County of San Joaquin (Sheriff's Department) (PERB 2619M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN (SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT),
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-897-M
PERB Decision No. 2619-M
December 28, 2018
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, by Anthony J. Tucci, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1021; Office of County Counsel, by Matthew Dacey,
Deputy County Counsel, for County of San Joaquin.
Before Banks, Winslow, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on exceptions by the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Local
1021) to the proposed decision of a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint, as
amended, alleged that the County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s Department) (County) violated the
Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA)1 by: (1) denying employee Joel Madarang’s (Madarang)
right to be represented and Local 1021’s right to represent him by refusing Madarang’s request
to consult with a union representative before submitting a written memorandum that he
believed could result in discipline; and (2) taking adverse action against Madarang because he
requested a representative. The ALJ dismissed the complaint, finding no violation of
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
specified, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

________________________
representational rights because, ultimately, Madarang did not submit the memorandum, and
concluding the County had successfully demonstrated that it disciplined Madarang for a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.
In its exceptions, Local 1021 does not dispute the factual findings or the ALJ’s legal
conclusions regarding discrimination/retaliation, but argues that the County violated
Madarang’s right to representation and Local 1021’s right to represent him when it denied him
a representative, regardless of whether he submitted the memorandum, and that a make-whole
remedy is appropriate because the County disciplined Madarang in part for requesting a
representative.
Based on our review of the proposed decision, the entire record, relevant legal
authority, and Local 1021’s exceptions and the County’s response thereto, we conclude that the
County interfered with Madarang’s protected rights, as well as Local 1021’s protected rights,
by denying Madarang a representative and disciplining him. Based on this review, we reverse
the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint for the reasons that follow.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
Jurisdiction
The County is a public agency within the meaning of MMBA section 3501,
subdivision (c), and PERB Regulation 32016, subdivision (a).3 The Sheriff’s Department
(Department) is a department of the County.
2 The parties do not except to the ALJ’s findings of fact. Because we affirm the ALJ’s
factual findings but do not attach the proposed decision, we provide this summary of the
factual findings.
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

________________________
Local 1021 is the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit of employees, within
the meaning of PERB Regulation 32016, subdivision (b), the Safety, Investigative and
Custodial bargaining unit, which includes the classification of Custody Recreation Supervisor.
Madarang
Madarang has been employed by the Department as a Custody Recreation Supervisor at
the county jail since 2010.4 In that capacity, he supervises inmate recreational programs which
include, among other things: bingo, card games, dominoes, volleyball, basketball, softball,
television, movies and gardening. Madarang’s supervisor is the Programs and Services
Director, Kristen Hamilton (Hamilton).
April 2014
In April 2014,5 Madarang began conducting bingo games for the female general
population inmates in unit IV of the jail on Thursdays. The games were to be run in the
afternoons and the winners of the game received candy. The games were popular and at times
loud.
On April 24, Hamilton e-mailed Madarang that beginning in May, he would need to
change the start time of the bingo games from 1:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. Hamilton also
communicated this to Madarang verbally. Hamilton explained the reason for the time change
was to make room for a new mental health program, “Seeking Safety.” In short, Hamilton did
not want the female inmates attending an entertainment-type of recreational activity instead of
the Seeking Safety class, which was designed to decrease the recidivism rate of inmates once
they were released from the county jail.
4 Madarang held other positions with the County prior to 2010.
5 Hereafter, all dates refer to 2014, unless otherwise specified.
3

Madarang held the unit IV bingo games in the morning on May 8, 22, and 29, but held
them in the afternoon on May 15, June 12, and June 19. Madarang testified as to why he
changed the times on June 12 and June 19, but he did not testify regarding May 15. Madarang
testified that he changed the game time on June 12 because he needed some inmates to help
him clean the tool shed that morning.
As for the June 19 game, Madarang explained that he wanted to demonstrate how to
conduct the bingo games to his recreation assistant, who was shadowing him that day. Since
the early morning activity ran late, Madarang consulted with the unit’s correctional officer
whether to start the games at the appointed time. The correctional officer was concerned that
the bingo games would interfere with the inmates’ early lunch, and so Madarang started them
in the afternoon.
Madarang understood that Hamilton had directed him to move the time of bingo games
so as not to interfere with the “Seeking Safety” class. However, he also believed he had
discretion to make changes to the recreation schedule, so he did not seek Hamilton’s
authorization before holding the games on the afternoons of May 15, June 12, and June 19.
June 23 Incident
On Friday, June 20, County Mental Health Clinician Cynde Borges (Borges) sent an
e-mail, which was eventually forwarded to Hamilton, stating that the Seeking Safety program
had been impacted by the unit IV bingo games for the previous three weeks. On Monday
morning, June 23, Borges reiterated this information to Hamilton at a staff meeting. After the
meeting, Hamilton consulted with Custodial Captain Kimberly Moule (Moule) as to how to
handle the situation. Moule advised Hamilton to sit down with Madarang to discover his
4

