Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
I want to address two issues; one is The Union's reporting of Fact vs. Opinion in their front page article of Jan. 23 and the second is in regards to the D.A.'s need to relocate his organization.
The Jan. 23 article regarding the new D.A.'s quarters that The Union published should have been a reporting of the events of the Board of Supervisors meeting where they voted "yes" to moving the D.A. into new quarters. When I read the article, I was very upset with the decision and promptly contacted Sue Horne, my district supervisor, to express my disappointment.
After speaking with Supervisor Horne, I learned that the article did not report all the facts of the meeting and, at her suggestion, I scheduled a meeting with D.A. Cliff Newell. He took me and Don Qurnell, a friend of mine, on a tour of the current D.A. facilities to see them for ourselves and to ask some specific questions we had regarding the rationale and planning that went into the decision to relocate.
After my meeting with D.A. Newell and discussion with Supervisor Horne, I believe that The Union has done its readers a disservice with its Jan. 23 article. Instead of reporting the facts as one would expect on the front page of the newspaper, it was an editorial opinion.
Editorial opinions are perfectly acceptable as long as they are published in the proper section of the newspaper. I know that The Union management understands this because they published their view on the D.A.'s office issue in the "Ideas and Opinions" section of the newspaper on Jan. 31.
Now on to the issue of the D.A.'s new quarters: On Jan. 29, D.A. Newell gave Don Qurnell and I a very thorough tour of the current D.A. facilities. After meeting with D.A. Newell, seeing the current facilities and work environment, it was very clear to me that the D.A. organization is in need of more space. We asked D.A. Newell a number of questions regarding the pros and cons of the various options and he was very forthcoming with his answers.
He also reiterated that this was discussed at the meeting but was not fully reported. After our tour and meeting, I was left with the impression that D.A. Newell is being very cost conscious with regards to furnishing the new facility. He and a couple ADAs have their own personal desks. He has been storing furnishings that he has acquired from various County sources for some time, which will reduce the amount of new furniture he will have to buy. As regards to his personal office, he currently has a very nice office with a great view. His office in the new building will not any better than the one he currently occupies.
For me the key issues were:
• The D.A. office currently occupies approximately 4,000 square feet.
• The staff are in very cramped quarters and do not easily provide space for witness and other people with court business that need temporary space.
• The current space is not ADA compliant.
• The D.A. staff clearly needs more space.
• 6,000 square feet, laid out properly, will accommodate the D.A. office requirements.
• The old post office does not offer enough space.
• Building a new building in the old school yard would be far more costly and it isn't clear that this lot is really for sale.
• Based on the need for 6,000 square feet, the building that was approved is a good option, as it is close to the Court House and the monthly rent and TI cost appears competitive.
I support the decision of our Board of Supervisors and appreciate the effort that D.A. Newell has spent in planning a cost effective approach to improving the working conditions and efficiency of the D.A.'s operation. For the record, I am not currently nor have I in the past donated any money to D.A. Newell's or Supervisor Horne campaign.
ooo
Gerry Gaynor lives in Grass Valley.
ooo
Editor's note: Thanks for your opinion. We'd just like to point out the Jan. 23 story quoted one supervisor as calling the D.A'.s current space "deplorable" and cramped, another as saying the new lease deal was the best option, as well as reporting that the state might take over the courthouse, remodeling was not an option, and the D.A.'s office was inconveniently spread throughout the courthouse - all points that were brought out on your tour. We also reported the other side: that some citizens were upset, questioning the timing and price of the deal, among other factors. We are glad to have exposed both sides.
The Jan. 23 article regarding the new D.A.'s quarters that The Union published should have been a reporting of the events of the Board of Supervisors meeting where they voted "yes" to moving the D.A. into new quarters. When I read the article, I was very upset with the decision and promptly contacted Sue Horne, my district supervisor, to express my disappointment.
After speaking with Supervisor Horne, I learned that the article did not report all the facts of the meeting and, at her suggestion, I scheduled a meeting with D.A. Cliff Newell. He took me and Don Qurnell, a friend of mine, on a tour of the current D.A. facilities to see them for ourselves and to ask some specific questions we had regarding the rationale and planning that went into the decision to relocate.
After my meeting with D.A. Newell and discussion with Supervisor Horne, I believe that The Union has done its readers a disservice with its Jan. 23 article. Instead of reporting the facts as one would expect on the front page of the newspaper, it was an editorial opinion.
Editorial opinions are perfectly acceptable as long as they are published in the proper section of the newspaper. I know that The Union management understands this because they published their view on the D.A.'s office issue in the "Ideas and Opinions" section of the newspaper on Jan. 31.
Now on to the issue of the D.A.'s new quarters: On Jan. 29, D.A. Newell gave Don Qurnell and I a very thorough tour of the current D.A. facilities. After meeting with D.A. Newell, seeing the current facilities and work environment, it was very clear to me that the D.A. organization is in need of more space. We asked D.A. Newell a number of questions regarding the pros and cons of the various options and he was very forthcoming with his answers.
He also reiterated that this was discussed at the meeting but was not fully reported. After our tour and meeting, I was left with the impression that D.A. Newell is being very cost conscious with regards to furnishing the new facility. He and a couple ADAs have their own personal desks. He has been storing furnishings that he has acquired from various County sources for some time, which will reduce the amount of new furniture he will have to buy. As regards to his personal office, he currently has a very nice office with a great view. His office in the new building will not any better than the one he currently occupies.
For me the key issues were:
• The D.A. office currently occupies approximately 4,000 square feet.
• The staff are in very cramped quarters and do not easily provide space for witness and other people with court business that need temporary space.
• The current space is not ADA compliant.
• The D.A. staff clearly needs more space.
• 6,000 square feet, laid out properly, will accommodate the D.A. office requirements.
• The old post office does not offer enough space.
• Building a new building in the old school yard would be far more costly and it isn't clear that this lot is really for sale.
• Based on the need for 6,000 square feet, the building that was approved is a good option, as it is close to the Court House and the monthly rent and TI cost appears competitive.
I support the decision of our Board of Supervisors and appreciate the effort that D.A. Newell has spent in planning a cost effective approach to improving the working conditions and efficiency of the D.A.'s operation. For the record, I am not currently nor have I in the past donated any money to D.A. Newell's or Supervisor Horne campaign.
ooo
Gerry Gaynor lives in Grass Valley.
ooo
Editor's note: Thanks for your opinion. We'd just like to point out the Jan. 23 story quoted one supervisor as calling the D.A'.s current space "deplorable" and cramped, another as saying the new lease deal was the best option, as well as reporting that the state might take over the courthouse, remodeling was not an option, and the D.A.'s office was inconveniently spread throughout the courthouse - all points that were brought out on your tour. We also reported the other side: that some citizens were upset, questioning the timing and price of the deal, among other factors. We are glad to have exposed both sides.
