New claims filed by Monterey County attorney Mike Pekin allege
that former San Benito County Supervisor Richard Scagliotti stood
to gain financially from his support of the controversial
slow-growth initiative approved by the board of supervisors in 2003
before an eventual rejection by voters.
New claims filed by Monterey County attorney Mike Pekin allege that former San Benito County Supervisor Richard Scagliotti stood to gain financially from his support of the controversial slow-growth initiative approved by the board of supervisors in 2003 before an eventual rejection by voters.
Pekin contends his amended suit and new suit bring previously unrevealed information to light – namely, that Scagliotti owned and still owns 30 acres of developable land at the intersection of Fairview Road and Los Viboras Road. If the growth control initiative had taken effect, Fairview Road would have been the dividing line between two different subdivisions’ restrictions, so Scagliotti stood to gain financially from his vote, Pekin argued.
“As soon as Scagliotti sees the ordinance … he has an independent duty to say, ‘Whoops, I have a conflict of interest,'” Pekin said.
Deputy County Counsel Terra Chaffee did not return Free Lance phone calls Friday afternoon. San Jose attorney Michael Serverian, who is representing Scagliotti and the board of supervisors, declined to comment. The Free Lance called Scagliotti on his cell phone Friday, but he hung up when a reporter identified himself.
Scagliotti’s vote in favor of the initiative is the focus in one of the main allegations made in the recent amendment to Pekin’s lawsuit against the former supervisor and the board of supervisors – as well as a new lawsuit Pekin filed Wednesday against the same groups. These suits are part of a larger legal struggle that has become one of the most costly and controversial in local history.
Scagliotti’s land sat on growth border, Pekin says
According to county documents, the growth control initiative would have created varying growth restrictions in different areas of the county. Land southwest of Fairview Road could not have been subdivided into parcels of less than 20 acres, while land northwest of Fairview Road could not have been subdivided into parcels of less than five acres.
That means that under the growth control initiative, Scagliotti could create five or six subdivisions on his property, while a similar property across Fairview Road could not be subdivided at all, Pekin said.
Scagliotti voted in favor of the growth control initiative when the board of supervisors considered it on April 1, 2003.
The original Los Valientes lawsuit against Scagliotti was filed in 2003 as debate over Measure G, the slow-growth initiative, had been heating up.
In October 2006, the California Fair Political Practices Commission cleared Scagliotti of wrongdoing for his failure to include the Churchill Nut Plant, which he bought and sold during his tenure on the board, on his annual statements of economic interest. In a letter to Scagliotti’s attorney, FPPC Commission Counsel Margaret Figeroid cited “the age of the allegations” and “our caseload and limited resources” in closing the case.
“This is just one more thing that proves I didn’t do anything wrong,” Scagliotti said at the time.
According to guidelines provided by the FPPC, elected officials “have a conflict of interest with regard to a particular government decision if it is sufficiently likely that the outcome of the decision will have an important impact on your economic interests and a significant portion of your jurisdiction does not also feel the important impact of those economic impacts.”
And when public officials have a conflict of interest, they must identify their economic interest, step down from the dais and leave the room, according to the FPPC.
Fairview road property not listed in some Filings
Documents filed in the county elections office show that Scagliotti listed the Fairview Road property on his annual statements of economic interest in 2000 and 2004, but did not list the property in 2001, 2002 or 2003 – or in amendments filed in 2005 and 2006 to his statements.
“He never listed it during the years it was hot,” Pekin said.
In a court filing dated Oct. 5, 2007, Serverian argued that the plaintiff in the case – Mike Pekin’s son Patrick Pekin – lacks the standing to sue.
“Before a private individual may commence an enforcement action under the (Political Reform Act), he or she must first request that the civil prosecutor commence the action, and must also provide the prosecutor with a ‘statement of the grounds for believing a cause of action exists,'” Serverian wrote.
Court filings also show that the county still wants Pekin to identify the members of Los Valientes, an anonymous group that backed the initial suit and related private investigation. So far, Pekin has refused.
Pekin said he also objects to the county paying for Scagliotti’s defense. He acknowledged that the county is supposed to defend an official for actions taken in office, but he said that shouldn’t apply in this case because Scagliotti, Pekin contended, has perjured himself. It also means the county, and ultimately local taxpayers, are financially liable in this case, Pekin said.
Of course, the growth initiative failed and Scagliotti did not run for reelection in 2004. Asked why he still cares about a case that may seem like a remnant of the past, Pekin said, “Because the government is taking the moral position that this is what you can do when you’re a high-ranking official in San Benito County.”
When phoned Friday afternoon, Board Chairman Don Marcus declined to comment.
“We have not been updated on this case for a number of months,” he said.
