Skip navigation

Supervisor Comments on Gumport Report, San Bernardino County, 2006

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Statement of Supervisor Bill Postmus Regarding “Repor
tofI
nvest
i
gat
i
on
of Lease and Purchase by San Bernardino County of Maranatha
Correctional Facility in the City of Adelanto”, by Attorney Leonard Gumport
My first priority as Chairman of the Board of Super
v
i
sor
sandast
heBoar
d’
s
representative from the First District is to do everything within my power to
maximize public safety in the County and in my district. That was my prime
mot
i
v
at
i
oni
nwor
ki
ngt
owar
dt
heCount
y
’
sac
qui
si
t
i
onoft
heMar
anat
ha
Correctional Facility in Adelanto.
At the time we first considered acquiring a high desert jail as a temporary solution
to our severe jail-overcrowding problem, the Sheriff had advised the Board that
he was being forced to release hundreds of criminals due to lack of jail space.
He advised us of the possible availability of two private prisons in Adelanto, and
headv
i
sedust
hats
ec
ur
i
ngoneoft
hem f
ort
heCount
y
’
susewascl
ear
l
yt
he
quickest and most realistic way to significantly reduce the number of inmates
being set free into our neighborhoods short of a long-term solution like
constructing a new, state-of-the-art jail at a cost of several hundred million
dollars.
Att
heBoar
d’
sdi
r
ect
i
on,Count
yst
af
faccompl
i
shedav
i
r
t
ualmi
r
acl
ebysecur
i
ng
the Maranatha facility in a very short amount of time while at every turn making
sure that all County policies were adhered to, that responsible real estate
practices were followed, and that the taxpayers were always protected.
The allegations involving Brett Granlund were questionable from the start in that
they were clearly motivated by revenge being sought by a disgruntled former
business partner who had recently suffered public consequences related to his
own questionable behavior. Regardless, the County did not hesitate to have the
accusations investigated by outside counsel to help the County determine
whether the public had been harmed.
I have serious objections to the sensationalistic tone of Attorney Leonard
Gumpor
t
’
sr
epor
tr
egar
di
ngt
heMar
anat
haj
ail lease/purchase. I am also
di
sappoi
nt
edt
hathi
sr
epor
t
’
sf
ocuswasal
l
owedt
owandersosi
gni
f
i
cant
l
yf
r
om
its specific purpose, which was to determine whether Mr. Granlund or any other
individual benefited inappropriately or illegally, monetarily or otherwise, from the
t
r
ansact
i
on.Ther
epor
t
’
sf
ocuswasnoti
nt
endedt
obeMr
.Gumpor
t
’
sopi
ni
ons
aboutanyot
heraspec
t
soft
hej
ai
l
acqui
si
t
i
on.St
i
l
l
,i
fonel
ookspastGumpor
t
’
s
hyperbole, loaded wording, and in some cases unsupported statements, I believe
it is clear that the public was in no way harmed in the lease and eventual
purchase of the Maranatha facility. Quite to the contrary, more than 700
criminals who would otherwise be roaming free are now behind bars.
Meanwhile, the County has in its possession a quality facility that will serve us for
decades to come, and for which we clearly paid a fair price. I am very proud of
t
heCount
y
’
sact
i
onsi
nr
el
at
i
ont
ot
hi
spur
chase,andIcommendandf
ul
l
y

support County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer and his staff for conducting this
transaction in a completely ethical and responsible manner.
Al
loft
hi
si
snott
os
ayt
hatIwasn’
tconcer
nedabouts
omeofMr
.Gumpor
t
’
s
assertions relative to these matters. With regard to Mr. Granlund, we have
learned si
ncet
hecompl
et
i
onofMr
.Gumpor
t
’
sr
epor
tthat Platinum Advisors,
Gr
anl
und’
sempl
oy
erundercont
r
actwi
t
ht
heCount
y
,hadi
ndeedgiven prior
not
i
cet
ot
heCount
y
’
sLegi
sl
at
i
v
eAf
f
ai
r
sDi
r
ect
oroft
hef
i
r
m’
sr
el
at
i
onshi
pwi
t
h
Maranatha Corrections, although some key County personnel were not aware of
this relationship. Further, in my opinion, Mr. Granlund clearly did not involve nor
attempt to involve himself in direct negotiations regarding the jail acquisition.
Any concerns I may have had relative t
oMr
.Gr
anl
und’
si
nv
ol
v
ementin this
matter have been addressed by the actions the County has already taken. Per
my direction, the County has counseled Platinum Advisors, who in turn
couns
el
edMr
.Gr
anl
undast
ot
heCount
y
’
sconcer
nsandt
heex
pect
at
i
onthat no
future conduct that could be perceived to be inappropriate will occur. Platinum is
now required to keep the CAO completely informed about its clientele and any
potential conflicts. Some will question why the County has maintained a
relationship wi
t
hPl
at
i
num i
nt
hef
ac
eoft
hi
sc
ont
r
ov
er
sy
.I
nf
act
,Pl
at
i
num’
s
overall performance has been exemplary. Severing our relationship with the firm
over an issue that has been resolved and that did not harm the taxpayers would
have left the county underrepresented in Sacramento in terms of advocacy,
which certainly could prove to be harmful to the taxpayers. Still, Platinum is
currently on retainer under a six-month extension of its previous contract, and a
new Request for Proposals is being prepared so that Platinum will once again be
subject to a competitive selection process should it desire to continue
representing the County of San Bernardino.

 

 

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual Side
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side