Today, a reader alerted us that the Reg article has been updated:
UPDATED 7/7/09: James Perez, foreman of the grand jury that published the two reports, said Tuesday that Williams was allowed to review both reports before they were published and that he did not raise concerns about their accuracy.
"He made no factual corrections," Perez said. "What he said was, the facts are correct, but I dispute your interpretation of the facts."
Williams rejects the claims, as well as most of the grand jury's recommendations, in his official response. For example, the grand jury reported that Williams' office took four years to resolve the estate of a man who had died. The estate was worth $7,100 at the time of death, the report said, but it had dwindled to zero before it ever reached the court to be dispersed.
"The public administrator office didn't even handle this case," Williams wrote in his response. He also defended his staffing levels, saying they're in line with other county agencies and that the grand jury comparisons are misleading. He denied pension spiking and said his office has saved the county money.
Williams still has two months to respond to the grand jury's second report, but he doesn't believe voters will support splitting his office or change it from being an elected job.
"It makes as much sense as dividing up sheriff and coroner," Williams said. "It would be too cost prohibitive."
My money's on Perez.
2 comments:
Dear Dissent,
When John Wilaaims doesn't smile, his head looks fat.
When he does smile, he looks dishonest.
What should he do?
signed: Can't Stand It
Oh My Goodness.........Did you catch the opinion in the OC Register entitled "the Watchdog vs. the guardian"... Williams must have paid someone off big time for this one. The writer dares to make the claim that the Grand Jury had a political vendetta against him because of his role on the SOCCD Board (thought you'd heard it all......). WOW... CHUTZPAH!!!
Post a Comment