Moorpark Seeks to Open Grand Jury Transcripts in Montgomery Case : Litigation: The ex-councilman’s guilty plea left records in his conflict-of-interest case sealed. The testimony could affect contract talks with trash company G.I. Industries.

Nervous that Scott Montgomery’s testimony before the Ventura County grand jury could taint the city’s ongoing negotiations with a local trash hauler, Moorpark City Council members want the district attorney to turn over any pertinent information disclosed behind closed doors.

“We don’t know if there’s anything there,” said Councilman John Wozniak. “But we should be in a position to obtain information if it would have some bearing on our negotiations.”

Montgomery pleaded guilty Oct. 12 to a felony conflict-of-interest charge for accepting a $3,500 loan from a top executive with the trash company--G.I. Industries-- and then voting to extend the firm’s contract. The former city councilman faces up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine.

In the aftermath of his guilty plea, council members want to know if anything Montgomery or the company did would somehow invalidate or taint the ongoing negotiations with the firm, Wozniak said.

He would not speculate on what sort of information could have a bearing on the contract negotiations with G.I., but said it is vital for the city to have as much information as possible before voting on any contract with the company.

The council has asked City Atty. Cheryl Kane to look into whether the city has a right to the information either before or after Montgomery is sentenced Nov. 21.

According to Councilman Bernardo Perez, Kane has already asked informally for the information, but received no commitment either way from the district attorney’s office.

“I would think that if the D.A. had something relevant they would provide it to the city,” Perez said. “This has shaken the public trust in local government here. . . . Now people are looking for certainty. We have to do all that we can to restore the public trust by making everything above board.”

The district attorney’s office would not comment on the matter.

In a normal criminal proceeding, if a grand jury finds sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and issues an indictment, the grand jury transcripts are made part of the record and delivered to the defendant.

Within 10 days those transcripts are also available to the public, unless the court determines that opening the transcripts would hurt the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In Montgomery’s case, because he pleaded guilty before an indictment was issued, the grand jury transcripts were never officially filed with the court, nor were they made available to Montgomery or his attorney, or opened up for public scrutiny.

Two weeks ago the district attorney’s office turned down a request from Montgomery’s attorney, Dan Schmidt, to view the grand jury transcripts, Schmidt said.

“I want the transcripts myself,” Schmidt said. “I think we’re entitled to them. The city’s interest and others are not as high as the defense, but I also feel that the public has a right to know.”

Schmidt said that he was at a loss as to why the transcripts are not being released.

“What is the D.A. afraid of?” he said. “Is he afraid that the grand jury transcripts would show just how abusive they were in this proceeding . . . and why Scott pled guilty?”

City officials worry that if those transcripts do not become public, residents in Moorpark will always wonder about any future contract with G.I.

G.I. Industries already has exclusive contracts to pick up trash for 40,000 customers in most of Moorpark, Simi Valley and parts of Thousand Oaks. Last year the company grossed about $19 million.

The Moorpark contract, which was extended in September, expires at the end of November.

Councilman Wozniak, who with Councilman Pat Hunter serves on a committee negotiating with G.I., said it was his understanding that the information from the grand jury inquiry might become public after Montgomery is sentenced at the end of November.

If that is the case, Wozniak said, the city should again extend the contract and wait for all the information to come out before going forward.

Councilman Hunter agreed, adding that because the company-- which is in the midst of a bankruptcy reorganization--could be sold, the council should also wait until that matter is dealt with by the bankruptcy court in December.

“In light of the circumstances it’s prudent for us to take a step back and assure ourselves before we finalize the contract that this is a company we want to continue to do business with,” Hunter said.