Does it make sense that we allow the Board of Supervisors to "Appoint" County Counsel?  

County Counsel is the person who heads the legal department that is supposed to protect the county ( and thus us )  from lawsuits.  

If she is appointed by Supervisors who lie, cheat and/or steal, how likely is she to expose the people that appointed her/him?  How likely is she to reduce county exposure for "fraud, waste, and abuse by those who appointed her?  

Should County Consel be an elected position whereby she and her staff are cross checking our other civil servants, not serving them?  Doesn't that make more sense?

If Supervisors wanted to run a fraud with new ordinances -- and new ordinances were to be reviewed by county counsel -- and the fraud required legal confusion -- are we to expect the Counsel to cross check those that appointed her OR support them in fraud to retain her job ? 

The POU/POE ordinance required Supervisor and County Counsel Collaboration - There was a POU/POE ordinance (point of use / point of entry water filtration requirement) for potable water  that was passed in 2019 , then stalled by a lawsuit, and then implmeneted in 2023 with amendments from the lawsuit . That ordinance  1) violates Title 22 rights of well system owners with 14 connections or less by mandating potable whne no potable water or enforceable mcl conditions are enforcable by state law  and 2) contains a subtle twist that allows the denial of ADU and new construction permits for potable water reasons that are a non issue for well systems owners for 14 connections or less AND for reasonse that are easy for any property owner to work around -- just like others who would already be on the well system.  

The publicly presented basis for creating the ordinance was a "requirement affordable drinking water",  yet the analysis totally omitted "water kiosks", the primary means by which well systems owners buy water.  

Notes pulled by Grok(AI) indicate County Counsel was thanked several times for their support drafting of the ordiance -- and thus it seems the County Counsel engaged heavily with Supervisors (his/her direct bosses)  to create legislation that violated rights of residents in ways that is obtuse and obvious for those who were watching details.

If the Attorneys intended to defend the County from lawsuits were the ones who engaged in fraud with the Supervisors to draft overtly unlawful legislation,  who's left to decide what Attorneys defend the County in lawsuits and does it make sense funds from the County should be allocated to pay for them?

Coastal Zone ADU Ordinance delayed 9 years -  released after "obscene" HexChrome6 statute implemention combined with "grant money" to black mark wells - In 2016 the State of California issued a mandate to counties to relieve housing stress with ministerial review and approval of ADU (Alternative Dwelling Unit) permits.  Oddly by 2024, Monterey County still had no ordinace for Coastal Zone residents. They blamed it on the Coastal Commission, yet the Coastal Commission had worked successfully with other counties years prior to come to agreements.   Then, "out of nowhere", the state of CA "created" a new water drinking hazzard -- "hexchrome 6 " with a 10ppb limit  Problem?  No other state in the country has a hexchrome contamination level below 100ppb (10 times higher), and none have hexchrome 6 specifically because in fact, it's not a hazzard when consumed, only when smoked.   Then, mysteriously, after this passed, Monterey County accepted a "grant" from someone which allowed them to test for HexChrome6 on all wells they had access to, and because it is naturally occurring in Red Clay, many wells that they declared safe to drink from for decades got "black balled" as "contaminated".  AND all this transpired with no outreach to the well owners until the black-ballig was done. Monterey County then implemented their Coastal Zone ADU ordinance -- and it has a tiny caveat that states if a well is deemed contaminated, no new connections can be created for ADU or new constructions.  When laid out this way any County Counsel who reviews this can see what transpired with ease. PROBLEM - if one of the Supervisors (Glenn Church) was a HUGE closet "anti growth" advocate while outwardly stating he supported housing expansion, and he was one of the Supervisors involved in this hoax,  what position should or will the County Counsel take up?  Are they supposed to defend the residents from their own best interest?

CIV 1102 Fraud - Image in 1985, a corrupt Attorney engaged with CAR (the Califorina Association of Realtors) and some Legal friends in the CA Legislature to pass a "disclosure" law -- but the instructions for providing disclosure documents were the OPPOSITE of what was proper and lawful.  Imagine they engaged in a "hoax" to see if anyone was paying attention and nobody was, so they made money on it as long as they could --  but then they were shocked that not only did nobody repeal it -- other attorneys and brokers all started building other inverted laws around it.  

Imagine that in 2023, a constituent in North Monterey County, who was a real estate agent and property developer in another state, with other business and contracting background as well,  notified all Supervisors of Monterey County, the DA and the Judges of this long running fraud. 

What would you expect to happen?  What could have been done to resolve it?  What actually happened?  Did anyone at the County warn the county constituents of the dangers once they were exposed to the Supervisors, the District Attorney and the Judges?  If not, why not?

What is the County Counsel supposed to do when he/she gets notified of this?

CCP 1032 / 1033.5 Fraud  - Image that from 1985 to 1990,  corrupt Attorney got some Legal friends in the CA Legislature to modify "cost allocations" for civil lawsuits in a way that violated 110 years of practice and case precedent at that time.  Imagine they engaged in a "hoax" to see if anyone was paying attention and nobody was, so they made money on it as long as they could --  but then they were shocked that not only did nobody repeal it -- other attorneys and brokers all started building other inverted laws around it (too). 

Then imagine, in 2023, a new, young Judge, Appointed by the Governer (not elected by the people) -- was thrust into a situation in which he had to enforce this bizarre hoax on someone he knew "might" figure it out.   Imagine he was given a document from another Judge or the Clerks and basically told to "do this or else".   Imagine he did it.  Imagine he forced an honest couple who engaged sincerely with the court to pursue fraud to induce a contratc to pay the sellers attorneys $118,000 in legal fees when they buyers dismissed the complaint becuse they found out the seller had lost their job -- the money was likely not recoverable - and they had obtaine enough evidence to show how corrupt attorneys were defending against the hoax.  Does it make sense a plaintiff should be forced to take a complaint to trial and win to avoid paying legal fees for the other side, when they discover in litgation the seller is no longer employed -- possibly due to exposure of his frauds?  Does that make any sense at all?

What is the County Counsel supposed to do when he/she gets notified of this?

PRA Fraud - Imagine that in 1974, corrupt Attorney got some Legal friends in the CA Legislature to create a "Political Reform Act" -- that sounded good -- but the instructions they gave to politicians for disclosure told them they could conceal real estate in ways that allowed them to deal in real estate for favors.  Imagine that the County Clerk was the one who was supposed to collect documents for disclosure but she realized the loop hole and started exploiting it -- while not enforcing it on others -- and imagine she was also the Assessor, with the abilty to extend favors to others -- and imagine she then approved / went along with a  new filing system for disdclosures that nullified document control required for oversight -- AND imagine a Supervisor who was not getting held to standard for his diclsoure documents by the Clerk -- who also seems he was getting favors from the Assessor for his primary residence -- exposed the loophole approved by the Clerk and the FPPC via a gross act of Bifurcated Document filing. 

What is the County Counsel supposed to do when he/she gets notified of this?