The San Benito County Sheriff’s Department was unable to
determine how a copy of a pre-mediation summary of an investigative
report into the District Attorney’s office was leaked to the Free
Lance.
Hollister – The San Benito County Sheriff’s Department was unable to determine how a copy of a pre-mediation summary of an investigative report into the District Attorney’s office was leaked to the Free Lance.
The Board of Supervisors reviewed the sheriff investigators’ findings during a closed session meeting Tuesday, according to Supervisor Reb Monaco, who was pleased to finally put the matter behind him.
“They could not figure it out, but they did a reasonable investigation,” Monaco said.
The pre-mediation brief was a summary of an investigative report into District Attorney John Sarsfield’s office, which board members used to settle a harassment suit against the prosecutor filed by Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal.
Sarsfield expressed satisfaction with the investigation, however he highlighted the fact that while detectives interviewed individual supervisors, Fancher, Roybal and their attorney, Bill Marder, declined to speak with them.
“It needed to be done and I take it at face value,” Sarsfield said. “Everybody who denied (leaking the summary), I believe them.”
Marder said he would have agreed to an interview if it came with a proper subpoena and a court reporter so there was no question as to what was said.
“There were so many threats being made by Sarsfield, I didn’t want to say anything he would use to try to get somebody in trouble,” Marder said.
Sarsfield has said he planned to sue the county, the women and Marder for a breach of confidentiality because the summary was leaked to the Free Lance. He said Friday that those plans had not changed.
“You betcha,” he said of his intent to sue, “against the appropriate people at the appropriate time.”
In February, the Free Lance obtained a copy of the summary, which the county commissioned after the women made gender discrimination allegations against Sarsfield. The investigator concluded Sarsfield’s actions “did not establish liability for sexual harassment or gender discrimination,” but that he retaliated against several of his own employees because he perceived them as a “threat to his administration,” according to the summary.
The board originally allocated $5,000 to investigate the source of the leak, but Sheriff Curtis Hill offered to conduct the investigation at no cost.
“We didn’t make a determination of who leaked it, but we knew that going in,” Hill said. “We were asked to do it by the county, I agreed, that way the county can say we asked the players.”
Hill said there were only a handful of people interviewed, but no one at the Free Lance was interviewed by investigators.
In July, San Benito County Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias ruled that the full investigative report is confidential based on attorney-client privilege, but the summary is a public record. But investigators, who began their investigation in June and concluded it about a month ago, continued researching the matter because the board wanted to make sure the summary wasn’t leaked by a county employee, according to Supervisor Anthony Botelho.
“I am satisfied with the report,” Botelho said. “I wish we were more expedient with it, though, that might have alleviated some of the concerns Mr. Sarsfield had. I hope he’s satisfied that it did not come from our office.”
But County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson pointed out that “the investigation didn’t turn up any conclusive evidence or point to any specific individual.”
Marder said he was never fazed about an investigation into the source of the leak, or nervous about being slapped with a lawsuit.
“I just viewed the whole think as a waste of energy,” he said. “Because it’s a public record, whoever did it, I don’t think they did anything wrong.”
