Can I Get a Witness? Sure – Got $100K?

Can I get a witness?

Sure – got $100K?

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors this afternoon unanimously approved to spend about $100,000 to re-hire former George Gascon’s former chief of staff so she can act as a “central witness” in the multitude of civil cases his own employees have brought against him.

Yes, correct: the county is now paying recently retired former county employee  $107.24 an hour for up to 960 hours this fiscal year to help District Attorney Gascon fight the “employment, whistleblowing, and retaliation allegations” against him.

The person being hired is Gascon’s former chief of staff Sharon Woo, who recently retired. If the numbers seem oddly specific, the 960 hour limit is a direct reference to Woo’s ability to continue to receive her county pension while back working for the county (the supervisors also had to declare her “critically needed to make that happen.)  In case you do not have a calculator handy, 960 X $107.24= $102,950.40.

Gascon’s request to the board is surprisingly (almost unnecessarily – why not say ‘consultant?’)  specific, laying out why he needs to spend $100K of taxpayer dollars to defend himself from the legion of deputy district attorneys who have filed suit against him.

To justify the expense, Gascon wrote in his request that Woo is:

“a central witness for the County in defense of these allegations. Ms. Woo will be working with County Counsel and outside counsel, Glasser-Weil, to defend the Department’s actions in these lawsuits. This will require background information discussions, witness deposition, and trial preparation. Deposition dates are scheduled to begin as soon as February 2024, requiring research, discussions, and preparation prior to the deposition dates. Preparation for these hearings will require Ms. Woo to access case information, personnel information, and prior office-related emails and other communications. Access to, and review of, this information will best be achieved by having Ms. Woo reinstated as a retired County employee prior to the deposition dates.”

Putting aside the technicality that is already March, 2024, there is the premise of the request; to wit,  paying a witness you seem to think will be on your side.

While paying an “expert witness” is commonplace – think tire treads maven, DNA scientists, etc. – paying other types of witnesses is rather uncommon.  In fact, paying a witness directly to influence their testimony is illegal – would hiring back a person who will act as a witness, presumably in favor of Gascon, fit that bill?  

Unknown,  but either way, it smells terribly unethical on its face.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys – the prosecutor’s union – had a similar thought.

“First, why is it necessary to pay a “central witness” $100,000? What is his administration expecting in return?” asked the ADDA.

“Second, why does the County need to ‘re-hire’ Woo to do what any other subpoenaed witness would have to do and what she could just as easily do as a non-employee? The California statute authorizing the re-hire — California Government Code section 7522.56 — applies ‘either during an emergency to prevent stoppage of public business or because the retired person has skills needed to perform work of limited duration.’” read an ADDA statement.  “Why does Gascón need to pay Woo $100,000 to do what one would expect any other witness to do without compensation, i.e., to retrieve and review documents, speak with Gascón’s attorneys, and show up (presumably in response to a subpoena) to testify when asked?”

Gascon’s office declined to comment, referring all questions to the County Counsel’s office. That office did not reply to a request for comment.

There were seven comments on the agenda item submitted in writing to the board – all seven seemed agog at the nature of the request.

“It is unethical and highly suspicious that a ‘witness’ is paid $100,000 for being a witness! There is no justification to rehire someone to perform a service that can be done by the person holding her previous position, to wit, Joseph F. Iniguez,” wrote Barbara Turner.  “Gascon has already cost us taxpayers so much money with the lawsuits he has lost, and there are many lawsuits still pending. The District Attorney’s Office is having difficulty hiring people because of his poor leadership. Please do not authorize an additional $100,000 payment or any other payment, to assist him with defending himself.”

It is possible that Turner asked and answered her own question as Iniguez’s claim to fame is a drunken civil rights suit claimant who got through state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s “investigation” without a scratch.  In other words, putting him on the stand may not be the best tactic.

For his part, Gascon’s opponent in November, Nathan Hochman, said today’s incident was typical Gascon.

“Gascon’s reckless and vindictive management style has already cost the county millions in lawsuits, now he wants taxpayers to pay $100K to an ally to help with more pending lawsuits,” Hochman said.  “When I’m DA, I will fight crime – not my own prosecutors.”

And, of course, the California Globe would never leave its readers hanging with an earworm.  Here’s the Marvin Gaye classic: