Education Department Seeks Changes in How Grand Juries Operate

Orange County’s Department of Education, which has been criticized by many grand juries during the last 20 years, is seeking a change in the state law that governs grand juries.

The department wants the law revised so that, among other things, a grand jury can’t release criticism of an agency until that agency has had a chance to include its written response.

Robert Peterson, superintendent of schools and head of the Orange County Department of Education, has for years charged that county grand juries have “unfairly” attacked his department in public reports.

“These proposed changes would make the grand juries function better,” Peterson said in an interview Thursday. “The changes wouldn’t hog-tie the grand jury. These are procedural changes. Some of the problems that have developed between the grand jury and the Department of Education are procedural.”

Less Time to Work

Orange County Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseno, who has supervised grand juries for the last two years, said Thursday that he thinks the proposed changes “aren’t feasible.” Briseno said that if the county Department of Education’s suggestions were to become law, grand juries would have less usable time for investigating and writing reports.

“I just don’t see any additional time the jurors would have for this,” said Briseno. “I don’t think (the proposed changes) are practical or feasible.”

Peterson, who is elected countywide, heads a department that has a $50-million annual budget and about 700 employees. Some grand juries have questioned the need for the department and have called for its abolishment.

Peterson said Thursday that some grand juries don’t get all the information they should have before issuing a critical report. He said the few members who are on a grand jury committee often are the only ones hearing all sides of an issue.

Among other changes, Peterson’s department wants this provision added to state law: “The county officer or agency being investigated shall have the opportunity to address the grand jury regarding the report prior to its public release.”

All Juries Affected

Peterson said a previous grand jury had once refused his requests to appear before it and give his department’s side.

The proposed changes in law would affect all grand juries in the state, and the procedures would be for all agencies ever investigated, not just county departments of education.

Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress) confirmed Thursday that she was asked by the county Department of Education to introduce a bill making the changes. She said she hasn’t decided to do so yet but added that she must make a decision before Feb. 8, the cutoff date this year for introducing legislation.

“We’ve sent it to the Legislative Counsel’s office, and when it comes back, we’ll be asking for comments from the community, including the district attorney and the grand jury,” said Allen.

“I’m certainly not anti-grand jury. My feelings right now are that this would offer more due process and would be like the system we already have in the state for the auditor general’s office.”

Majority Vote

Allen said the state auditor general’s office, when investigating an agency, must include the agency’s response in its written report.

One clause the county Department of Education asked to be included in the proposed law would provide that all “topics investigated shall be determined by a majority vote of the entire grand jury.” Another would require a two-thirds vote of the grand jurors before a public release could be issued.

Joan McSunas of Corona del Mar, a member of the current Orange County Grand Jury, said Thursday that existing law requires that 12 of the 19 members of a grand jury must agree before a report can be issued.

Other changes suggested by the county Department of Education:

- Grand jury committees must give a copy of their report “to the county officer or agency being investigated” at the same time that the report goes to the overall grand jury.

- “Names of (grand jury) members approving, abstaining, disapproving or absent are to be . . . made a part of the report when it is released to the public.”