submit all the names to which they are entitled; many make no nominations. In Los Angeles County, 120 of the Superior Court’s more than 200 judges submitted names for the 1984-85 panel.

One former juror complained that the judge who placed his name in the pool never spoke to him. “He didn’t even know if I had arms or legs,” the juror said.

- Grand jurors should be better paid and better oriented. California counties give grand jurors between $10 and $25 a day. Peat, Marwick, the Sacramento County Grand Jury and others have proposed increasing pay to attract better candidates.

- More professionals should be recruited for grand jury service. Schwartz, the former Los Angeles grand jury foreman, tried to persuade the leaders of large law and accounting firms to talk a few of their brightest young employees into volunteering for grand jury service. If their employees were picked, the firms would continue to pay their full salaries for the year and guarantee them a job at the same level of responsibility when they returned.

“The people who I went to who were favorable, whom I’d known for 25 years, they couldn’t get one member of their firm . . . to do it,” Schwartz said, because employees were reluctant to surrender their seniority.

- Standards for grand jurors who carry out civil responsibilities should be different than those for jurors who consider criminal indictments.

Two Juries Authorized

In the early 1970s, the California Legislature authorized several counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa and Marin, to impanel two grand juries every year--one for criminal matters and a second for civil inquiries.

A 1976 study headed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman noted, “the fact that the grand jury here is in no way representative of Los Angeles County’s ethnic and economic diversity has caused many constituents of the legal process to seek a two-part grand jury system” under which criminal functions would be discharged by a culturally representative panel, while civil investigations could be left to a jury “for which ethnic or economic background are irrelevant.”

Los Angeles County never adopted the plan. San Francisco has maintained a separate civil grand jury for the last 11 years.

However, the intended effect of the double grand jury law was blunted by a 1975 decision by a U.S. District Court in San Francisco, which limited the extent to which counties can create special qualifications for “watchdog” jurors. In the case of Quadra v. Superior Court, a federal judge held that “exclusion from the civil investigative grand jury . . . is as much an affront as exclusion from a more traditional grand jury.”

Time Can Be Problem

California grand juries face other problems as well. Among them is time.

“If you’re really getting into an in-depth investigation into a civil oversight area, one year is totally inadequate,” said Melvyn CoBen, an attorney who was foreman of the 1984-85 grand jury in Sacramento County. “The bureaucrats know you last for only one year. And they know the first three months they don’t have to be afraid of you because you’re getting organized and the last three months you’re busy writing (a final report). . . . If they can stonewall you for six months, they’ve got you.”

Some have suggested establishing longer terms for grand juries, or creating overlapping membership, so half the jurors end their terms every six months. Critics contend that such changes would prove unwieldy. If many citizens have trouble setting aside one year for grand jury service, they say, how can government expect a juror to serve for two years? In any event, both changes would require action by the Legislature, which has so far proved hesitant to tamper dramatically with the structure of the grand jury.

Money is another problem. Jurors complained that county officials do not provide them with adequate resources--support staff and a budget to hire outside consultants--to fulfill their responsibilities.

Variation in Pay

Annual budgets for California grand juries range from Alpine County’s low to Los Angeles County’s high. In most counties, the money barely covers jurors’ fees and mileage. There is little or none to hire outside auditors or staff.

In Sacramento County, which spends nearly $90,000 on its grand jury, the panel last year complained that its lone part-time staff position was inadequate. In addition to hiring a paid secretary, jurors suggested that they should consider retaining an independent attorney. Relying on the county counsel and the district attorney for legal advice posed the possibility of a conflict of interest, the jurors said. The suggestion has been raised by other grand jurors throughout the state.

Some feel that no amount of money would help. “If they continue as grand juries have acted in the past,” said Schwartz, the former Los Angeles foreman, “what we’ll be doing is spending a million dollars (a year) of the taxpayers’ money and getting damn little for it.”

Los Angeles County has increased its grand jury budget by 53% in the last three years. But the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on audits conducted by private firms have not guaranteed results.

Even when the jury or its auditors produce recommendations that have merit, there is no guarantee that public officials will pay attention.

‘A Laughing Stock’

“In my opinion, most of the bureaucracy considers the grand jury sort of a laughing stock,” said Ramos, the former grand jury foreman. “They don’t take it seriously.”

One longtime Los Angeles County administrator, who is retired and asked not to be named, said the weight that bureaucrats attach to grand jury recommendations depends to a large degree on their scope. “The problem is (that grand jurors) don’t have any political accountability,” the administrator said.

“The audits that help the bureaucracy the most are the nuts and bolts audits”--those that objectively measure a department’s performance against goals and standards established by elected officials. “I think you’d find that the bureaucracy almost always implements that kind of recommendation,” said the former official said. “The philosophical ones run into philosophical problems.”

By the time the panel’s annual report is presented to the county Board of Supervisors, the jury that prepared the report no longer exists--and succeeding juries usually have little interest in doggedly pursuing the recommendations of the previous group, although some make the effort.

To increase continuity, some judges have taken advantage of a law that allows them to directly appoint up to four members of the previous grand jury to a second term. The procedure helped his panel, said O. B Parks, foreman of Siskiyou County’s 1985-86 grand jury.

But in the end, Parks and others said, a grand jury is only as good as the sum of all the jurors who comprise it.

The debate over California’s grand jury system is unlikely to sway either those who argue for its abolition, or those who push for reform. And few on either side expect much change quickly.

“It is not enough of an aggravation . . . to become a political issue and to get anybody overly excited about . . . doing away with it,” said Ramos, the former Los Angeles foreman.

“It will go on and on and on, and I will be long gone, and they’ll still have a grand jury.”