LAKEPORT – The Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Tuesday denied a request for legal representation by Sheriff Frank Rivero regarding a District Attorney”s investigation.
The matter was first addressed at the Feb. 14 meeting and was carried over to the Feb. 21 meeting. At that meeting, the BOS directed County Counsel Anita Grant to contact DA Don Anderson to see if an ethical wall could be created within her office to provide representation for Rivero. Grant determined she could not represent either side in the matter because of a conflict of interest.
Following that meeting, Rivero asserted Grant has a conflict of interest and maintained the county needs to provide him with legal representation. According to California Government Code 31000.6, upon request of the county assessor or sheriff, the board of supervisors shall provide legal counsel to assist the assessor or sheriff in the performance of his or her duties in any case where the county counsel or District Attorney would have a conflict of interest representing them.
The investigation stems from a 2008 shooting that Rivero was involved in when he was a deputy for the Lake County Sheriff”s Office (LCSO). An LCSO investigation into the incident cleared Rivero of criminal charges. Anderson said this is not a criminal investigation.
Grant said the investigation has a hearing procedure at which Rivero will appear. Rivero said the two triggers for the BOS to provide him with counsel were met. He said providing him with representation would be the best option for all parties, adding he never waived any conflict to allow an ethical wall to be set up in the county counsel”s office. It would be “impossible” to do so and would put county counsel and Rivero in a “tough spot,” he said.
“I can”t sit here like a human pi?ata and allow myself to get beat up,” Rivero said.
Grant said she could set up an ethical wall but, Rivero did not waive the conflict of interest so the issue is irrelevant.
Board Chair Rob Brown said his stance that taxpayer funds should not be used for Rivero”s representation had not changed.
District 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington said the ethical wall approach to using county counsel for representation was a compromise to save taxpayer money. He said he still supported using that option and asked the Sheriff to reconsider.
District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith agreed with Farrington”s compromise idea and said he thought a few weeks had been “wasted.”
District 1 Supervisor Jim Comstock said he thought Rivero was entitled to representation, but wanted it to be through the county counsel”s office in an effort to save taxpayer money.
District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing agreed Rivero should be granted counsel. Rushing attempted to make a motion to narrow the scope for counsel to be provided to save taxpayer money, with a stipulation that the BOS could revisit the matter if attorney fees were more than $1,000. The motion was not seconded and died.
Farrington moved to deny Rivero”s request for outside counsel. It was approved by a 4-1 vote, with Rushing in dissent.
Rivero said the decision was “an unfortunate mistake.”
“The law is clear,” he said. “She (Grant) told them (BOS) they had a requirement to provide counsel, yet they chose to ignore that.”
Rivero said he will petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, which is a request that a superior court review and reverse a final decision of an administrative agency, as soon as possible.
Kevin N. Hume can be reached at kevin.n.hume@gmail.com or call directly 263-5636 ext. 14.
