Why Court Rejected D.A.’s ‘Willful Misconduct’ Theory

Here are excerpts from the state 4th District Court of Appeal’s opinion dismissing charges of “willful misconduct” against Supervisors William G. Steiner and Roger R. Stanton:

“The district attorney seeks to unseat Steiner and Stanton as Orange County supervisors. He took this action . . . after another elected official, County Treasurer Robert L. Citron, made speculative high stakes financial investments, which suffered a precipitous downturn and plummeted the county into bankruptcy. . . .”

*

“In a nutshell, the accusations assert Steiner and Stanton did a shoddy job of minding the store. . . “

*

“[T]he district attorney alleges Steiner and Stanton failed to realize that Citron’s investment decisions could bring financial ruin to the county because they did not pay close enough attention to his activities.”

*

“Steiner and Stanton contend the alleged acts do not constitute the ‘willful misconduct’ required to trigger removal from office. . . . We agree. [S]omething more than neglect is necessary to constitute willful conduct.”

*

“To adopt the district attorney’s proposed negligence standard would have ominous public policy implications. . . . In plain terms he could try to oust them for getting a C-minus on their report cards.”

*

“We cannot believe the Legislature intended to give the district attorney that power when it enacted [the law used to charge the supervisors with misconduct]. The procedure [for removing public officials] must be reserved for . . . criminal behavior or, at least, a purposeful failure to carry out mandatory duties of office. The allegations against Steiner and Stanton fall well short of that standard. . . .

*

“Even if Steiner’s and Stanton’s alleged nonfeasance fell within the [scope of the law], the district attorney would still face another barrier: the separation of powers doctrine. . . . We conclude legal action may not be taken against supervisors for their activities . . . enacting legislation.”

*

Allowing the supervisors to be charged criminally for failing to carry out their general legislative duties “would put the district attorney in the position of a super-governor in the county. Supervisors would look over their shoulders before taking any discretionary action for fear the district attorney would find they had not passed muster and would subject them to the expensive and protracted proceedings we have seen in this case. On the other hand, if the supervisors failed to act, they would fear ‘criminal’ prosecution for a negligent omission.”