Grand juries' findings often informative, not definitive

In 2008-09, the Riverbank City Council came under the scrutiny of the Stanislaus County civil grand jury. That year's panel reviewed a number of complaints and recommended that the city invalidate the November 2008 election of Councilman Jesse James White on the grounds he was not eligible to run when he filed.

In 2009-10, Hughson found itself in the negative limelight. The civil grand jury for that year recommended that three council members resign or be removed from office. The jury concluded that the three violated the state's open meeting law and that one member also violated conflict of interest law.

Now it's Patterson under the microscope from a different grand jury. Responding to multiple complaints about multiple incidents involving city leaders, the 2010-11 grand jury took a hard look at the council and found a number of serious concerns.

It recommended that Patterson City Councilwoman Annette Smith resign because she failed to recuse herself from voting on issues involving a developer from whom she leased space; that former Mayor Becky Campo did not live in the city during her last term and should return the $300 a month she received; that the city should review its close votes during Campo's last term; and that the city should try to recoup almost $28,000 it paid out to developer John Ramos for legal fees that weren't properly documented.

Whether any of that will eventually happen depends largely on the current council — and on the citizens of Patterson. If they find the seven-part grand jury report thorough and persuasive, they should be on the phone to the current mayor and council members and insist on action.

A couple of items identified in the report arguably amount to breaking the law, but there's no guarantee that the district attorney, state attorney general or Fair Political Practices Commission will follow up.

The bottom line: This grand jury report, like those before it, is intended primarily to inform the citizenry. Typically, the reports don't result in some outside entity swooping in to intervene, to fix weaknesses or to prosecute violations.

A grand jury finding is not the same as being found guilty in the court system. Grand juries cannot force people out of office or force elected or appointed boards to repeal any actions. A grand jury report is like a tip on the informant's line. But grand jury reports should — and do — carry weight in the court of public opinion.

In Hughson, the critical grand jury report of December 2009 fueled what evolved into a successful recall of three council members. Hughson residents were already tiring of the shenanigans of a dysfunctional council, but we think there's no doubt that the grand jury report helped advance the recall and the turnaround in leadership in the small city.

In Riverbank, however, the grand jury report critical of Jesse James White was not enough to help qualify a recall for the ballot. White is still in office, although there has been other turnover on the council.

What will happen in Patterson? It's too early to tell.

Predictably, the four people who received the sharpest criticism are dismissing the allegations, claiming they are either wrong or insignificant.

There will be a tendency to focus on recovering the money — $9,300 from Campo and the $28,000 from the developer — but more worrisome is a pattern in Patterson that has shown up elsewhere: That council members tend to want to micromanage their cities and city staff, rather than leaving day-to-day decisions to the city manager.