Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Indigent Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards indigent defense supplemental for People v. Bell; Mayor’s office to seek state reimbursement
Summary
The committee forwarded a supplemental appropriation to fund unanticipated indigent defense expenses in People v. Bell to the full Board without recommendation. Superior Court staff and the Mayor’s Budget Office discussed who should pursue state reimbursement; the controller provided a breakdown of the supplemental.
The Budget and Finance Committee on Wednesday discussed a supplemental appropriation to fund unanticipated indigent defense expenses associated with People v. Bell and agreed to send the item to the full Board without recommendation.
Neil Taniguchi, representing the Superior Court, said he agreed with the budget analyst's recommendations and described a "misunderstanding" in a conversation with a budget analyst about seeking reimbursement. Taniguchi said the court's position generally is that it is the county that pursues reimbursement from the state and that he had not put anything in writing: "It was somewhat of a miss understanding as to exactly what we were talking about. We did have 1 conversation, nothing in writing, and he was asking for something in writing, which we had never put in writing." (transcript)
Nani Coloretti, Mayor's Budget Director, told the committee the Mayor's Office is the city official referenced in the budget analyst's report and that the Mayor's Office is coordinating with a state lobbyist "to try to get reimbursement if it's applicable here."
Monique Zamuda of the Controller's Office gave the committee a numerical breakdown from the budget analyst's report: approximately $1,938,000 is for the Bell case and about $325,000 is for additional conflict-attorney expenses. The transcript also contains inconsistent spoken totals (variously stated in the hearing), so the controller's line-item amounts should be taken as the clearest available numeric detail.
Supervisor Peskin asked whether the supplemental should have been sponsored by the Mayor's Office rather than a member of the Board; the Mayor's Budget Director said coordination with board members occurs and the sponsoring member (identified in the report) sought to place it on the agenda. The committee placed the item on the Board calendar without recommendation.
Next steps: the full Board will consider the supplemental appropriation; the Mayor's Office said it will pursue possible state reimbursement through its lobbyists.
