LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – An appellate court has upheld the Board of Supervisors' October 2011 decision not to rehire a sheriff's sergeant who an independent hearing officer suggested should be reinstated.
Last week the First Appellate District Court of Appeal handed down the ruling in the case of James Beland, who filed suit against the county in order to get his job back.
When contacted by Lake County News about the case, Beland declined to comment. His attorney, Scott Lewis of Santa Rosa, did not respond to messages requesting a statement on the outcome and any possible next steps.
Then-Sheriff Rod Mitchell fired Beland in December 2008 for a list of reasons including insubordination, willful disobedience, dishonesty, criticism of orders and “failure of good behavior” causing discredit to the department, according to case documents.
The sheriff's office conducted eight internal affairs investigations of Beland from April 2007 to June 2008, with the first two relating to an incident in which it was alleged that Beland struck a subordinate on the head.
One of the key issues under review was his conflicting statements to investigating officers and in court testimony about having wanted to administer a breathalyzer test to then-Chief Deputy Russell Perdock, who was driving a speedboat that collided with a sailboat in April 2006 on Clear Lake, resulting in one fatality.
Beland said he was ordered by more senior personnel at the scene not to give the test, but instead to take Perdock to St. Helena Hospital Clear Lake for a blood draw.
After Beland's firing there was an administrative hearing process leading to a hearing officer's suggestion that he be rehired. The hearing officer concluded that the county hadn't established by a preponderance of evidence that Beland was dismissed for cause and disagreed that he was insubordinate.
The hearing officer also said she couldn't conclude that Beland was being intentionally misleading about his boat crash case statements, instead suggesting that it was “a matter of over-reliance on memory weakened by the passage of time.”
Additionally, the hearing officer concluded that Beland was entitled to be “reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority or other contract benefits, and made whole for any and all loss of earnings occasioned by his dismissal.”
As the result of a closed session discussion, the Board of Supervisors accepted the hearing officer's factual findings but disagreed with her conclusions about whether Beland had been insubordinate, willfully disobedient or dishonest, and rejected the recommendation that he be rehired, case documents explained.
The vote to deny Beland's appeal was 4-1, with Supervisor Anthony Farrington the lone dissenter, according to board voting records.
Beland subsequently sued, arguing that the board exceeded its power under a memorandum of understanding with the deputies' union to reject the hearing officer's decision, and also alleged that the closed session discussion violated his rights under the Brown Act and voided his termination.
The appellate court, however, found the memorandum of understanding authorized the board to reject the recommendation for rehire, and that the board did not violate the Brown Act.
A month after the board made its decision, Beland responded with a $3.7 million tort claim that later was rejected. He followed up by filing a civil case against the county in 2012 to seek monetary damages.
Because Beland's wrongful termination lawsuit remains active, County Counsel Anita Grant told Lake County News that there was little she could say in response to the appellate court ruling.
Grant said that, as of Friday, the county had received no indication from Beland or his attorney about what actions may be taken next in that suit.
The county successfully sought a stay of Beland's civil complaint pending the outcome of the writ of administrative mandamus he was seeking from the appellate court, based on the case files. A stipulation and order for that stay was filed in March 2014.
Court records showed that on Jan. 12 a case management conference was held in the case, with the minutes of that hearing indicating the superior court was still awaiting the outcome of the appellate court, which filed its decision Jan. 19.
The next case management conference in the case is set for April 19 in Lake County Superior Court.
The appellate court's decision said that the county of Lake “shall recover its costs on appeal.”
“It's not a huge amount,” said Grant, who didn't have an estimated number handy, saying it was likely still being calculated and would mostly cover case filing costs only.
“Costs don't ever include attorney's fees unless it's specifically ordered and it wasn't in this case,” she said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
