There have been two major stories by local newspapers today discussing the possibility of Assessor Bill Postmus taking some form of medical leave of absence. In response, county spokesperson David Wert stated that he wasn't even sure if elected officials could take sick leave, since they are essentially always at work--there is no vacation time, personal time, sick time, etc.

So, it seems that although it wouldn't be done in an official, time card-based sense (elected officials do not need to log the hours they work, after all), Postmus could simply make a public statement explaining that he would not be going into his office for a certain period of time for medical reasons. He would then leave a subordinate to act in his place.

But what medical justification could exist for him to simply stop going to work--and to survive (or, at least, maintain his current status in the public eye, as limited as it is) from a PR standpoint?

There has been significant talk in various forms of media, including Sharon's Blog and comments made to newspaper articles, that Assessor Postmus may have, or have had in the past, an issue with drug abuse. George Watson of the San Bernardino Sun asked Postmus about that very topic during his interview of July 10. Postmus never denies having a drug abuse problem, or entering a rehabilitation program. Postmus merely says, "It's a ridiculous question. I'm not going to entertain it."

Watson then asked directly if Postmus had been to Lucerne Valley, and Assessor Postmus again declines to answer.

Sharon Gilbert seems to imply in her comments on today's newspaper articles that this medical leave may be intended to provide the time for Postmus to attend a rehabilitation program. To be clear, these are rumors. There has been no proof made public that Postmus has (or had) a drug problem and there has been no comment by the assessor's office or Postmus in regard to the possible reasons he may take a medical leave of absence.

However, if Postmus does publicly take a medical leave of absence to attend a drug rehabilitation program, he may face a legal issue.

California Government Code Section 3001 specifies the following:

Any State, county, or city officer who is intoxicated while in discharge of the duties of his office, or by reason of intoxication is disqualified for the discharge of, or neglects his duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor.  On conviction of such misdemeanor he forfeits his office, and the vacancy occasioned thereby shall be filled in the same manner as if the officer had filed his resignation in the proper office.

Essentially, as I read that section, it is a misdemeanor for any State, county, or city officer to be intoxicated in such a way that it affects the performance of his official duties. If Postmus were to stop doing County work in order to attend a drug rehab program, it could be considered neglect of his duties. He could also be found "disqualified for the discharge of the duties of his office" as a result of intoxication. If convicted of that misdemeanor, he would immediately forfeit his office.

This could also be another method for the Board of Supervisors to influence Postmus' removal from office. If any of the supervisors are aware of any instances where drug abuse has affected Postmus' performance in the assessor's office, that information could be divulged to the district attorney or the California attorney general.

It will be interesting to see how this medical leave situation plays out. If Postmus publicly attends a drug rehab program, it will almost certainly be tantamount to an admission that drug abuse has affected the execution of his duties. Even if he doesn't, Postmus could still be charged with a misdemeanor under Section 3001, assuming sufficient evidence exists.