That decision came after the board agreed to go into a closed session based on exposure to a potential lawsuit over the issue.

In late June, then-Lt. Dave Garzoli – who has been with the sheriff's office for close to 20 years – was flying a helicopter the sheriff's office rents for marijuana surveillance and eradication under a federal Drug Enforcement Administration grant.

While performing an emergency landing procedure, the Robinson R44 helicopter he was piloting under the guidance of a flight instructor experienced mechanical failure, resulting in a crash landing on Cow Mountain.

The landing brought to light information about the fact that Garzoli, who holds a private pilot's license, was taking flight training for a commercial license while on duty with the sheriff's office and on helicopter time paid for by the DEA grant.

At a July 14 meeting the Board of Supervisors voted that no county employee was to fly any aircraft while on work time, based on safety and liability concerns.

At the same time, the board asked Sheriff Rod Mitchell for flight logs and other information about Garzoli's flying activities.

The matter had been scheduled to return to the board on Aug. 18, but County Counsel Anita Grant had to go through voluminous paperwork to compile a report back to the board, which held the matter over until Tuesday.

Grant took that information and boiled it down into an eight-page document that outlined some of the money's use and how the helicopter itself was used.

She reported that the county has received the DEA grants for marijuana eradication since 1998, when the first grant was for $30,000. Since then, the annual grants have grown to $275,000 in 2009, with the county receiving a total of approximately $1,000,560 in that 11-year period.

For 2009 so far, Grant said she found no billings submitted for helicopter services, but the claims prepared so far include $20,565 for four flights from July through September.

Garzoli also took part in a flight safety course June 1 through 4 at a cost of $860 for the course and lodging. Grant's report noted that to take part in the course, Garzoli was required to submit a copy of his private helicopter pilot's license, which he received in November of 2008.

On the course application form Garzoli indicated that as of the date he completed the application – which Grant said was Feb. 23 – he had 219 helicopter hours logged, with 100 of those on the R44 helicopter used by Cutting Edge Helicopters, one of the three companies the county has contracted with for helicopter rental services.

Grant found in billing documents for 2008 that one of the companies, PJ Helicopters, didn't note if pilot services were provided.

She also found certain unexplained expenses, such as a flight suit that cost just over $400. “It is unclear why, since several deputies were involved in this program, only one flight suit was purchased,” Grant wrote in her report. “Additionally, this same individual put in claims for boot repair, flight suit alterations, and gloves.”

Grant was unable to confirm absolutely on Tuesday whether that flight suit and gear was specifically for Garzoli.

Garzoli's log book showed that he began helicopter flight training in 1995, with 24 training dates taking place from that year through 2004.

There are no further notations until 2008, when 42 training dates were logged, including 37 which were logged beginning in September with Cutting Edge Helicopter's R44 helicopter, according to Grant.

For 2009, Grant found 23 training dates between March and June, with the first reference to law enforcement noted on March 9 and the first notation on marijuana entered on April 28.

She said that in a separate printout that she received before getting the actual log book, she said almost every one of the log book's remarks and procedures notations included reference to marijuana eradication, beginning in 1995.

Last October, Garzoli began e-mailing a DEA colleague about a proposal that a deputy sheriff become a licensed helicopter pilot and that such training be reimbursed under the grant.

Grant noted that Garzoli sent Mitchell a Dec. 2, 2008, memo in which he proposed the long-term lease of a Robinson R44 helicopter and an in-house pilot.

Then, on or about Dec. 15, 2008, Garzoli asked the DEA colleague to add a training component to the 2009 grant that stated, “In 2009, in an effort to reduce costs and increase available flight time to our agency; and be able to offer support to surrounding agencies, we intend to begin operating a leased/rented aircraft in-house.”

Grant said there's no documentation to show the DEA approved that request.

“It remains an open question whether, if the DEA did approve it, that approval would have been forthcoming had the DEA known the County had not even considered the proposal described above; certainly, the Board had not approved it,” Grant wrote in her report.

Board takes up issue, concern raised over possible litigation

Before the board began its discussion Tuesday, Supervisor Rob Brown asked the board to consider holding some of the discussion in closed session. He said he had received information after the posting of the agenda that raised concerns for litigation.

In explaining her report, Grant said the DEA grant was of particular interest in order to make sure proper reimbursement for the flight training was made.

She noted there are several unanswered questions, which could be answered if she and the sheriff are successful in arranging phone conferences with DEA officials and representatives of the companies from which the sheriff's office rents its helicopters.

Particularly, Grant was concerned that flight instruction wasn't mentioned in the helicopter contracts, and she wanted to question the helicopter companies about that.

Lucerne resident Donna Christopher said she had spoken to Garzoli the day after the helicopter incident, and had planned to talk to him about a wreck he'd had years before in a sheriff's patrol car.

“He told me that the sheriff had approved this, that he was no longer on the county time and dime,” she said of the helicopter flying issues.

She added, “I want to know the truth.”

Finley resident Phil Murphy asked if the information provided to Grant, on which she based her report, was public. Grant said it was, although some Social Security numbers would need to be redacted.

