An article appearing under the headline
”
DA names LVs
”
in the Feb. 19 edition of The Pinnacle contained several
inaccuracies. Richard Place, a candidate for the Board of
Supervisors, asked that The Pinnacle address several issues.
Place’s comments appear verbatim, followed by The Pinnacle’s
response.
An article appearing under the headline “DA names LVs” in the Feb. 19 edition of The Pinnacle contained several inaccuracies. Richard Place, a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, asked that The Pinnacle address several issues. Place’s comments appear verbatim, followed by The Pinnacle’s response.
Place: “Jaime De La Cruz, Ignacio Velazquez, Dennis Madigan, Richard Place, Vince Pryor, Dave Grimsley and P. Michael Pekin are accused of being ASSOCIATED with the Los Valientes.”
De La Cruz, Velazquez, Madigan, Place, Pryor, Grimsley and P. Michael Pekin were not identified in a supplemental brief filed by San Benito District Attorney John Sarsfield as members of Los Valientes, but, rather as being “associated with Los Valientes.”
Place, Velazquez and De La Cruz – all those who commented on the case – deny involvement with the group.
Los Valientes are unnamed plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits against San Benito County, all of which are related to allegations of widespread corruption in county government.
In interviews subsequent to the brief, Sarsfield accused those named as being members of the group of litigants.
Place: “Excerpts from the deposition transcript of David Henderson, who was the deposed, were turned into the court missing 111 pages. The full transcript which you now have clearly states at least twice that Henderson said he did not know who Pekin’s clients were.”
Sarsfield’s accusations stem from a sworn deposition by Henderson, who at one time was employed as an investigator for Pekin, the attorney representing Los Valientes. According to a transcript, Henderson twice said in the deposition that he was unaware of the identities of Los Valientes, but went on to describe a transfer of cash to Pekin involving Grimsley, as well as a meeting at Place’s Hollister condominium.
Place: “Nancy Battel never identified the individuals as Los Valientes nor has anyone else other than the district attorney who has yet to prove such allegations.”
Battel, a San Jose attorney working under contract with San Benito County in defending against the Los Valientes suit, said this week that “based upon Henderson’s deposition testimony, the district attorney’s office was able to ascertain the identities [of Los Valientes]. Henderson identifies former county Supervisor Place as one of the concerned parties. Los Valientes are referred to all the time as “concerned citizens.'”
Place: The maintenance contract was not awarded to the lowest bidder. Hollister Tire and Battery was the lowest bidder. The contract was increased from one year to three years and awarded to the next lowest bid, San Benito Tire, owned by Bob Cain.”
A maintenance contract for county vehicles was awarded in August 2002 to San Benito Tire, under a motion from then-Supervisor Richard Scagliotti. San Benito Tire was not the lowest bidder. Hollister Tire and Battery Service submitted the low bid. The motion passed unanimously.
Place: “Bob Cain at one time considered leasing property to Scagliotti, but didn’t. The bases of the conflict were that Scagliotti did give Cain a one-year written option to purchase property, and Scagliotti and Cain jointly applied for a minor subdivision in Hollister so that Scagliotti was forbidden by conflict of interest to vote for the maintenance contract to Cain when he did so. The FPPC has yet to rule on this.”
The owner of San Benito Tire, Cain, had a one-year option to purchase property from Scagliotti and the two applied for a minor subdivision in Hollister. The purchase option was never exercised. Place alleges that Scagliotti was forbidden from voting on the maintenance contract due to potential for conflict of interest. The state attorney general’s office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were both notified, and elected not to pursue the matter. The state Fair Political Practices Commission has yet to rule.
Place: “‘Scagliotti did profit from the [Churchill Nut plant] deal, but it was subsequently ruled to be entirely legal.’ There has never been a ruling that the Churchill Nut plant deal was legal. The FPPC has yet to rule on this.”
The FPPC has not yet ruled on the purchase by Scagliotti and David Taliaferro of a north county parcel known as the Churchill Nut property. District Attorney Sarsfield, in an Oct. 15, 2003 letter, stated “In regards to the Churchill Nut … matters, it is my opinion that no actions taken by the supervisor in question [Scagliotti] would justify a criminal prosecution.”
Place: “I told Henderson during his investigation that the oversizing of the pipeline was not illegal and that the Board had performed a proper investigation and a ruling cleared Supervisor Scagliotti of any wrongdoing on this project. The oversizing was decided on after Richard [Scagliotti] and I visited the project and I suggested for flood control purposes that we oversize it to reduce the flooding on Lovers Lane. We checked with public works and the engineer on that project and they both agreed it would help. I personally don’t think that the payment actually covered all the expense and I know that it saved the county five to 10 times that amount because we didn’t have to do all the environmental studies as a separate flood control project. I later told Pekin after meeting him the same thing and he dropped that part of his case. I met Michael Pekin for the first time on January 3, 2005 in front of the Supervisors Chambers after the swearing in ceremony of the new Board.”
While it is true that at one time, papers filed on behalf of Los Valientes alleged that reimbursement Scagliotti received for oversizing a drainage culvert in the Dunneville area resulted in profit to Scagliotti, Place makes it clear that he and other board members supported the oversizing as a regional flood control measure, and that Scagliotti’s reimbursement did not come close to covering his costs. Place visited the site near Dunneville Estates with Scagliotti, and Place recalls that he proposed the drainage project in the first place, and has never objected to the move on the basis that it saved taxpayers a substantial sum.
