Demonstrating fortitude and professionalism, DA Dave Linn spoke during public comment at the special meeting of the Madera Board of Supervisors which was scheduled solely to vote on a “Resolution” to compel DA Linn to resign over allegations of misconduct.
During public comment, one individual questioned why the Board paid out thousands of dollars in harassment settlements for a department head but never fired that individual.
One woman spoke eloquently in favor of DA Linn stating that she was “of Mexican descent,” but in all her interactions with DA Linn, she had never witnessed the “racism” for which he was accused.
One can’t help wondering, if Board members were concerned over a complaint about DA Linn’s conduct, why did they arrange a public circus for a vote on a juvenile “Resolution” instead of discussing the problem directly, with the DA like professionals would? Under these circumstances most professionals would have approached the DA directly, discussed their concerns and then documented the meeting.
One can’t help wondering why, only two board members spoke at the meeting, a meeting that makes serious accusations against a DA and asks for his resignation. The two Board members that spoke were the two that are supposedly under investigation for misconduct involving developers. Their statements were more about defending themselves and they said nothing to support the allegations against our DA or any discussion of how they determined their voting position. There were so many “I’s” in one Supervisor’s statement, it sounded more like a tribute to himself, than anything pertaining to the issue at hand. But one thing this Supervisor said that was beyond shocking was his admission of lack of interest in truth and justice.
Most of us who have lived and worked in the mainstream are fully aware of how a disgruntled employee will exaggerate, embellish or twist someone’s words or actions beyond inappropriate. It is purported that the complainant had filed similar complaints against the DA’s in Tuolumne and Stanislaus Counties. The Supervisor addresses this, but then says he doesn’t “care” what happened in other counties. This is beyond shocking. Was any credence given to these other complaints in the investigation that was paid for with the people’s money? This Supervisor was entrusted, by the voters, to maintain the integrity of the position of County Supervisor, exercise good judgment and serve with fairness, justice and transparency in all matters. Wouldn’t this include “careful” consideration in weighing all the facts pertaining to a complainant, his credibility and his background before making serious allegations against our DA? Can we trust the judgment of a Supervisor who doesn’t “care?”
Finally, the most telling aspect of the dog and pony show…..how did this “Resolution” come about? Was there discussion of this among Supervisor’s at a public meeting or did a special meeting magically appear on the calendar with a “Resolution” magically materializing on the Agenda? How is it possible that only two Board members spoke on a serious issue and the rest were silent, but still participated in the vote? Wouldn’t there have to have been discussion at some other time? Let’s hope that previous discussion was not among the Supervisors in private and was not in violation of the Brown Act. Let’s hope that if it is so, the ACLU doesn’t file yet another complaint against our County for violation of the Brown Act.
Terre Sparkman
Oakhurst, California
