Sources: Alameda County Grand Jury Investigating Haggerty Over Land Deal

ALCO Supervisor Scott Haggerty

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOS | Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty is the subject of a grand jury investigation for allegedly facilitating the sale of his Livermore home in 2007 to a buyer later approved by the county to purchase 12 acres of county-owned ranchland near Pleasanton, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.

The allegation, reported in December by the San Francisco Chronicle, was laid out by Haggerty’s long-time chief of staff Chris Gray in a $10 million legal complaint following his dismissal last summer.

Numerous sources tell The Citizen the Alameda County Grand Jury took on the complaint in January with the focus of the investigation primarily on Haggerty’s sale of his home in Livermore to Tri Valley developer John Wong. During the same month of the transaction, Wong was awarded the right to purchase a tract of land near Pleasanton from the county’s Surplus Property Authority. At the time of the transactions, Haggerty’s District 1 included Pleasanton. Following redistricting, he now represents Dublin, Pleasanton, Sunol and a majority of Fremont.

In addition, to Gray’s allegation of a quid pro quo between Haggerty and Wong, the complaint also includes claims Haggerty routinely filled incorrect economic interest reports with the Fair Political Practices Commission and mistreated staff.

In the past, the Alameda Grand Jury, which convenes throughout the year and whose proceedings are secret and members anonymous, has the power to investigate, among other subjects, allegations of misconduct by public officials, and exist as a type of overseer of county and local government. Because of the whistleblower nature of some allegations investigated by the grand jury it declined to answer inquiries into whether it was currently investigating Gray’s claims against Haggerty.

A recent grand jury report issued in June of last year, for instance, was highly critical of the county’s handling of a little-known anti-poverty agency, called the Associated Community Action Program (ACAP). The organization was later dissolved following criminal allegations against its executive director and a lack of county oversight by its governing board comprised of council members and mayors from every city in Alameda County, excluding Oakland and Berkeley.

The grand jury has also come down hard in the past year on the physical deterioration of the delinquent youth facility Camp Wilmot Sweeney in San Leandro and the need for improved crime labs in Oakland and Alameda County.

Categories: ACAP, Alameda County, Alameda County Board, grand jury, John Wong, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Francisco Chronicle, Scott Haggerty, Surplus Property Authority

8 replies

  1. Are you talking about a CIVIL grand jury inquiry? Or criminal grand jury inquiry?

    The members of the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury are not anonymous – they're listed right there, with their pictures, in the report.


  2. Prediction. grand jury barely slaps him on the wrist. It's embarrassing for Haggerty maybe 1-2 days and back to the same old crap


  3. As a county fairgrounds employee I can tell you, its the animal rights people that will finally get him. Between his nominee to the fair board killing a cow by using an icebox to cheat for his kid to try and win a fair competition (keeping the animal cold allegedly improves their coat), to soliciting donors to buy his kids pigs for slaughter, to sending staff during work time to take his dog to the pound so he could tell his kids it ran away, to the cruel and illegal way he won his first “team penning” buckle at the rodeo, it wouldn't surprise me if PETA did an anti-endorsement next time. I'm not even going to mention what he allegedly tried to do in the pens with the corndog because that story seems over the top even for him, but there's so much real stuff that hasn't even come out yet that this story will not die


  4. By MW:

    Oh, what a wonderful group of creatures and critters we have been getting on our Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

    For instance, Keith Carson and Nate Miley continued to strongly and publicly back Yusef Bey even after it came out that for years he had been kidnapping teenage girls and holding them as his longterm sex slaves.

    Then we also had Nadia Lockyer, and who proved that you can still get a California law license and also be elected to the AC Board of Supervisors even if your IQ is lower than your shoe size.

    And for many years, and long before hearing of this land deal, I had already considered Haggerty to be even considerably sleazier than even Miley and Carson.

    In other words, where does AC find its politicians? Does it go to the cesspool, pull out the very sleaziest garbage, and then say to those pieces of garbage, “Now, and rather than transferring you to the local processing plant, instead we are going to make you a high ranking County official!!!


  5. I am cool with this as long as they used a licensed Real Estate agent.


  6. Annette Bacca took Haggerty to court more than 15 years ago for sexual harrassment. She was a staff member he inherited from his former and late predecessor Ed Campbell who confided to me.

    I know for a fact that he sexually harassed the hell out of her and others. Unfortunately, he won by tearing down her reputation. He's gone through more wives and prostitutes than anyone could ever believe.

    More than time he got his after causing so much misery to Alameda County. District 1 needs an alternative to him. He's gone around telling many that he plans to retire in another couple of terms with 'shitloads of county $$.' That's about the ONLY truthful comment he has ever made.


  7. By MW:

    If Haggerty is guilty of the things he has been accused of, then that is very likely one of the reasons County Administrator Susan Muranishi, and whose salary is set by the AC Board of Supervisors, is getting paid an outrageously high 426K per year.

    (NOTE: A few days ago the SF Chronicle's Matier & Ross broke the story in regard to Muranishi's outrageously high salary and the fact that when she retires she will also be receiving that same annual compensation for life as her yearly pension.)

    Anyway, from the standpoint of the AC Board of Supervisors, far and away the most important part of Muranishi's job is her not objecting to and not making a big public stink about any of the outrageous things the members of the Board and/or their associates and political supporters do or get engaged in. More specifically, Muranishi is getting extremely well paid in exchange for keeping her mouth shut and for not objecting to the virtually non-stop shenanigans some of the big boys regularly get involved in.

    For example, as far as the public learning that Nadia Lockyer: one, had missed approx forty three percent of the Board meetings; and two, even when she showed up for work she was usually and obviously in a drugged out daze – those facts came out since an anonymous whistleblower tipped off one or more newspaper reporters.

    However if the employee who complained about Nadia's conduct and obvious drug addiction had complained by said employee instead reporting Nadia's conduct to his or her managers, and rather than going to the media, then that employee's managers, and perhaps also with the “assistance” of the pathological liars with law licenses in the DA's office and/or the County Counsel's office, would have performed one of their standard phony “investigations,” and whose real and actual purpose would have been to protect their fellow big boys, and then after their phony “investigation” definitely “proved” that the whistleblower was “nuts,” they would have retaliated against the whistleblower.

    So let's ask Muranishi if she has ever backed up a whistleblower who complained about wrongdong by one of the big boys – or whether, and on the other hand, the big boys are paying her so much, that therefore it is in her financial interest to keep her eyes closed.


  8. Wow! The process as a process. Surprisingly, I didn't know about such a rise of problems and discontent in Pleasanton. By the way, I planned to move to the next month and talked with representatives of the company on moving . I'm not even sure now if it's worth moving in the Alameda district. Now this worries me quite strongly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: