A newly filed court writ seeks the immediate reinstatement of suspended Mendocino County Auditor Chamise Cubbison, and payment of all lost pay and benefits since her October ouster by the county Board of Supervisors.
County supervisors are accused of committing an “unlawful abuse of power,” and a violation of the elected Auditor’s right to due process. The petition for a petition for a writ of mandate was filed with the Mendocino County Superior Court and demands that Cubbison be returned to her job one day after any ruling.
Therese Cannata, a noted San Francisco labor law attorney, submitted the writ on Cubbison’s behalf. It names the County of Mendocino, the Board of Supervisors, and 20 unidentified individuals. It claims Cubbison’s personal and professional reputation has been damaged by the board action, and in addition to back pay and benefits she is entitled to “all interest due to her at the legal rate” and “other and further relief as the court deems proper.”
Cannata’s civil action stirs more public controversy swirling around the board’s decision to oust an elected official after criminal charges were filed Oct. 13 against Cubbison by District Attorney David Eyster. At issue is whether Eyster can fairly prosecute a fellow elected official given their past political run-ins over his spending of public asset forfeiture funds, and reimbursement requests for travel-related expenses. Now the situation appears to be further complicated because of the possibility the DA could be summoned as a witness if civil action is pursued against the county and the Board of Supervisors.
Chris Andrian, Cubbison’s defense attorney, said the new filing is one more reason why Eyster should voluntarily step aside and allow the criminal case to be independently reviewed for possible prosecution. Andrian will appear on Jan. 12 before Mendocino County Judge Keith Faulder to formally argue for the DA’s recusal if Eyster doesn’t act before then. Cubbison has yet to enter an expected not-guilty plea to a single felony charge of misappropriation of public funds. Co-defendant Paula June Kennedy, the county’s former Payroll Manager, earlier this week entered a not-guilty plea to the same charge. The plea entries have been delayed since October because of legal wrangling over the DA’s role in the case.
Kennedy is accused of receiving $68,100 in extra pay by using an obscure payroll code during the period from 2019 to 2022. There appears to be no arguments whether work was performed for the extra earnings, and or if Cubbison did not personally benefit. Who authorized the payments, however, is in dispute. Cubbison contends it was the result of a deal reached between Kennedy and now retired Auditor Lloyd Weer. DA Eyster, however, claims Kennedy and Weer blamed Cubbison when sheriff investigators questioned them.
No matter argued attorney Therese Cannata in the new civil action.
Cannata said county supervisors erred when they relied on a state government code cited by an outside county legal adviser as grounds to suspend Cubbison. The board acted four days after she was criminally charged in an Eyster-filed complaint that cites no specifics.
Cubbison was summarily locked out of her office and escorted from the county administrative complex by Darcie Antle, county executive office, and the director of the county Human Resources department. The board acted to suspend Cubbison after agreeing to an off agenda item for its regularly scheduled Oct. 17 meeting.
Attorney Cannata that as a result Cubbison’s reputation “has been damaged and the citizens of Mendocino County have been unlawfully and summarily denied the right, without cause, to have their duly elected Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector serve in office.”
Cannata is the managing partner of the law firm of Cannata O’Toole & Olson. She specializes in representing management level public employees statewide. Cannata has been ranked among ‘super lawyers’ by her peers.
Cannata said a court order for Cubbison’s immediate reinstatement is necessary because she has no other “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.”
Cannata is especially critical of the Board of Supervisors, the District Attorney, and others involved in a mushrooming local political drama that now involves civil and criminal actions. It sets the stage for possibly prolonged and costly litigation at taxpayers’ expense.
Of primary concern for Cannata is the board’s reliance on government code section 27120 to justify its locally unprecedented removal of an elected official. Board members have blamed Cubbison for delays in financial reporting after they forced a consolidation of the county’s two independent financial oversight offices. The consolidation was opposed by Cubbison and other senior county officials, and local civic groups, all of whom warned of chaos that was sure to follow. Nevertheless, county supervisors, with the public support of DA Eyster, forged ahead in hopes the consolidation would lead the creation of a new county Department of Finance more closely aligned with the board and county administrators.
Cannata said the board’s reliance on the disputed state code section was faulty despite being recommended by the county’s outside legal firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, also of San Francisco.
Specifically, Cannata said in the Cubbison case, the state code is “inapplicable because it does not apply to the merged positions” that she was elected in 2022 to hold. The code only cites an elected county treasurer. The board has no legislative authority to suspend Cubbison since the alleged wrongdoing occurred in the Auditor’s Office, argued Cannata.