rationale for deviating from the schedule and then to reiterate the importance of adhering to it
or notifying Hamilton if there was a need to change the schedule.
At 9:50 a.m. that day, Hamilton sent an e-mail to Madarang, which stated:
Your calendar has bingo listed from 10:30-12 [noon]? Why are
you having it in the afternoon when I clearly told you last month
that you were to reschedule for the morning? You have
interrupted the Seeking Safety program for [three] weeks now.
Please advise me of why you did not follow my request and why
your calendar has one thing listed and your log says something
else.
Madarang responded at 11:45 a.m., stating that the unit’s correctional officer requested
that he move the bingo program to the afternoon so that the inmates could be fed early.
Madarang accepted responsibility for not changing the calendar. Shortly after sending this
e-mail, Madarang left his desk and did not see a follow-up e-mail that Hamilton sent 11
minutes later, which stated:
I’ve just about had it with you continuously [undermining] what
I’m telling you to do. I told you that you had to move your
program to the morning because we had a program going on in
the afternoon. I told you to work with the Officers and advise
them that you needed to change to the morning due to the
program. This was discussed at our Staff Meeting last month.
I want a memo explaining why you failed to follow my directions.
I want you to bring it over when you are done.
(Emphasis added.)
Hamilton testified that she asked Madarang for the memo because she wanted to find
out why he did not comply with her directive. Upon receiving the memo, Hamilton intended to
have a conversation with Madarang regarding his thought process so she could correct his
behavior.
5

Madarang did not get back to his desk or access his computer until approximately
3:00 p.m., at which time he received a telephone call from Hamilton. Hamilton asked
Madarang why he had not responded to her e-mail. Madarang believed Hamilton was referring
to her 9:50 a.m. e-mail, and stated that he had responded to it. Hamilton replied that she had
sent a later e-mail and that he needed to respond in writing to that e-mail, as directed. Because
Madarang had been issued prior discipline and had been through an investigative interview
without a representative, he told Hamilton that he wanted to speak to a representative first.
Hamilton responded that Madarang did not need a union representative for this and that he
should just write the memo so she could get his side of the story and correct his behavior.
Again, Madarang stated that he wanted to speak to a union representative before writing the
memo. Hamilton again instructed Madarang to write the memo and to bring it to her. After
Madarang again requested representation prior to writing the memo, Hamilton replied, “Well,
that is it.”
Hamilton then spoke with Administrative Lieutenant Williamson (Williamson) about
the matter, as Moule was not available at that time. When Hamilton eventually spoke with
Moule, Hamilton reported that Madarang had requested a union representative. Moule
responded that if Madarang wanted to speak with a representative, he should be allowed to
bring one when he brought her the requested memo. Instead of relaying this information to
Madarang, however, Hamilton decided to request an internal affairs investigation as Madarang
had refused to write the memo and bring it to her office.
After Hamilton denied Madarang’s request for a union representative, Madarang
continued his regular duties. Lieutenant Robert Teague (Teague) then called Madarang over
the radio to get his location, which Madarang provided. Teague came to Madarang’s location,
6

escorted him to his desk, and instructed Madarang to take his personal effects and follow him
to the administration building to meet with Williamson. Williamson informed Madarang that
he was being placed on paid administrative leave. Hamilton had no role in the decision to
escort Madarang off grounds or the decision to place him on administrative leave.
Request for Internal Affairs Investigation and Notification of Investigation
On that same day, Hamilton prepared a memorandum requesting the initiation of an
internal affairs investigation of Madarang. After setting forth her version of the events,
Hamilton wrote:
I am requesting that an Internal Affairs Investigation be
conducted on Mr. Madarang for failing to comply with a “direct
order” by not providing me with the memo I requested, for not
complying with an order to come to my office, and for neglect of
duty for not following direction and providing the activity in the
manner he was directed to do so.
On June 23 or 24, Internal Affairs Sergeant Jerald Alejandre (Alejandre) received
Hamilton’s request and was assigned to conduct the internal affairs investigation. On July 8,
Alejandre notified Madarang that he was being investigated for the following reasons:
[F]ailure to follow direct orders from Kristen Hamilton in regards
to you scheduling Bingo in the morning instead of in the
afternoon which was impacting a previously established program.
Failing to write a memo to Kristen Hamilton explaining why you
failed to follow her prior order and failing to report to her office
as directed.
Madarang was also notified that he had the right to bring a representative to the interview.
Internal Affairs Investigation
Alejandre conducted recorded interviews with the following witnesses between July 14,
and August 4: Teague, Lieutenant Monica Serros, Hamilton, Borges, and Madarang.
Hamilton, Borges and Madarang all provided recorded statements regarding the allegation that
7

