On Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2026, the Board of Supervisors tried to deal with the State Auditor’s recommendation that the Board adopt policies regarding the District Attorney’s controversial asset forfeiture spending. Before the discussion even began, newly hired former County Counsel and now current “interim” County Counsel Kit Elliott passed along as her own DA David Eyster’s argument that neither the Board nor the County Auditor had any authority over the DA’s asset forfeiture spending.
Board chair/Supervisor Bernie Norvell immediately saw through that argument saying, “The DA told us the same thing,” adding that he didn’t understand why the issue was on their agenda if the Board had no say in the matter.
Elliott went into garbled filibuster mode. Elliott said the Board could address “documentation and transparency,” but, in direct contradiction to the State Auditor and the State Auditor’s attorneys, had no authority to the tell the DA how to spend asset forfeiture money.
Elliott: “I want to understand better in terms of direction from the state audit is they – again if there’s such a broad discretion on what specific issues do they have. I know they describe them, but I’m not sure – in terms of if you look at the actual documentation or reasons for what they are doing, uh, the DA, the Sheriff, um, that they don’t not meet, uh, the, the, the, the things that they can spend money on.”
Supervisor Ted Williams: “Until we get clarification, are those expenditures paused? Or will business continue as normal?”
Elliott: “I think, again I am hoping – well, just for information, I’m, uh, Ben Rosenfeld? and I have met. I am trying to help in terms of the overall and assistance — in terms of the communication and oversight of the moneys — I do think this is very important. I think it’s very important to the public to understand this and of course I can see that it’s very important to the Board to understand what their duties – and not fall down on those duties. So if I see an issue, I will be very willing to make sure that comes back before the Board if I believe you have a decision to be made. I can promise you that I will be trying to oversee this and I do not want fights between the electeds. Um, I do want this board as much as possible to really remain focused on the bigger issue at hand and that is where are the general fund money is coming from, where are they going, what are you doing with this, how are you making sure that we are doing a correct procurement process, contracting process, etc. But this will not be… It’s not off the table. I guess it is been paused in a certain sense. But certainly, the DA will be going forward with their expenses, and again I will be trying to oversee in terms of just documentation, etc.”
When Supervisor John Haschak tried to get a direct answer about the State Auditor’s statement that the money couldn’t be given to religious organizations or private entities like a local restaurant, Elliott ignored the restaurant question and filibustered on about the fine points of religious activities that may be ok.
Got that, you fools? If you don’t realize that the DA can spend asset forfeiture money according to his own rules, we’ll just keeping heaping legal gibberish on you until you give up.
Accordingly, Elliott wanted to ask the State Auditor to explain their recommendation further, thus avoiding and postponing the issue indefinitely as the DA proceeds as he chooses while the Executive Office will “work with the County Counsel for a response.”
For the record, let’s take one more look at what the State Auditor said:
“We believe that one expenditure we reviewed constituted a gift of public funds. In February 2025, the District Attorney’s Office used $3,600 of asset forfeiture funding to pay for room space and dinner service for an end-of-year staff gathering—which the office described as a continuing legal education and team building business meeting—at a steakhouse. The office paid based on the number of individuals in attendance, and its records indicate, and the District Attorney’s Office acknowledges, that attendees included both its office’s staff and their guests. The District Attorney’s Office shared its perspective with us that including spouses and significant others at this event fosters a more inclusive and positive work environment. It also stated that the CEO pre-approved this expenditure, although we saw no independent evidence of that approval. Determinations about whether an entity’s expenditures serve public purposes must be made by a governing legislative body. None of the records we reviewed showed that the State’s Legislature or the county board approved of the expenditure of public funds for the end-of-year gathering. Because of this, we believe that it constitutes a gift of public funds. Such gifts are violations of the California Constitution’s prohibition of gifts of public funds. This use of asset forfeiture funds is another example of why Mendocino must take steps to better control and oversee this funding.”
“Documentation supporting this [steak dinner] expenditure does not show why it was a prudent use of public funds to hold an end-of-year gathering and dinner event at a restaurant. We conclude that this was a gift of public funds.”
Later in the meeting both Auditor-Controller/Treasurer Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison and DA Eyster chimed in on the subject.
Cubbison said she couldn’t just take the DA’s word for the legality of those particular expenses. She said she would need an independent legal review, not just the DA’s, adding that she “could incur personal liability by letting those go through.” “County Counsel needs to get in touch with me,” added Cubbison, “because I have additional requests from the District Attorney,” most of which she said seemed fine and approvable.
An indignant DA Eyster insisted again that Mendo has no authority over asset forfeiture spending because it is a “field pre-emption,” meaning that the state’s rules take precedence over anything Mendo may say, and he follows those rules. “We disagree tremendously” with the State Auditor’s conclusion, said Eyster. “They were very difficult to work with. We gave them a 22-page legal brief on why we are right.” Eyster said the State Audit was “more of an ideology audit, a political audit, not a financial audit.” Eyster listed a number of local agencies and organizations that have benefited from his asset forfeiture grants totaling more than $1.2 million over his tenure. “I have been a very good steward,” insisted Eyster. “We have a process.” Becoming agitated, Eyster concluded: “Elected officials don’t worry about personal liability. They do the right thing. They don’t worry if it will cause them personal embarrassment. You do it for the public good and the public safety. They [the State Auditor] are inviting you to engage in litigation and you should be very cautious.”
The issue remained unresolved with County Counsel Elliott again saying she’d work with everybody and see what she could do.
Hence then, the article about another voice policies we don t nee no steenking policies about the da s steak dinners was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Another Voice:… Policies? We don’t nee no steenking policies about the DA’s steak dinners )
Also on site :
- Trump endorses Steven Hilton in California governor's race
- 10 Years Ago Today, Country Music Legend Died on His 79th Birthday After Eerily Predicting He Would
- This 1954 Film Ranked as Alfred Hitchcock's No. 1 'Masterpiece'