All appears calm at the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. The storm that followed the 2020 accusations of insider dealing has quieted, and the news frenzy after MALT returned more than $800,000 in Measure A funds has passed. The nonprofit has stabilized its staff after losing five of its top officers in two years, and its lawsuit against Marin County to conceal public documents has disappeared. But whatever came of the story? The answer lies behind the locked doors of the Office of the County Counsel.
MALT’s trouble began back in 2019 when it received a demand letter from a whistleblower named Ken Slayen, alleging the land trust had engaged in numerous conflict-of-interest transactions and defrauded Marin through its Measure A program. The evidence presented in the letter was compiled almost exclusively from three public records act requests made by Slayen that sought MALT-related documents in Supervisor Dennis Rodoni’s possession.
Why would Rodoni have MALT documents? Back in 1980, as a requisite for the county’s support for MALT’s formation, Marin’s District Four supervisor was assigned a permanent seat on MALT’s board of directors. As such, since becoming supervisor in 2017, Rodoni was regularly provided copies of MALT board notes, agendas and other memoranda—documents the county counsel initially acknowledged had become public record once in Rodoni’s possession.
In response to Slayen’s three records requests, the Office of the County Counsel produced over 8,000 pages of MALT-related communications and documents, including 763 pages of board agendas and notes. Slayen’s attorneys then submitted a fourth request seeking to-date communications between MALT and Rodoni. The request was nearly identical to the previous three and sought the same category of documents the county had already produced. Yet the county counsel chose not to produce the documents. Instead, it provided unrelated, irrelevant and superfluous communications.
Thomas Brown, the former city attorney of both Napa and St. Helena and lead attorney for the whistleblower, sternly protested this seemingly obstructive response. “Upon review, we discovered that of the 329 pages of records the County produced, 289 of them were not even correspondences between or among MALT and Supervisor Rodoni,” he wrote. “[This] suggests that the County is improperly withholding non-exempt records…. The County’s response and explanation are not acceptable.”
Brown resubmitted the request.
In response, the county counsel changed tack, obtusely claiming that it had “conducted a thorough search and no responsive records were identified.” Brown, further frustrated, reiterated his demand for the documents. In response to this sixth attempt, the county counsel again changed its position. Undermining its previous assertion that “no records were identified,” the counsel’s office now admitted that it was, in fact, in possession of the documents. However, instead of releasing them, the office asserted that it would first inform MALT of the records request to allow it an opportunity to prevent the production.
After the county counsel alerted MALT that the documents were going to be released to the whistleblower, MALT then famously filed its lawsuit against Marin to keep the public records hidden. One can only imagine what information those documents contained.
With the records request slowed by MALT’s suit, and seemingly confident in the evidence already compiled, Slayen’s attorneys submitted a 23-page filing to the Marin County District Attorney, requesting that she initiate proceedings against MALT. It read: “Since its incorporation in 1980, MALT’s Board has included members of many of the most wealthy, influential, and prominent agricultural families in west Marin. In recent years, certain of MALT’s Board members have leveraged MALT’s power to direct County Measure A funds to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.”
In a mysterious and surprising move, D.A. Chief Investigator Jonathan Madarang related by email that his office “never opened an investigation [because the] case was immediately forwarded to the County Counsel’s Office.” When twice pressed by the whistleblower as to why the case had been transferred from the independently elected district attorney to the supervisor-appointed county counsel, both Madarang and District Attorney Lori Frugoli refused to respond.
Slayen turned his attention once again to accessing the documents still in the county counsel’s possession. By this time, the documents were understood to be pivotal. MALT had responded to the revelations made by Slayen’s earlier records requests in an unprecedented manner. First, it quietly ended the employment of its director of conservation, Jeff Stump, the central figure in the allegations and the only person with direct evidence of violations. Second, MALT removed Rodoni from the board, ensuring that the public would never again have access to board meeting notes through records requests. And third, MALT confessed to the possibility that it overcharged the Measure A program for the very easement transaction that Slayen alleged was fraudulent, thus minimizing its exposure to damages from legal allegations.
The documents sought through the records requests spotlight the MALT board discussions that directly led to these extraordinary and seemingly evasive actions. In short, they were believed to contain clear evidence that MALT both knew the allegations against it were true and that it subsequently sought to conceal its transgressions.
Slayen’s attorney submitted a new, scathing, 16-page request during the heated 2022 Measure A renewal campaign. It read: “As we approach the vote to renew Measure A, too many important questions remain unanswered. What is happening inside MALT that has caused 30% of its staff, including 5 directors, to leave? What information has MALT been withholding, besides a conflicting appraisal, that is so sensitive that it would sue the County to keep it quiet?”
It also questioned the role Rodoni may have played in a MALT coverup. The county counsel again responded in unflinching protection of MALT. Brazenly rescinding its admission that the county was in possession of the long-sought documents, it reverted to its claim that it “has no responsive records.” This response saved MALT from having to refile a lawsuit at the exact time it was asking voters to renew Measure A.
Measure A passed, and the public documents remain concealed by the county counsel. One can only speculate as to why the office appears so motivated to protect MALT. It is notable that the counsel is both appointed by and represents the Board of Supervisors; releasing documents that expose his client may not be in his interest. One can only hope that he will refrain from taking further, more permanent steps to shield MALT and Rodoni by destroying the documents and that one day he will be compelled to release this important body of evidence.
Matthew Barnes is a retired teacher. He lives in Lucas Valley.