Madarang failed to follow direct orders from Hamilton in regards to scheduling bingo in the
morning instead of the afternoon.
July 21 Investigatory Interview of Madarang with Local 1021 Representation
Alejandre interviewed Madarang on July 21, for approximately one and one-half hours.
Mike Fouch served as Madarang’s union representative. During the interview, Alejandre
informed Madarang that the subject of the investigation was Madarang’s failure to follow
Hamilton’s order regarding scheduling the bingo games, and his failure to write an explanatory
memo and bring it to Hamilton’s office on June 23. Madarang explained that he had
rescheduled bingo games for the afternoon on a few occasions because morning activities ran
long and he believed he had the discretion to do so. Madarang further stated that he had no
intention of disobeying Hamilton’s directive.
Conclusion of the Investigation
On August 5, Alejandre forwarded the investigative report to Moule for her review and
disposition, without providing any opinions or conclusions.
On August 26, Moule sustained all allegations and forwarded the investigation file to
the department’s discipline committee. On that same day, Moule notified Madarang of her
finding. Moule testified that Madarang’s failure to follow Hamilton’s directive regarding the
bingo scheduling “was not at the top of my priority [sic]” in issuing the discipline. Her
concern, rather, was Madarang’s failure to follow the directives to prepare the memorandum
and report to Hamilton, and “get[ting] his attention, get[ting] him to understand the importance
of that, and change [his] behavior.”
8

________________________
On September 16, the discipline committee reviewed the internal affairs package and
recommended that Madarang be suspended for 10 working days. On October 9, Moule issued
Madarang a Notice of Intent to Suspend (Notice of Intent) for 10 working days.6
Skelly Hearing
On October 28, a Skelly hearing was held before Undersheriff John Picone (Picone).
Madarang was represented by Local 1021 Field Representative William Petrone (Petrone).
Petrone argued that Hamilton had violated Madarang’s Weingarten7 rights and this violation
should be taken into consideration.
Later that day, Picone informed Petrone of his decision to: (1) strike all allegations in
the Notice of Intent concerning Madarang’s refusal to follow Hamilton’s order to prepare a
memorandum and to bring it to her office, and (2) uphold the same penalty of a ten-day
suspension. Picone stated in part:
The sustained violations will center solely on the failure of
Mr. Madarang to comply with a legal and lawful order from his
supervisor to change the times of his Bingo sessions to
accommodate the Mental Health Group Therapy Class.
I have discussed my decision with Sheriff Moore, and he is in
agreement with my finding. Captain Kimberly Moule will
process the discipline.
This decision has not been made lightly. All factors were taken
into consideration. Based on those factors, Mr. Madarang’s
insubordination was established beyond a preponderance of the
evidence submitted and warrants the decision made referencing
this issue.
6 The Notice of Intent refers to the 10-day suspension also as an 80-hour suspension.
7 NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251 (Weingarten).
9

________________________
Picone testified that he eliminated the allegation of insubordination for not providing a
written memo to Hamilton and not bringing it to her office because he thought the allegation
could constitute an unfair practice.
On or about October 28, the County issued Madarang an Order of Suspension
(disciplinary order) for 10 working days for the remaining allegations which were not struck
from the October 9 Notice of Intent.
DISCUSSION
Violation of Representational Rights
The representational rights of employees and employee organizations derive from
MMBA sections 3502 and 3503, the language of which is similar to Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA) sections 3543 and 3543.1.8 In Capistrano Unified School District, we
explained that this language includes rights similar to those described in Weingarten, supra,
420 U.S. 251, but that the representational rights under PERB-administered statutes are
considerably broader and are not limited by the requirements of Weingarten. (Capistrano
Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2440, pp. 10-16 (Capistrano).)
Employees have a right to representation where an employer seeks to elicit
incriminating evidence that could potentially impact the employment relationship, either by
conducting an investigatory interview or by requesting a written statement. (Capistrano,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2440, p. 20; San Bernardino Community College District (2018)
PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 3 (San Bernardino CCD).) We will find a violation of
representational rights when (a) the employee or the union representative requested
representation before (b) responding to a request to provide written information, (c) which the
8 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
10

