Hurting prospects for a conclusion before the March 2 election,
a judge on Tuesday removed himself from a civil case against county
officials that includes an allegation Measure G was drafted
illegally.
After three previous hearings since December, Superior Court
Judge Harry Tobias approved the county’s motion for his
recusal.
Hurting prospects for a conclusion before the March 2 election, a judge on Tuesday removed himself from a civil case against county officials that includes an allegation Measure G was drafted illegally.
After three previous hearings since December, Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias approved the county’s motion for his recusal.
He acknowledged a perceived conflict because his family members have been vocal opponents of Measure G. He mentioned how he personally donated to the No on Measure G campaign.
In her motion for the recusal, the county’s hired lawyer had also cited comments at a Feb. 3 hearing by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Michael Pekin. There, Pekin mentioned maintaining a professional relationship with Tobias.
In Tobias’ ruling to start Tuesday’s hearing, he cited only his connection to the anti-Measure G campaign as “sufficient grounds for me stepping out of the case.”
Aside from a claim county supervisors violated the state open meetings law during Measure G’s drafting, two other allegations in the suit include: a county agency’s failure to file taxes and the county awarding its vehicle maintenance contract through favoritism.
Alan Hedegard, a retired judge often assigned to San Benito County Superior Court, will preside over the next hearing Feb. 24, Tobias said. But finality to the case would likely be further delayed for another reason.
Pekin filed an amended complaint, or lawsuit, Feb. 9. The county’s lawyer, Nancy Miller, is legally allowed 21 days to respond, she said.
After the original suit was filed in December, Miller had filed a motion to throw out the case. She said she would probably do the same with the revised version, while using her allowed time to respond.
Meanwhile, Pekin has been pushing for clearance to take sworn testimony, or depositions, from 15 senior county officials.
He also filed for a preliminary injunction – or court order – that would temporarily seize activities alleged as corruptive in the suit. Now it is unclear when, or if, either of his motions would be addressed.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Pekin was noticeably frustrated and often interjected others’ points.
A couple times – including once after Pekin quipped about Miller’s claim she only recently realized the judge’s connection to Measure G opponents – Tobias called a “time-out.”
“I don’t need to hear any more of this,” Tobias said. “I don’t want to get myself in trouble, and I don’t want to give any of you any reason to try and do that for me.”
Pekin continually argued for the next hearing to take place Friday. Afterward, he acknowledged pushing for a conclusion to the case before the election.
But with the next hearing now set for Feb. 24, he said, “It cannot finally be decided (by the election).”
“The county is making its case to take all of its senior officials and make them unavailable for scrutiny as to how they’ve conducted their office,” Pekin said after the hearing.
Miller said she was pleased with the outcome – that the judge “acted entirely properly.” She expressed confidence Hedegard would not rule Feb. 24 on Pekin’s motion for an injunction or hers to throw out the case.
Although Miller has accused Pekin of trying to sway votes on Measure G through this suit, Pekin on Tuesday said he would continue pursuing the case after March 2.
“The good news is,” Pekin said, “Judge Hedegard is going to be prepared.
“Oh, I better not discuss whether I know Judge Hedegard, or we’re going to be defending this thing in Mozambique before we’re done.”