Cannata said of equal importance are serious issues involving proper notice and due process for elected county officials.
Simply put, said Cannata, “The Board of Supervisors cannot suspend or remove a duly elected official … without notice or due process.”
Cannata also takes issue with DA Eyster’s criminal complaint against Cubbison, and how the board relied on that for justification of their decision to suspend the Auditor without notice.
“The importance of an established procedure is demonstrated by the criminal complaint, which is silent on any facts supporting the violation,” said Cannata.
Cannata said, “It is impossible to tell from the criminal complaint exactly what facts (Cubbison) is charged with that may tie to her official duty.”
Further, Cubbison’s co-defendant Kennedy for most of that time she received extra pay was “under the direction and authority of the prior-elected Auditor-Controller Lloyd Weer.”
Cannata noted that Weer is “curiously not referenced in the criminal complaint.”
Cubbison did not assume her elected role as head of the two departments until January 3, 2023, after the alleged illegal payments were made, said Cannata.
Cannata also noted that DA Eyster’s criminal complaint against Cubbison is “devoid of any factors or alleged conduct supporting the charge.”
“No meaningful evidentiary hearing – either pre-suspension or post-suspension – was held (by the Board of Supervisors) on the merits of the allegations in the criminal complaint,” said Cannata.
Cannata argued in conclusion that the board’s “lack of legal authority to suspend petitioner without pay coupled with a lack of a meaningful hearing on the sufficiency of the allegations at issue to warrant the removal of an elected official is both an unlawful abuse of power” by the county board and a violation of Cubbison’s right to due process.
It is unclear when Cannata’s petition for Cubbison’s immediate reinstatement will be heard, and before what judge.
I saw Cubbison at the grocery store weeks ago limping. She looked like shit. I’m talking stressed. This woman is the smartest woman to ever be ukiahs auditor and she’s getting raked over the coals. Kennedy did the work. This is such nit picky bull shit stirred up by Eyster.
And on the grand scheme of things….what’s up with codes? Isn’t anything just what it is anymore?.. It’s the same with medical insurance billing. These codes are everything and they’re arbitrary as fuck and everyone misuses them to get what they need. STUPID
I’m a bit worried about how much this is going to end up costing us as a county after legal fees and the obvious impending law suit. This board of supervisors is garbage at best and criminal at worst, they are unable to balance a budget or put money where it is supposed to go, using the opioid settlement money to balance budget is one such example.
She is correct. This County is too busy trying to hide their corruption to fix the financial problems. You have the Fox guarding the hen house.
I guess now is when we get to find out of Counselor Curtis really knew what he was doing when he advised the board they could do this
Sadly, voters aren’t paying attention. Expect more dysfunction in the future with bankruptcy soon becoming the only viable option for cleaning up the mess.
The writing was on wall when CA voters passed cannabis legalization in 2016. The overall economy and voter heritage in Mendo is built on generations of black market legacy wealth and white flight NIMBYs / environmentalists suppressing legal market growth. The local gov’t is spending more than it is earning, simple and to the point. All these county roads and services are going to erode making many remote spots even more remote and services more restrictive.
I think the Board Fu*ked Up on this one via 5-0 vote, and we the county tax payers will be getting billed for it. I predict all this will be a huge hurting issue for DA Eyster’s @ the next DA election cycle too.
unfortunately, his term and those of all DAs and Sheriffs statewide was extended by two years until 2028 to make elections for these officials occur during presidential elections, but the public shoukd not have to tolerate his abuse of power for another four years. Recall him.
Start the signature process and also have a competent DA ready to replace him.
I noticed that this article is credited to reporter Mike Geniella. I have followed many of Mr Geniella’s articles since his days as a reporter for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. I also recall that Mike Geniella has previously been referenced as a spokesperson for The Mendocino County DA’s office, one of the key parties in this story. I was wondering whether Mr. Geniella previous position with the DA’s office might have created the appearance of a bias or conflict of interest that should have at least been disclosed in his reporting here. I have never had any reason to question this reporter’s integrity and have no bone to pick with him. I’m only wondering if Mr. Geniella should disclose any relationship he might have had with a principal subject in a story he is reporting on.
