"Medical leave"....that's a nice euphemism. Let's read between the lines a little here. The Assessor wants to buy some time to see if it will help him survive this scandal politically....it won't. How about ending the charade Bill and resigning. That would be a nice start for the citizens of SB.

Your post is interesting to say the least. A number of things come to mind.

I think it would be hard to argue in a court of law that because a person goes into rehab they have in fact been intoxicated while acting in the discharge of their official duties, absent some substantiating proof, i.e., an arrest, a dirty drug test, etc.

I realize that Bill is the Assessor 24-7 but I don't believe that a reasonable person would say that means he is never allowed to drink too much, for example. He is not in a position where he is likely to be called out at 3 a.m. to attend to an emergency. He is entitled to a private life (did I say that :>) ) and, although we expect all of our elected and appointed officials to behave in a certain manner and use discretion, it is still not realistic to believe they must be sober 100 percent of the time.

We've all witnessed Bill's behavior of late, and drug abuse certainly appears to be the cause, but the truth is that other mental health issues can cause similar symptoms. People who are bi-polar, for example, present many of the same attributes as a tweaker. Sometimes it's very hard to tell the difference, especially for the casual observer.

I think it's safe to say that Bill has been under a great deal of stress lately, and although it may be self-induced stress, nonetheless stress can also present itself in odd behavior patterns. I would also suggest that Bill is possibly suffering from depression due to what has happened because that is a likely outcome for most people when they watch their lives disintegrate before their eyes. All of this is to say that his behavior is not proof of intoxication, and without supporting physical evidence, I'm not convinced a jury could be persuaded to find him guilty.

I have to think the intent of the above section was not to go after the first-time offender or someone who is seeking help but rather someone who repeatedly puts the public's interest in jeopardy with no interest in rehabilitation. From all I've heard Bill has done at least one stint in rehab in the past. I don't know the requirements to be covered under ADA, but he may have that on his side as well.

When one looks at the list of officials the above code is referring to, right here within San Bernardino County, we have seen many of them arrested for drunk driving over the years and not lose their office. Our county has a history of sending officials who have found themselves in trouble with alcohol/drugs to rehabilitation. I've been around long enough to remember when Lynn Kirkhofer was sent to the Betty Ford Center. There have been judges, the marshal, and others who have had trouble with drugs/alcohol.

To my knowledge, this is the first time Bill's issues have come to the public light, and as such no matter how he is thought of because of other deeds, I have to think he would be given at least one chance at rehabilitation. His other actions should be dealt with as a separate matter.

Finally, I have talked about Bill's rumored drug abuse on my blog. I have been told it was due to chronic back pain and prescription drugs. As I have said, I think he needs our prayers a lot more than he needs our condemnation.

The assumption that Bill is taking medical leave to enter a rehab may be a very big assumption. It is what I hope for him because he is in a downward spiral that could cause him permanent harm, or even death, if he doesn't take action. However, after listening to the George Watson interview and hearing just how much he was in denial, it is quite possible he is going out for other reasons. We will know for sure when he returns as successful drug rehabilitation includes admission of addiction.

First, let us recognize that we are not discussing just any politician, but Bill Postmus. There is an unnatural vitriol and hatred for this man amongst many in county government. Add to that, this would not be a situation where a well-regarded politician would be removed from office because of a single lapse in judgement. The rumors of drug abuse by Assessor Postmus are extensive and have persisted for some time now, and Postmus' office did not receive an, ahem, "clean bill of health" in the latest Grand Jury report (contrary to Assessor Postmus' own belief).

So what we have here is an elected official with what may be an extensive history of drug abuse, who has managed an office that has been harshly criticized by a major investigative body, and who has not taken appropriate action to rectify the situation, at least not publicly. This elected official may take a medical leave of absence from his duties in order to enter a drug rehabilitation program, which would certainly support the idea of the troubles in his office being related to drug abuse.

I think the point I'm making is that Assessor Postmus has undoubtedly made some very poor decisions, when he was around to make them at all. In addition to making those poor decisions he may have some serious drug abuse issues. This is not a respected statesman who made one mistake.

Perhaps most important, though, is to recognize the outright hatred for Bill Postmus. Look to Adam Aleman. While the crimes he allegedly committed are legitimate ones, and the case seems pretty solid, just how often are those crimes prosecuted to the degree that Aleman's have been? I don't mean to excuse Aleman, because he did, apparently, break some laws. But there seems to have been a different standard applied to Postmus and Aleman than to the rest of the population. While Section 3001 may be rarely used, it does exist, and if there is sufficient evidence it is certainly possible that it will be taken advantage of.

I agree that Postmus should get the help he needs... We should hate the sin, love the sinner, and all that. But at the same time, I don't believe the citizens of San Bernardino County, as well as other elected officials, should allow someone like Bill Postmus to remain in office. Section 3001 is just one more avenue through which he might be removed.

I have said on my own blog that Bill should do the right thing and resign. I also have no problem with him being prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed whether or not he was under the influence during the commission of those crimes. And I am the one who made sure the recall got the public's attention.

However, being hated by those in county government is not sufficient reason for government officials to go to extraordinary means to remove another public official. It doesn't particularly matter if other government officials love him or hate him. They only get one vote like any other registered voter. The fact is the voters elected him to office and the voters should be the ones to take him out unless there a preponderance of evidence that his remaining in office will cause irreparable harm. County Counsel has opined that such evidence does not currently exist.

Although I firmly believe drug abuse is at least part of the problem, so far no one has provided any evidence to prove it. I still do not believe that entry in rehab is prima facie evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction of the above code section. Without a conviction, county officials can do little in that regard nor should they.

