Thursday, January 21, 2010

San Bernardino County needs to make public a report on an investigation into District Attorney Mike Ramos’ behavior. No county – particularly one with a history of high-level scandal – should tolerate secrecy about official conduct. And total openness the best way to avoid clouding an ongoing county corruption probe in irrelevant distractions.

One of Ramos’ employees last summer accused him of harassment and retaliation, and the county hired an outside law firm to vet the allegations.  The county last week received the results of the investigation, which began in August.  But officials released only a three-page summary of the 186-page document, saying the prob e cleared Ramos of misconduct.  The county is still weighing whether to release the full report.

But there should be no debate: County taxpayers have every right to judge for themselves whether an elected official misbehaved in office.  Such scrutiny is key to holding government officials accountable.  Besides, the public paid for this investigation, and deserves to know whether that $140,000 cost was worthwhile.  And further secrecy would only hand ammunition to those striving to use the claims against Ramos to kill a county corruption probe.

A three-page memo hardly suffices to reassure a public well-attuned to the county government’s long history of corruption and insider dealing.  Asking voters to take the results on trust would be a mistake.  County residents need to see the details for themselves to be certain the county handled the matter properly.

The county raises privacy concerns as a reason for shielding the findings from public view.  But it is past time to retire that threadbare excuse.  County officials used the same tactic in 2005 to withhold taxpayer-funded investigative reports on a prison purchase and a county staffer’s land deal.  Yet the  county managed to release those studies in 2006 without harm.

And neither Ramos nor his accuser has much claim to privacy at this point.  Ramos is a public official, who is accountable to voters for his actions in office.  Nor is his accuser’s name a secret: She filed a $1.5 million claim against the county in August.  The county could simply black out the names of others whose privacy might be an issue.

Releasing the report would also protect the district attorney’s ongoing investigation into county corruption.  Ramos claims the allegations against him are driven by people trying to stall the corruption probe.  Those already snared in the investigation say the DA is targeting them for political reasons.  Sharing the report on Ramos would give voters a direct way to judge the truth of such contentions.

Either way, the accusations against Ramos do not excuse the actions of those tangled in the county’s corruption investigation, who need to answer for their own behavior.

And keeping the report hidden would only let rumor thrive, further eroding public trust in county government.  The county repeatedly pledges to set higher ethical standards.  But voters cannot take such talk seriously if officials are willing to throw a shroud of secrecy over allegations of official misconduct.