Apr 18, 2008

OPERATION LOCKDOWN

County officials let sheriff weather brothel scandal; Speier calls for investigation

By Shaun Bishop / Daily News Staff Writer

The news spread rapidly across the Peninsula: San Mateo County's two top cops were nabbed in a police raid at an illegal brothel in Las Vegas.

After Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos were briefly detained by authorities, they returned home to a media buzz saw of questions about what happened the night of April 21, 2007. Munks issued a written statement that contained an apology and added: "I believed I was going to a legitimate business. It was not."

Munks and Bolanos refused to publicly explain what they did at the brothel.

And in the tight-knit San Mateo County government community, they found a refuge from the gathering public storm.

Dozens of colleagues and friends e-mailed Munks and Bolanos, urging them to hang in there and to remember that "this too shall pass."

And pass it eventually did. Munks and Bolanos hunkered down, refusing to comment, as county officials circled the wagons.

Members of the board of supervisors washed their hands of the incident by saying they hold no sway over the sheriff, an elected official. County prosecutors said it's not their business what the sheriff and undersheriff did because Las Vegas is outside their jurisdiction. And County Manager John Maltbie restricted his investigation to whether county funds were spent on their trip to compete in the Baker-to-Vegas Challenge Cup Relay.

In e-mails sent immediately after the incident, the county's top prosecutors tried to soothe Munks.

"It isn't easy getting beaten up in the media, but hopefully it will all be yesterday's news by tomorrow," District Attorney Jim Fox wrote four days after the incident. "If there is anything I can do to help or provide support, please know I am more than willing."

That same morning, Fox's chief deputy district attorney, Steve Wagstaffe, also wrote to offer his sympathies. "To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count and your integrity is not in the slightest marked by the modern media's efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is to think now, remember it will be yesterday's news and irrelevant by tomorrow."

In response, Munks wrote: "Steve, I really appreciate your words of support. ... I've heard you took some heat for them and I apologize. I won't forget the fact that you were there early."

A year later, no elected county officials or community leaders have called for an investigation into why Munks and Bolanos were at an illegal bordello in Las Vegas and what they were doing there.

But when told a package of stories on the incident would be published this week, two local congresswomen who both had previously served on the board of supervisors said they are livid about the sheriff's unaccountability and the general indifference shown by the supervisors and top county officials.

"This cries out for a comprehensive external investigation, because the highest law enforcement officer in the county should not be under any suspicion of illegal activity at any time, ever," newly elected Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, said Monday.

"And I think the board of supervisors cannot hide behind the argument that he is independently elected, because he uses county resources, and in this case apparently used $15,000 of county resources that was not appropriate," said Speier, referring to the county cars Munks and other county employees from the sheriff's, district attorney's and probation offices drove to the Baker-to-Vegas Challenge Cup Relay race (Munks and Bolanos did not use a county vehicle to get to the illegal brothel).

"So if you have your hand halfway in the cookie jar, do you slap it? Do you take the hand out? I think those are all questions the board has got to become engaged in this evaluation and in this investigation."

Speier said, "I don't think the sheriff has the luxury of saying 'I've been hurt.' I think he has a responsibility of all the people that elected him to come forward and in a straightforward manner, tell the truth."

Anything short of that is "stonewalling," Speier said. "He has to be presented with all the evidence that has been built that suggests it wasn't identified as a massage spa. It had no identification on it, so why would you go into a house with debris on the outside and think of that as being a massage parlor?

"I don't think the public is naive, and I don't think they're stupid, and I don't think they've been impressed with how the sheriff or the board of supervisors has handled this situation."

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, was equally blunt.

"This is all about the public trust," she said. "This is not someone who's appointed, this is someone who's elected, the highest law enforcement official in the county that I love, the county where I live. It's my home."

Eshoo said "there should have been, and still could be, a mechanism for actually investigating this. Nothing has been investigated, and there should be a process set up by the board to do that. As a result of that investigation, then the people will know exactly what did or did not occur, but in the absence of that, who really knows anything? I think there is an obligation to the people of the county to investigate. This is very important."

She said if the supervisors don't want to do the investigation, they could set up an ethics commission. "But something like this should not be held hostage to silence. It's inappropriate and I think it's disrespectful to the people of the county."

What's missing, Eshoo said, "is the whole element of accountability."



Code of silence?

Munks never discussed the brothel visit before the board of supervisors, though supervisors said he apologized to each of them in private.

In November, the board passed an ordinance restricting use of county vehicles outside the state of California without prior permission from the county manager. That was the board's only action directly related to the brothel incident, as supervisors pointed out the sheriff is an independent elected official accountable directly to the voters, not to them.