But Sharon, Government Code Section 3001 wouldn't involve BOS removing Bill Postmus. It would be the DA or state attorney general charging Postmus with violation of that section, which would be a misdemeanor. He would be tried in superior court, by a jury of his peers. If convicted, he would forfeit his seat automatically--not by any action of the BOS. The BOS would then appoint his successor in the same manner as if he had resigned.

I mention the hatred of the man because it may influence whether or not he is charged. It goes to being a big target. I hate to make this comparison, but look to Paris Hilton. She likely got a longer sentence than many "regular" people because of outrage that she would simply skate through as a celebrity. You can say it's wrong, but the fact is that who someone is plays a role in criminal proceedings.

I admit that there has been no proof made public that Bill Postmus has a drug abuse issue. I stated that in my original post. However, someone has to know, if it does exist. There must be some physical evidence somewhere, if the rumors are true. Once it is established that drug abuse exists, I don't see how a reasonable person can say that that abuse hasn't influenced some of the terrible decisions he made in an official capacity over the past 18 months.

Add to that, this "medical leave," if proven to be related to drug abuse, equates to a loss of 10 weeks of productivity on Assessor Postmus' part. I think the DA could argue that 10 weeks on medical leave to attend a drug rehab program, after having your top assistant arrested and facing harsh criticism from the grand jury, satisfies the "neglect of duties" provision of Section 3001.

True, 3001 would not be the BOS removing him from office. It would be the DA or AJ. I do not believe they could prosecute him for entering drug rehab, especially if a doctor said it was a medical condition and he enters a medical rehab, which I would hope that is what he is doing. It would be no different than him being absent from work for have open heart surgery. I think there are ADA issues here. It might be different if choses to not get help, but if he is trying to rehabilitate himself, I think they would have a very very difficult time proving neglect. It's not like the office isn't running smoothly despite his absence.

One thing did strike me. The dreaded Sharon that he spoke so lowly of with George is defending him on Red County against his former associates. If he reads this, he must feel like he has really hit bottom for sure!

First, he wouldn't be prosecuted for entering rehab, but for the drug abuse BEFORE entering rehab. The fact that he entered rehab may be able to serve as evidence of the drug abuse prior to rehab. Is there a law prohibiting the entering into evidence of a stint at rehab as proof that drug abuse existed? The lost time spent on medical leave may substantiate the "neglects his duties" clause, but even if it doesn't, I think there is plenty of evidence that Postmus hasn't taken as active a role in his office as he should have.

Second, I think one difference in our arguments is that I am saying that Postmus could be prosecuted under 3001, assuming certain rumors are true. You seem to be arguing more that he shouldn't. That's an important distinction.

Yes and no. I don't think he should but I also don't think it would be successful. But you've given Mr. Ramos an idea so let's see if he runs with it.

The idea of giving this individual a disability pension after all that has happened, during his sordid career with the Board of Supervisors and County Assessor, is repugnant. I hope the DA finds sufficient grounds to prosecute him, and let the chips fall where they might.

One point I forgot to make is that having a drug/alcohol dependency is not proof in and of itself that someone is so impaired they cannot function appropriately. Within our own county government most of us know of one or more alcoholics that are at work functioning every day. There are many in county government that must rely on prescription sleeping pills, including narcotics, to get enough sleep so that they can get through a work day. With prescription pain killer dependency in the early stages, the lack of function may come from not taking them, rather than from taking them. Many methadone patients hold down jobs.

Some people realize early on that they are becoming dependent and choose to seek treatment before the problem gets out of control and they lose functionality. I'm not saying any of this is the case with Bill. Again, I'm only suggesting that seeking help for an addiction is not proof of impairment on the job.

I don't think anyone is talking about alcohol here, people. The rumors seem to involve hard, illegal drugs, like speed.

Sharon: Why do you play both sides of the fence so often? Stand up and make an argument! This guy NEEDS TO BE REMOVED NOW! Make an example of him. SB County is one of the biggest laughing stocks as far as county government goes. Hell, their Health Officer (Erik Frykman) left and came to Riverside County, his replacement stays for less than a year (Margaret Beed), and then HER replacement stays for a month and quits. This county is in bad shape, folks. Examples need to be set and a clean sweep of ALL elected officials needs to happen.

I'm not trying to play both sides of the fence. I don't happen to believe ends justify the means. If you use illegal means or unethical means to get rid of Bill, then you're just as bad as he is.

I've said from the beginning that I believe Bill should resign. As long as he is in denial, he apparently isn't capable of making the right decision. So, it would be nice if he got himself clean and sober so he could make a rational decision and do the right thing. Bill doing the right thing will be the fastest and least expensive way for the county to get out of this mess.

Short of an indictment it does not appear the county has many options to remove Bill. County Counsel Ruth Stringer stated publicly that she does not believe that the BOS has sufficient grounds to remove Bill and even if they did it could take two years and a million dollars. There is a recall going on that doesn't seem to be picking up steam, but even it does, it will cost the taxpayers a lot for a special election with no guarantee of results and which cannot happen until about May of next year.

If the DA/AG has enough to file under Government Code Section 3001, good for them. I don't happen to think they do without some concrete evidence but I'm not a lawyer. But even with that they can't remove him without a conviction, which could take months or even years, again with no guarantee that twelve jurors will find him guilty.

You tell me. What can the county do legally and ethically? I'm sure our officials would like some more options because the ones presented so far aren't so good, especially since some of them may find themselves indicted as well.

Then we need to take this out of the static blogs and start doing something with boots on the ground. Does anyone really think that the BOS would be willing to deal with daily picketers outside their chambers? Or constant news coverage, mailers, posters, etc.?? San Bernardino County is asleep at the wheel. It's hard to stay motivated to root out this corruption, when the voting populace actually seems to want this to happen. Nobody seems to even care anymore.