________________________
employee reasonably believed could result in disciplinary action, and (d) the employer denied
the request. (See San Bernardino CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 3; Capistrano,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2440, p. 16.)
If an employee reasonably believes that his written statement could be used for
disciplinary purposes, the right to representation attaches. (San Bernardino CCD, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 4.) An employer faced with a valid request for representation has
three options. It may: (1) grant the request; (2) discontinue the interview/request for
information and investigate through other means; or (3) offer the employee the option of
continuing the interview without representation or having no interview at all. (Ibid.; County of
San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2423-M, p. 23
(County of San Bernardino); San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB
Decision No. 1270, pp. 62-63.) The employer may not refuse the request and order the
employee to continue unrepresented. (San Bernardino CCD, supra, at p. 5; County of San
Bernardino, supra, at p. 38.)
It is undisputed that Madarang requested union representation when Hamilton asked
him to draft and submit a memorandum, and that Hamilton denied the request. It is also
undisputed that Madarang reasonably believed the memorandum could result in disciplinary
action; the purpose of the memorandum was to explain why he failed to follow orders,9 and the
County had previously disciplined him for that offense.
Nonetheless, the ALJ concluded no violation occurred because Madarang did not
submit the memorandum. We disagree. Hamilton’s order that Madarang draft the memo and
9 The direction stated in part, “I’ve just about had it with you continuously
[undermining] what I’m telling you to do . . . I want a memo explaining why you failed to
follow my directions.”
11

________________________
bring it to her, notwithstanding his repeated requests for a representative, was well outside an
employer’s permissible responses to an employee requesting a representative. When
Madarang first requested a representative, Hamilton told him that he did not need one and that
he should just write the memo. When Madarang repeated his request, Hamilton repeated her
order to write the memo. When he insisted, she responded, “Well, that is it,” and requested an
internal affairs investigation of, among other things, Madarang’s refusal to prepare the
memorandum and report to Hamilton’s office. It was incumbent upon Hamilton to act upon
Madarang’s request, either by granting it or terminating the interview unless it was clear that
Madarang was waiving his right to representation. (San Bernardino CCD, supra, PERB
Decision 2599, p. 5.) An employer does not fall within this safe harbor, however, if it ends the
interview but penalizes the employee for failing to participate. Accordingly, we find that
Hamilton’s conduct violated Madarang’s right to be represented and Local 1021’s right to
represent him.10
REMEDY
In its exceptions, Local 1021 argues that the appropriate remedy is a purge order with
make-whole relief, citing Capistrano, supra, PERB Decision No. 2440, p. 44. As the County
correctly points out in its response, in Capistrano we noted a purge order with make-whole
relief may be an appropriate remedy when an employee is denied representational rights. For
10 Local 1021 did not except to the Proposed Decision’s conclusion of law that the
County did not retaliate against Madarang for protected activities. Local 1021’s failure to
except to this finding does not signify that we agree with it.
12

________________________
the reasons discussed below, we find that in this case it is appropriate to make Madarang whole
and to expunge the discipline and all related documents.11
The record does not establish that Hamilton considered discipline or sought to involve
internal affairs before Madarang requested a representative. The evidence shows, rather, that
Moule advised Hamilton to verbally counsel Madarang concerning the bingo-scheduling issue,
and that Madarang’s insistence on union representation resulted in escalation of the dispute to
an internal affairs matter. According to Moule, after Madarang “refused to complete the
memorandum that was ordered, not requested, he was being insubordinate . . . [a]nd we
decided at that point . . . that he posed a security threat.” The issue went all the way up the
chain to the Sheriff, the only one authorized to place someone on administrative leave. It was
at that point that what started as a counseling meeting escalated to an internal affairs
investigation. There would have been no internal affairs investigation, and no discipline,12
absent Madarang’s request for representation.
Since the evidence shows Madarang’s insistence on a representative triggered the
disciplinary process, we find the discipline is inextricably linked to Madarang’s protected
activity. It is immaterial that Picone discounted the protected activity after the Skelly hearing,
because the discipline would not have been proposed in the first place had Madarang not
engaged in protected activity.13
11 The record reflects Madarang’s disciplinary suspension was reduced from ten to five
days as a result of an arbitration.
12 At most, Madarang would have received a verbal counseling regarding his scheduling
of bingo games, absent his protected activity.
13 Even if this case involved an employee disciplined in part for protected activity and
in part for other conduct, “fashioning a partial-expungement remedy poses serious conceptual
and practical problems” and “the Board is not in the business of re-writing disciplinary
13