I have explained publicly on a number of occasions my former part-time role as a media adviser to the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office. I ended that contractual relationship on Nov. 1, 2021. I was never a county employee. I was a consultant providing public information services. Since then, I have resumed my role as a working journalist, writing on a variety of subjects for Mendocino County publications including MendoFever, the Ukiah Daily Journal and the Anderson Valley Advertiser. In addition, I reached a freelance agreement recently with my old employer, The Press Democrat.
Title: District Attorney David Eyster: Assessing Alleged Conflicts of Interest
Introduction:
District Attorney David Eyster has been a prominent figure in Mendocino County’s legal landscape, known for his progressive approach to justice. However, allegations of conflicts of interest have arisen during his tenure, raising concerns about the impartiality and integrity of his decision-making. This essay aims to critically analyze the alleged conflicts of interest involving District Attorney David Eyster, evaluating the evidence, potential implications, and the impact on the community’s trust in the criminal justice system.
Overview of Allegations:
The allegations of conflicts of interest surrounding David Eyster primarily revolve around his personal and professional relationships with influential individuals within the county, like the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and the County CEO. Critics argue that these relationships may compromise his ability to objectively prosecute cases and make impartial decisions. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about potential favoritism towards certain individuals or groups that reliably agree with him which could undermine the credibility and fairness of the justice system within Mendocino County.
Assessing the Evidence:
To evaluate the alleged conflicts of interest, it is important to examine the specific instances and evidence put forth by critics. This requires a careful analysis of Eyster’s relationships, any benefits received, and the impact on his decision-making process. It is crucial to distinguish between personal friendships or professional connections and actual conflicts that compromise the integrity of his role as District Attorney.
Potential Implications:
If the allegations of conflicts of interest are substantiated, there are several potential implications that must be considered. Firstly, the fairness and impartiality of Eyster’s prosecutorial decisions should be called into question, leading to doubts about the legitimacy of convictions and the overall integrity of the criminal justice system. Additionally, public trust in the District Attorney’s Office is likely to be eroded, potentially undermining the community’s confidence in the pursuit of justice, rather than using the powers of the DA’s office to potentially settle disputes in which DA Eyster may be harboring ill feelings towards the decision making by other Officials that work within Mendocino County.
Impact on Community Trust:
The alleged conflicts of interest involving David Eyster have the potential to significantly impact community trust in the criminal justice system. Trust is a cornerstone of a functioning legal system, and any perception of bias or favoritism can have far-reaching consequences. It is essential for the District Attorney’s Office to be perceived as an impartial entity that upholds justice for all, irrespective of personal relationships or external influences.
Addressing Allegations and Ensuring Transparency:
To maintain public trust and address the allegations, it is crucial for District Attorney David Eyster to address the concerns raised and demonstrate transparency. This can be achieved through independent investigations, recusal from cases involving individuals with whom Eyster has personal relationships or disputes with and the establishment of clear guidelines and protocols to avoid potential conflicts of interest now and in the future.
Conclusion:
Allegations of conflicts of interest surrounding District Attorney David Eyster highlight the importance of maintaining impartiality and the perception of fairness within the criminal justice system. It is clear that there are specific instances where the importance of fairness has not been the priority.
While these allegations are serious and require careful consideration, it is essential to evaluate the evidence objectively and provide an opportunity for Eyster to address and refute these claims. Ultimately, the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office and the trust of the community must be preserved to ensure a just and equitable legal system for all.
The ultimate outcome falls to the voters of Mendocino County which when the time comes for voters to cast their ballots these issues should be seriously considered by each and every voter.
Submitted by:
A concerned Citizen
District Attorney David Eyster has ignored numerous written requests for responses to questions surrounding his filing of felony criminal charges against suspended county Auditor Chamise Cubbison, and former county Payroll Manager Paula June Kennedy. The DA did the same when a series of police misconduct cases emerged in 2022, and his decisions to drop felony sex charges in one case and his lack of prosecution in another despite a victim’s claim she was forced to have sex with a former police chief while he was on duty.
In my opinion It is very clear that there are political motivations via the collaboration with DA Eyster, County CEO and the BOS to force an outcome that they desire when it comes to Chamise Cubbison. Each and every travel request, meal reimbursement, extra help ultimately get signed off by the Executive Office.
These powerful people are upset because they are dealing with a strong elected official that refused to bend to their will. The DA has for years wielded his power to get people to bend to his desired outcomes.
In my opinion this particular case its pretty clear that the five BOS, CEO and DA Eyster have found themselves caught with unclean hands and are attempting to figure out how they can politically walk away with each other pointing fingers at one another.
