S.D. Law: Board Votes for Public Defender System

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to create an in-house public defender system, rejecting a $40-million proposal from Community Defenders Inc., a nonprofit organization whose executive director resigned last week amid allegations about his role in a 1972 prison escape.

The vote, reached after an hour of debate over whether the county would be giving away too much power and too many dollars to an outside agency during a time of budget cutbacks, left Community Defenders chairman E. Miles Harvey stunned and angry.

“It has been totally wasted,” he said, pointing to the time and money spent over the last several years that have gone into research for an independent organization to represent San Diego County’s poor in the criminal courts.

And he predicted that taxpayer money will be wasted in the future because the county board will be unable to establish an in-house program more efficient and less costly than that proposed by his nonprofit group.

Alleged Escape Role

“The waste will start from this moment forward,” he said. “I guarantee it.”

Harvey said Alex Landon’s resignation from the helm of the Community Defenders program, which came after allegations resurfaced over his alleged role in a 1972 prison escape, stole too much attention from the critical need for an efficient legal defense system.

“It was a red herring that got everyone away from the central issue,” Harvey said.

While not referring to Landon by name, several of the supervisors expressed regret that a separate “personality issue” was injected into negotiations for the $40-million, three-year contract with the county and Community Defenders.

But Supervisor Brian Bilbray cited a projected cost savings for an in-house program when he cast the deciding vote in support of Supervisor Leon Williams’ motion for creation of a county-operated Office of the Public Defender.

Under the in-house system, county attorneys would be hired to work for a public defender, who would be answerable to the county administrative officer and, ultimately, the Board of Supervisors.

Bilbray said budget constraints were his top concern in voting for the in-house system.

A proposed county budget of $1.24 billion for next fiscal year was made public Monday, and it included cuts of about $10 million in services and programs.

‘A Lot of Costs’

With those reductions in mind, Bilbray voted for the in-house system, which the county staff has estimated will cost $11.5 million a year.

In contrast, the county would have paid an estimated $12.2 million a year under the Community Defenders contract, plus a $1.13 million start-up fee that Bilbray said “scared me to death.”

“There are a lot of costs here I just can’t justify,” he said.

But most important, he said, were his worries that the county would be spending too much money for “accused” criminals while at the same time cutting back on services for the “unaccused” taxpayers who require other county subsidies and services.

“Though this (CDI) proposal is the best vehicle for the accused, it may not be best for the County of San Diego and its community at large,” he said. “I believe we should not be placed in a situation in this budget process of taking money away from the unaccused and giving it to the accused.

“And at this time and place, can the County of San Diego afford a Cadillac defense system while we are cutting programs for the unaccused across the board?”

Harvey, visibly upset as he left the board chambers, defied the supervisors to establish a public defender system cheaper and more efficient than that proposed by his organization.

“I predict now that they won’t be able to,” he said. “I don’t know where the county is going to put a 200-(person) law office. And I don’t believe they’re going to get quality people at low-quality rates.”

Individual Contract

Harvey estimated that the county will spend $20 million this year in providing public defender services on an individual contract basis, far more than that estimated by either Community Defenders or the in-house system.

And he said that, over the last nine months, Community Defenders attorneys have handled about 10% of the public defender caseload, but have yet to be paid more than $100,000 in fees owed by the county.

He also said that as late as Tuesday morning, he felt confident Community Defenders would win the contract.

“I thought I read three votes going in,” he aid. “The difference obviously was Brian Bilbray. But we have advocated all along that we are not a Cadillac system. You can walk into CDI offices today and see there are no Cadillacs around. Everybody is running around trying to get all the work done.”

Bilbray was one of three supervisors who voted in January for the county to begin contract negotiations with Community Defenders. But his aide, Pam O’Neill, said that did not mean Bilbray wholeheartedly endorsed Community Defenders.

“He never made a speech in favor of CDI,” she said. “He said go forward and negotiate the contract. He said get the best and final contract. And then he was waiting for the evidence to come in.

“But his bottom line was what would cost the county the least. By the unaccused, he meant the taxpayer.”

With the large number of low-income people accused of crimes each year, the supervisors have for years sought a more efficient and cost-effective way to provide legal services. A blue-ribbon commission of lawyers and judges recommended two years ago that the existing system of using individual attorneys under contract should be scuttled in favor of a nonprofit organization to handle all cases.

‘Progressive Approach’

The supervisors endorsed those recommendations and Community Defenders was formed.

But Norman Hickey, chief administrative officer for the county, continued to push for a traditional public defender office, which is favored by most large counties in California. He once proposed an office staffed by 128 county lawyers at an annual cost of $11.5 million.

Daniel Grindle, chairman of the Indigent Defense Advisory Board, told the supervisors that his organization endorsed the Community Defenders contract as an “innovative and progressive approach” that would have provided 146 attorneys.

“We are pleased and relieved the focus of the attention has returned to the merits of the proposal rather than the personalities,” he said, referring to Alex Landon.

Landon, a veteran public defender, was selected a year ago from among 130 applicants nationwide to head up Community Defenders. But he stepped down Thursday as executive director as allegations heightened over his alleged role in a Chino prison escape 16 years ago.

The allegations surrounding the escape of Ronald Beaty were brought to the attention of the supervisors by Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) who for a year persistently pushed for a reopening of an investigation into the incident.

The escape occurred when a van carrying Beaty to a court appearance was run off the road and two guards were shot, one fatally. A year later, Beaty testified that Landon had smuggled escape tools into the prison and ferried out escape plans, a story Beaty later recanted.

No criminal charges were ever filed against Landon.

Stirling said in a telephone interview from Sacramento Tuesday that he raised the allegations because he believed the supervisors should be well-informed of the allegations about Landon before it entered into the Community Defenders contract.

And the assemblyman said he agrees with the supervisor’s decision not to hire Community Defenders, even without Landon as executive director.

“I think the board is perfectly justified in making whatever judgments it wants to,” he said. “The facts show it’s cheaper to do it with county staff and that’s a sound decision.

Difficult to Gauge

“Here the Board of Supervisors are always lambasting the Legislature for sending it inadequate funds, and for them then to turn around and go with a more expensive system, it seems to me that would have been a matter of local politics rather than good local government.”

But board chairman George Bailey, who, along with Supervisor Golding, voted against the in-house system, said it was difficult to gauge the cost of any type of public defender system because the caseload can vary each year.

“It’s almost impossible to adopt a budget and say this is what the total cost of indigent defense will be,” the chairman said. “At the end of the year, it’s always up. We don’t know what the cases will be before us or the complexities of those cases.”

Golding said the county should go with the “best system available”--Community Defenders--even if their cost is somewhat higher.