It was a small item on the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors consent agenda, presented more as a legalese formality to remove some language from an ordinance, but it might offer some insights into the resignation of former Mariposa County District Attorney Mike McAfee.
To recap, McAfee resigned last August, days before the Mariposa Gazette reported that a Merced man, Gary Schisnewsky, claimed to have sold him the drug methamphetamine. McAfee denies the allegations.
In his brief complaint last month with the California Civil Rights Department, McAfee said he was “illegally forced or coerced” to resign on Aug. 11, 2025, by Walter Wall, who was at the time county counsel, and Joe Lynch, the county’s chief administrative officer.
“They knowingly came into my office and told me I had to resign or they will place me on admin leave immediately,” McAfee writes in the complaint.
As a point of law, neither county counsel nor the chief administrative officer would have the authority under California law to force a district attorney’s resignation.
But a county ordinance appeared to say something quite different.
Mariposa County Ordinance, Section 2.92.040, “Administrative Powers and Duties,” deals with county board appointed officials to positions that are otherwise elected.
That precisely describes McAfee, who was appointed DA in January 2025, after Wall, who had been elected a year earlier, resigned to become County Counsel.
The ordinance says, “Once appointed, this individual will report directly to the county administrative officer, who will have oversight authority and the ability to recommend discipline or termination of the appointed individual to the Board of Supervisors, as needed.”
Under California law, an elected district attorney can be removed only by a voter recall or court-ordered removal for misconduct.
The legal question is whether an elected official is any different than an appointed one.
In this case, it is a distinction without a difference.
Danielle Bondshu, Clerk of the Board, said the clause was initially added because the county had two “appointed” elected officials, the district attorney and the assessor/recorder.
“At the time, it was reviewed and approved as to legal form by counsel,” she said.
At some point, that analysis apparently changed.
“Questions regarding the code’s legality were initially identified internally, and after seeking an opinion from outside counsel, we made the necessary corrections,” Bondshu said.
The board voted unanimously to rescind that portion of the ordinance.
McAfee’s claim against the county was rejected last month. A lawsuit from McAfee is widely expected.
Responses (0)