Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10031989 - T.2 K T. 2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 3 , 1989 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (See each motion for vote) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Further Hearing on Appeal of Michale Burk from the Sheriff' s Denial of His Application for a Cardroom Work Permit The Chair convened the hearing to further consider the appeal of Michael Burk from the Sheriff ' s denial of his application for a cardroom work permit. It was noted at the August 8, 1989 hearing on this matter that the Sheriff had denied Mr. Burk' s application due to Mr. Burk' s 1980 felony conviction for armed robbery, 1986 misdeameanor conviction for grand theft, and the Sheriff ' s opinion that Mr. Burk is not of good moral character. The Board on August 15 , 1989, issued to Michael Burk a temporary cardroom work permit effective upon his payment of the required fee and participation in a drug testing program; the temporary cardroom work permit expires on October 3 , 1989. In addition, the Board requested County Counsel to report on October 3 , 1989 concerning the Contra Costa County Superior Court' s ruling on Mr. Burk' s petition for a Cer- tificate of Rehabilitation. Kevin Kerr, Deputy County Counsel, reported that the hearing on Mr. Burk' s petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation was rescheduled from September 26 , 1989 to October 3 , 1989 in order to allow Mr. Burk and his counsel time to review an investigation report submitted by the District Attorney. He advised, that the investigation report concluded that Mr. Burk did not meet the requirements for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon. Mr. Kerr also advised that the court hearing was further continued to October 13 , 1989 because the District Attorney had filed a supple- mental report/materials concerning Mr. Burk' s alleged activities at the Key Club, a cardroom in Emeryville, in order to allow Mr. Burk and his attorney, as well as the Court, sufficient time to review the supplemental documents. It was noted that the Board had recently received from the Sheriff a statement signed by Louise Marvin and John Edward Marvin, Jr. , owners of the Key Card Club at 3908 San Pablo Avenue, Emeryville, California, stating that Mr. Burk had stolen money from the Club and had included a copy of a promissory note allegedly signed by Michael Burk agreeing to pay the money; the Marvins alleged that Mr. Burk failed to pay back the money. Calling attention to the fact that Mr. Burk' s temporary cardroom work permit is expiring today, Mr. Kerr advised the Board that the Sheriff is opposed to issuing a cardroom work permit to Mr. Burk, whether it be a temporary or permanent work permit. The Chair declared the hearing open. Craig Judson, (the attorney representing Mr. Burk) , 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325, Walnut Creek, advised that his client has complied with the conditions imposed by the Board on August 15, 1989 , and has successfully participated in a drug testing program at his own expense. In reference to the documents signed by Louise and John Marvin and the promissory note, Mr. - 1 - Judson advised that Mr. Burk denies he has ever seen the note or signed it-. and alleges that the note is a forgery. Mr. Judson commented on the alleged lack of credibility of the Marvins and urged the Board to issue Mr. Burk a permanent cardroom work permit with no restrictions. Bevis Calhoun, 2199 Placer Drive, San Leandro, commented on the possibility of the Marvins confusing Mr. Burk with another man who stole money from the Key Club. Captain Russell Pitkin of the Sheriff 's Department noted that the Marvins contacted the Sheriff' s Department voluntarily after reading an article in the newspaper on the appeal of Mr. Burk and provided the documents to. an investigator who witnessed the making of their statement against Mr. Burk. In response to a question asked by Supervisor Fanden, Michael Burk stated that October 2 , 1989 was the first time he had seen the promissory note and that he did not sign or print his name on the document. Michael Burk then spoke in his defense. He advised that the results of the drug testing program were in his favor. In response to a question asked by Supervisor McPeak, Mr. Burk stated that the signature on the promissory note did resemble his signature and could offer no explanation as to how it got on the note. As to the allegations that Mr. Bork had stolen money from the Key Club and signed the promissory note, Board members discussed the feasibility of requesting Mr. Burk to participate in a poly- graph test and/or handwriting analysis. Captain Pitkin advised that if Mr. Burk so chooses , the Sheriff would make available the services of his polygraph operator. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED. Passed by the Board by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson The Board discussed the status of Mr. Burk' s appeal from the decision of the Sheriff not to grant him a cardroom work permit, and the submitted documents, such as the Marvins ' statement and prom- issory note. The Board considered the testimony presented on August 8, 1989, August 15, 1989, and this day which included the arguments and statements of counsel for Mr. Burk and counsel for the Sheriff, the testimony of Mr. Burk and other witnesses, and documentary evidence. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal of Michael Burk' is DENIED pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 52-3. 707 (d) and 14-4. 008 . Passed by the Board by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson Board members expressed an interest in further pursuing the truth as to the allegations against Mr. Burk concerning the Key Club. There was discussion on the feasibility of having the Marvins testify before the Board, and a proposal for Mr. Burk to submit to a polygraph test and handwriting analysis. _. 2 - Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that in the event Mr. Burk requests and voluntarily submits to a polygraph test and handwriting analysis as to the allegations against him concerning the Key Clubjand the promissory note, County Counsel is REQUESTED to work with the Sheriff 's Department to secure a polygraph test and a handwriting analysis at no cost to Mr. Burk, to report to the Board on thelresults of theltest analysis, and to attempt to have the Marvins appear before the Board to present their side of this matter. Passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Fanden NOES: Supervisor Powers ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct COPY Ot an action taken and ontored on the minutes of the Board of Supervis rs On t.;�n riE�te shown. cc: C. Judson ATTESTED, �� .3 (M. Burk) PHIL BATCHEWN,C:©rk of the Board Sheriff-Coroner of Supervisors and County Administrator District Attorney County Counsel By -- �p��' ISI 3 - i