________________________
Accordingly, to effectuate the purposes of the MMBA, the County must make
Madarang whole, as well as rescind and expunge, from any files it maintains concerning
Madarang, the Order of Suspension for ten working days issued on or around October 28,
2014, together with all related documents or records such as those pertaining to the related
internal affairs investigation, Skelly hearing, and arbitration.14
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) finds the County of San Joaquin
(County) violated: (1) sections 3502 and 3506.5, subdivision (a), of the Government Code by
denying Joel Madarang (Madarang) the right to representation by an employee organization
regarding a request that he submit a memorandum that could lead to discipline; and (2)
sections 3503 and 3506.5, subdivision (b), by denying Service Employees International Union,
Local 1021 (Local 1021) its right to represent Madarang regarding an investigatory
memorandum, and committed unfair practices under section 3509, subdivision (b), and PERB
Regulations 32603, subdivisions (a) and (b).
documents for employers, nor attempting to achieve the same result, by parsing protected from
unprotected conduct referenced or relied on in such documents.” (Capistrano, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2440, p. 45, citing San Ysidro School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 134,
p. 19.) Moreover, the County here did not prove that it would have taken the same action
against Madarang regardless of his refusal to submit the memorandum without consulting with
a union representative. (Cf. Capistrano, supra, at p. 51.)
14 Local 1021 also urges us to order spoken notice to bargaining-unit employees, citing
Jason Lopez Planet Earth Landscape, Inc. (2012) 358 NLRB 383. Spoken notice, also known
as notice reading, is a remedy requiring the employer or sometimes a representative of the
Board read a notice posting aloud in front of affected employees. (Barnes, Making the Bird
Sing: Remedial Notice Reading Requirements and the Efficacy of NLRB Remedies (2015) 36
Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 351, 369.) While a notice reading may certainly be warranted in
appropriate circumstances, Local 1021 does not explain in its exceptions why we should order
such a remedy in this case and we decline to do so on these facts.
14

The County, its governing board and its representatives, shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Denying Madarang the right to be represented by an employee
organization regarding a request that he submit a memorandum that could lead to discipline.
2. 	Denying Local 1021 rights guaranteed by the MMBA, including the right
to represent employees regarding requests to submit memoranda that could lead to discipline.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind and expunge, from any files it maintains concerning Madarang,
the Order of Suspension for 10 working days issued on or around October 28, 2014, together
with all related documents or records such as those pertaining to the related internal affairs
investigation, Skelly hearing, and arbitration.
2. 	Make Madarang whole for lost wages and other benefits of employment
suffered because of the Order of Suspension. Any financial losses should be augmented with
interest at a rate of 7 percent per annum.
3. 	Within ten (10) workdays after this decision is no longer subject to
appeal, post at all work locations in the County where notices to employees customarily are
posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent of the County, indicating that the County will comply with the terms of this
Order. Such posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the Notice shall be posted by electronic message,
intranet, internet site, and other electronic means customarily used by the County to
communicate with its employees in the bargaining unit represented by Local 1021. Reasonable
15

steps shall be taken to ensure that this Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or
covered with any other material.
4. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or the General
Counsel’s designee. Respondent shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by the General
Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be
concurrently served on Local 1021.
Members Winslow and Krantz joined in this Decision.
16

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SA-CE-897-M, Service Employees
International Union Local 1021 v. County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s Department), in which all
parties had the right to participate, it has been found that the County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s
Department) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code sections
3502, 3503, and 3506 by denying Joel Madarang the right to representation by an employee
organization regarding a request that he submit a memorandum that could lead to discipline,
denying Service Employees International Union Local 1021’s (Local 1021) right to represent
employees.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Denying Madarang the right to be represented by an employee
organization regarding a request that he submit a memorandum that could lead to discipline.
2. 	Denying Local 1021 rights guaranteed by the MMBA, including the right
to represent employees regarding requests to submit memoranda that could lead to discipline.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind and expunge, from any files it maintains concerning Madarang,
the Order of Suspension for 10 working days issued on or around October 28, 2014, together
with all related documents or records such as those pertaining to the related internal affairs
investigation, Skelly hearing, and arbitration.
2. 	Make Madarang whole for lost wages and other benefits of employment
suffered because of the Order of Suspension. Any financial losses should be augmented with
interest at a rate of 7 percent per annum.
Dated: _____________________ 	County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s Department)
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.