The supervisors, all of whom received at least $500 from Munks during their most recent election campaigns before the brothel visit, said they have no authority to look further into the trip.

"Certainly, we can't control what someone does after hours - nor should we - and if it's not using county resources, that is fine," Supervisor Jerry Hill said. "Certainly, I think that's where the taxpayers' interest is and the county's interest is.

"I certainly couldn't see spending county resources on something that would not lead us anywhere," he added.

Hill, like each of the other four supervisors, said he doesn't approve of the sheriff being at a brothel, regardless of what he did or didn't do there.

"That wasn't on county time. Certainly none of us condoned what actually happened, and he knows that. So, I mean, what more is there really to say?" said Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson.

"I was disappointed in what happened and I certainly don't condone that behavior, but he has stated that it was an isolated incident and I think we have to move forward," Supervisor Mark Church said.

Board President Adrienne Tissier also said it's time to get past the brothel saga.

"To me, how I look at this is, he made a mistake and that was a year ago, and at some point you have to move on and look at what he's doing right now," Tissier said.

Indeed, Munks says the incident hasn't affected his ability to be sheriff.

His focus, he said, has been on revamping the county's overcrowded jails and traveling to Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to lobby politicians for extra funding. "I think I've been taking care of business and doing a good job," he said.

Munks maintains he did not break the law, but declined to elaborate. "I think I've been beat up pretty good once," he said. "I don't want to perpetuate the story."

Bolanos still refuses to comment, saying: "You don't need to call me about this topic ever again."

The supervisors were somewhat split over whether the affair affects Munks' ability to do his job, particularly with enforcing laws against prostitution and human trafficking. Hill, Church and Jacobs Gibson said they have no reason to believe Munks can't do his job. Tissier and Gordon were more ambiguous.

"I would say the proof will be in the pudding, if an event comes up," Tissier said. "I think it's always going to be a little awkward."

Supervisor Rich Gordon responded cautiously when asked whether he still supports Munks in light of the brothel incident.

"That's not something I'm going to make a public judgment upon," Gordon said.

"The sheriff is hired and fired by the electorate of the county," he said. "I'm a voter also. I will make my decisions in due time."

Though he lay low in the months following the brothel visit, Munks gradually began to resurface last fall. In November he hosted a private fundraiser at his home for Hill, a personal friend to whose campaign for state Assembly he contributed $3,600, according to campaign finance reports. Munks also began appearing before the board of supervisors to talk about overcrowded county jails.



Condolences

E-mails obtained by the Daily News - and screened by the county counsel's office - through a public records request show that since the brothel incident through May 11, Munks and Bolanos received overwhelming support from friends, colleagues and prominent public officials.

In his April 25 e-mail to both the sheriff and undersheriff, District Attorney Fox said he was sorry the two were caught in the middle of a "media frenzy."

Asked why he sent such a supportive message when all the facts weren't out, Fox said he knew his office wouldn't be prosecuting the case had any crime occurred because Las Vegas is out of its jurisdiction.

Fox has the power to initiate a grand jury investigation into "willful or corrupt misconduct in office," but said he doesn't believe the Vegas incident qualifies.

Asked whether he condones the sheriff's conduct, Fox said: "I'm not in a position to judge other people other than people who commit crimes in my jurisdiction."

Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe also said he wouldn't have sent a note had the incident occurred in San Mateo County.

Both Fox and Wagstaffe said they don't believe the incident compromises the sheriff's ability to do his job.

"He is a man of integrity, such that it would not in any fashion affect his office's ability to enforce all the laws of the state of California," Wagstaffe said.

Sheriff's office employees also wrote in their support.

"I've talked w/my guys up here and we agree ... that you had and will have our support," wrote Detective Sgt. Wesley M. Matsuura of the sheriff's office bureau at San Francisco International Airport.

In their collective e-mail, San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association board members called Munks and Bolanos "proven and effective leaders" and said they "look forward to moving past this incident."

Most of Munks' e-mail replies were short and expressed gratitude: "Thanks for the words of support" or "I wouldn't be able to make it through the difficult days ahead without friends like you."

To one, he wrote: "I've been overwhelmed dealing with the fallout of the incident. Please let (redacted) know that I will make it up to you guys once the s--- storm passes.. thanks, greg."

Bolanos' e-mails to supporters are similar. "I am hanging in tough. I will call you when things cool down," he wrote to one on April 24.

Some of the e-mails are more apologetic. In an e-mail sent at 11:40 p.m. April 24 to a recipient whose name was redacted, Munks wrote:

"By now you have probably seen the press coverage about my little mishap in Las Vegas ... I guess what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas. I'm going into full lockdown mode for the rest of the week."



Bay Area News Group Staff Writer Michael Manekin contributed to this report.



E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.