UPDATE: Mendocino County District Attorney David Eyster has gone on the offensive following a critical state audit, issuing a detailed 27-page response to the California State Auditor that challenges the findings regarding his controversial use of public funds. This urgent development comes just days after the audit accused Eyster of misusing $3,600 in asset forfeiture funds for lavish annual staff dinners masquerading as training events.
The audit, led by State Auditor Grant Parker, concluded that Eyster’s practices violate both state and federal laws prohibiting the use of public funds for personal or non-public employee expenses. Despite these serious allegations, Eyster remains defiant, suggesting that the auditor’s office may be overstepping its bounds in an attempt to undermine the independence of his office.
In his written response dated December 5, 2023, Eyster claimed, “It is unclear whether state auditors have gone rogue,” hinting at a conspiracy against his office. His defiance comes on the heels of a year-long investigation revealing that the annual dinners, often attended by over 75 individuals, fail to meet legitimate training standards, as many attendees are not public employees.
The audit revealed that Eyster’s office has cost taxpayers statewide approximately $800,000 through these questionable expenditures since he took office in 2011. Eyster’s response also highlighted his financial team’s competence, asserting that “no secret payroll codes” were used and that his office has managed over 1,200 financial transactions per year without any evidence of personal enrichment.
State auditors were quick to counter Eyster’s claims, stating that his interpretations of the law are not only flawed but also potentially damaging to public trust. They pointed out that the use of asset forfeiture funds for the dinners constitutes a “gift of public funds,” which is illegal under the California Constitution.
The conflict escalated in October 2023 when Eyster attempted to criminally prosecute County Auditor Chamise Cubbison over unrelated allegations, a case that was ultimately dismissed before trial. This failed prosecution has reportedly cost county taxpayers at least $400,000 in legal fees. Cubbison’s challenges to Eyster’s spending practices have led to a bitter political feud, resulting in significant scrutiny from county executives and the Board of Supervisors.
Eyster defended his use of asset forfeiture funds in several instances, including a $572 expenditure for personal water bottles due to questionable water quality in the county courthouse and a $5,000 donation to St. Mary of the Angels School in Ukiah, arguing it was a legitimate expenditure under state guidelines. However, the state audit firmly disputes these claims, reinforcing that such donations are prohibited and reflect a severe mismanagement of public funds.
As this situation develops, the implications for Eyster’s office and the county’s financial practices could be profound. Observers are closely watching how the Board of Supervisors responds to the findings of the audit and Eyster’s combative rebuttal.
With public trust at stake and significant taxpayer money involved, the fallout from this audit may extend far beyond Eyster’s office, potentially reshaping how public funds are managed in Mendocino County and beyond. The urgency of the situation signals that more developments are likely as both sides prepare for the next steps in this contentious battle.
Stay tuned for further updates as this story unfolds.