During the discussion Mitchell explained that the company that owned the helicopter had covered the wreck.

Grant's research document revealed that there had been night flights and solo flights conducted. In response to questions about that, Mitchell said the night flights appeared to be for flight training purposes.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington wanted to know if there existed inconsistencies between the hours claimed on the grant and the flight log books. “I did not see any inconsistencies,” Grant said, adding that she may not have understood all of the notations because she' not a pilot.

Nor is she a forensic accountant, Rushing pointed out.

Farrington asked if there was anything she found in her research that prohibited personal flight training. Grant said the grant was to cover flights for the marijuana eradication program.

Grant said the situation also raised issues about worker's compensation, creation of new positions and qualifications. New positions, such as an in-house pilot, need to go through the county's standard recruitment practice.

Farrington asked about the night flights, and Grant said she wanted to speak with the helicopter companies to determine if those flights are necessary to complete a flight instruction program.

Turning to Mitchell, Farrington asked the sheriff if he had personally authorized Garzoli to use the grant funds to acquire licensing and for flight training.

“No, I was aware that he was 'logging hours' while looking for marijuana,” said Mitchell.

Was the sheriff aware of the actual cost of the training or using the equipment? Farrington asked.

Mitchell said there's a cost associated with flying for marijuana, but added, “At no time did I ever authorize the use of a helicopter specifically for training purposes.”

So there was no intention to have an in-house pilot in the sheriff's office? Farrington asked.

“Not based on these circumstances, no,” Mitchell replied.

Board members also had questions about the requirements of getting a pilot's license. Murphy said it's hard to know where Garzoli was in the process of getting his commercial license, but he said Garzoli would have been required to have a certain number of hours, including hours in night conditions, which would explain some of the night flights and landings.

Murphy also asked if anyone had been giving civilians a ride on the rented helicopters. Rushing said the the board had determined at a previous meeting that rides for civilians – unless they're directly connected to the eradication program – should stop.

Grant said her Internet research found that a Los Angeles helicopter firm required 50 hours of rotary wing training for a license.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said a commercial license requires a minimum of 100 hours of training and flight time.

Murphy said he's never heard of an instance of someone being paid to fly and not having to have a commercial license. He said that's likely a question for the Federal Aviation Administration. Smith agreed that a commercial license would be necessary in such an instance.

Farrington asked Mitchell if he took any exception to Grant's findings. Mitchell said no.

Had Mitchell's department taken any disciplinary action in response to the situation? Farrington asked. Mitchell said he couldn't answer that because it's a personnel issue.

Since the forced landing, Garzoli's rank has changed from lieutenant to sergeant, but the change in rank wasn't addressed at Tuesday's meeting.

Issues raised about transparency

Mitchell said he's still trying to set up phone conferences with the DEA and the former owner of Cutting Edge Helicopters, the company that owned the helicopter wrecked in the June landing.

Farrington said the most interesting question that stands out for him is why the helicopter contractors did any flight training when it wasn't provided for in the contracts.

Grant pointed out that the county also didn't have liability coverage for a county employee operating an aircraft. Farrington said the county was lucky that there weren't more grave circumstances arising from the flying.

Rushing asked Mitchell if he had any reason to believe that Garzoli thought he had approval to be flying.

“Not to the extent that it was taking place, no,” said Mitchell.

Christopher told Mitchell that Garzoli had stated to her in June that he had Mitchell's blessing for the flights. Mitchell said he would follow up with Garzoli regarding those comments.

Noting that it had taken her 20 years to get more information about Garzoli's patrol car crash, Christopher said she hoped she lived long enough to find out about the helicopter issue.

“You're never going to find out about personnel issues, that's just not going to happen,” Mitchell replied.

Brown read to the board a memo he prepared during the lunch hour, which explained, “Since the posting of the agenda, I have been informed by a Lake County employee whom I trust and find credible that another county employee has retained an attorney and is threatening litigation against the county.”

He went on to explain that the threat was in connection to the helicopter discussion.

Farrington was concerned about going into closed session and losing transparency. “This is a very volatile issue and it's one I've never encountered as a board member,” he said, noting there was potential for the public's perception to be skewed.

Grant replied that the closed session discussion would have to be extremely narrow in scope.

Brown, who had a quiet sidebar with Mitchell, told the board the sheriff had just brought to his attention a text message from one of his command staff members, who reported that Garzoli had said he hadn't retained an attorney.

“I have been told that he has retained an attorney,” said Brown, explaining that he wanted to go into closed session out of an abundance of caution so that neither the sheriff's office or, by extension, the county, would be exposed to litigation.

Brown said he believed the discussion ultimately should be public.

The board went into a closed session discussion for just over a half hour.

When they reconvened in open session, Farrington moved to direct Grant to explore the costs associated with hiring both an investigator and a forensic accountant to give the matter a closer look. Supervisor Jim Comstock seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

No specific time line for the research was stated Tuesday.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews .

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (17)

Subscribe to this comment's feed