It should be noted that County Curtis who has worked with contracted Attorneys CLW has accepted another job and is not walking but running away to be as far away from what is a poor politically motivated case here in Mendocino County.
In my opinion My advice is for the attorney representing CB is to make a discovery request for all past documents authorized by the CEO’s office and if there is an action that really holds criminal merits then track down all the use of questionable billing codes that the CEO Office moves / funnels money around from different departments like child welfare and money that is required to be used for the protection of children and reducing foster care that is used for other areas of the County that affect the bottom line of the general fund including funneling into the DA’s budget.
“These powerful people are upset because they are dealing with a strong elected official that refused to bend to their will.” – Come on, this isn’t a good vs evil. Cubbison ran unopposed and less the 30% of registered voters voted for her in 2022. Let’s not over play her victimhood or candidacy. The VAST majority of voters in this county didn’t know her name or her qualifications and/or abstained from the “so-called” election for Auditor. Let the courts sort this out.
Cubbison was already a County employee and regardless of your position she was voted in and is an elected official. The CEO, BOS and the DA are very politically powerful people and when the deck is stacked it’s very difficult to go against what they want.
The DA consistently challenging the Auditor as well as the previous two Auditors and other County employees within the Auditors office because it was his assertion that he could spend County dollars anyway that he wanted even though he was consistently told his opinion was wrong.
In my opinion the DA collaborated/coordinated with the CEO and the BOS in an effort to get what he wanted which was Cubbison out of Office. There is no doubt that the DA holds an extreme amount of political power. Anyone that does not understand that there are ugly politics occurring is wrong.
I hate to say this but the DA was voted in by the same margins and methods as the Auditor. The DA is no Darth Vader. He was “elected” by a community of his peers like the Auditor. I don’t doubt there are transgressions happening inside the CEO and BOS but I think the best outcome is if both the DA and Auditor lose their jobs after this nonsense. Both are wholly unqualified and ethically challenged. She may be getting called out as a scapegoat but this may be the first card that falls with many more behind it.
Well said. Well thought out. An actual critical thinker!
I just wish there were actual choices when it comes to elections… many of the folk running have run uncontested in the past.
The Assessor, Auditor, DA, and Sheriff elections are nonsensical. These positions would do just as good or better if they were appointed by a BOS board or nonpartisan committee. There would be some oversight from a board elected by the people and a way to remove rogue or corrupted candidates.
There already is a mechanism to remove the elected officials. It is no different than if the people do not like an ordinance, get the signatures and have a recall or referendum.
Recalls only require like 12% of register voters to start a recall. It costs counties thousands if not millions in dollars to run recall elections for such a small minority of voters. (And with no guarantee of passing) Recalls are really messy (not to mention many voters have to vote on a extra election topic they may or may not be well versed in. In a county (Like Mendo) that struggles to hold onto staff, the elections office has to run circles to find volunteers and or paid staff from other depts to run a extra election outside the normal cycle.
Replacing a department head costs the county a lot. It might cost as much as a recall but it would be difficult to put together all of the cost involved. The point is there is a process to remove one and it takes far more people than 3 supervisors or the CEO making a decision, even if it is only about 12% of the voters.
That’s precisely my original point if you read what I said. If this was an appointed position (the auditor in particular) this wouldn’t cost anymore than moving a director head around or laying someone off. Since it’s elected it now going to cost a fortune to remove an unwanted head.
I think it may be you who is missing the point. Replacing a department head does have a financial hit to the county. Recruitment, loss of additional staff that leave when there is a change. Loss of productivity for the office, missing deadliithat cost the county by penalties, and the list goes on. No change comes without cost but there isn’t always a receipt for it.
I didn’t miss any point but I wholeheartedly disagree with you if you are implying appointments costs about the same as elected heads. You clearly haven’t worked in govt before. Elected heads costs more than appointed heads even when heads voluntarily leave office because it requires a election process to replace them. Look what happened to the assessor’s office after Sue left voluntarily. The employees all fought each other over the vacant elected head title and, now post election, they all hate each other and splintered to different depts. The assessor’s office has never recovered the staff until like last year and the morale was low for several years. P&B has a director appointed by the BOS and she has a degree in the field she works in and was vetted by the BOS to verify she is a good candidate. The current Assessor/Clerk recorder has never worked in the Assessor’s office or fully understood the processes in assessments yet she won an election and she manages a dept she know little to nothing about. Viva la difference.