Peterson’s Grand Jury Bill Dropped by Allen; Other Sponsors Sought

Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress) said Wednesday that she will not sponsor a bill aimed at changing grand jury procedures, despite a request from the Orange County Department of Education and county schools Supt. Robert Peterson.

Last month, the Education Department asked Allen to sponsor a bill that would prohibit any grand jury from issuing a critical report until the agency being criticized had a chance to respond.

Understands Her Position

Peterson said Wednesday that he would seek other sponsors for the legislation. “We’re appreciative of Doris for taking the bill this far, as we understand it’s already been through the legislative counsel’s office and is ready to be introduced,” Peterson said, adding:

“I certainly understand Doris’ position, and it may be best to have the bill introduced by more than one person, not necessarily from Orange County, where this has had such high visibility.”

But he said that problems with grand juries “are not limited to Orange County. I’ve talked to superintendents from other counties who have been unhappy with the situation.”

Past grand juries have criticized Peterson’s leadership of the 700-employee county Department of Education, which has an annual budget of about $50 million. Some grand juries also have suggested that the department is superfluous. The 1985-86 grand jury, which issued its report in June, called for a blue-ribbon citizens commission to study whether the county should have an appointed superintendent rather than an elected one. Peterson, who has been elected in countywide elections since 1966, has opposed the idea.

In his rebuttals to past grand jury criticism, Peterson has said that frequently a grand juror “with an ax to grind” has persuaded other jurors to investigate and criticize the department. Peterson has said that frequently such investigations are superficial, with no attempt to allow county education officials to present their side of the story.

Allen said she declined to introduce the bill for “a variety of reasons,” including conflicting statements about the source of disagreement between the grand jury and the county Department of Education.

Questions Disharmony

In a letter she mailed to Peterson on Wednesday, Allen said: “I am at a loss to fully understand the disharmony between the Orange County Department of Education and the Orange County Grand Jury. The effect of a public airing of these differences is, in part, to create an inappropriate environment for advancing this proposal.”

Allen said she would be glad to work with both agencies in the future. “I do not view my decision as a victory for the Orange County Grand Jury or a rebuke of the Orange County Department of Education,” she wrote to Peterson. “Rather, this review has convinced me that both the Orange County Department of Education and the Orange County Grand Jury should seriously examine, together, what improvements can be made in the current grand jury procedures, if any.”

In addition to forbidding the release of a grand jury report until the criticized agency has a chance to respond, the bill sought by Peterson would:

- Require grand jury committees to give a copy of their report “to the county officer of the agency being investigated” at the same time that the report goes to the overall grand jury membership.

- Require that the names of people on the grand jury who disagree with the report be made public when the jury’s report is released.

- Require that all “topics investigated shall be determined by a majority vote of the entire grand jury.”

- Require a two-thirds vote of a grand jury before public release of its report.

Peterson has charged that some past grand juries have unfairly criticized him and the county Department of Education without seeking all the facts. He also has said that his department didn’t have time to answer the criticism.

Peterson said he is not sure that he will be able to get a sponsor for his proposed grand jury bill before the cutoff for new legislation next month. But he said that if he misses this year’s deadline, “we’ll try again next year.”

Although Peterson said he has no sponsors immediately in mind, he would seek both Democratic and Republican legislators “so that the bill will be bipartisan.”