San Benito County’s spending on private attorneys hasn’t
subsided, as the Board of Supervisors shelled out nearly $300,000
for outside legal services during the past five months.
The recent spending on litigation, such as a corruption lawsuit
against supervisors and another against the district attorney
alleging sexual harassment, adds on to more than $2.5 million the
county spent on private lawyers from April 2000
–April 2004.
Hollister – San Benito County’s spending on private attorneys hasn’t subsided, as the Board of Supervisors shelled out nearly $300,000 for outside legal services during the past five months.
The recent spending on litigation, such as a corruption lawsuit against supervisors and another against the district attorney alleging sexual harassment, adds on to more than $2.5 million the county spent on private lawyers from April 2000–April 2004.
The county disclosed the total amount spent since April 15 of this year – $284,000 – after the Free Lance requested the information using the California Public Records Act. The total includes only what has been paid to the five firms – excluding whatever amount the county still may owe for recent services.
“Isn’t that just awful? They haven’t slowed down a bit,” said Dennis Madigan, a former planning commissioner who, after the board fired him in September 2003, formed a watchdog organization called Citizens for Clean Government.
San Benito County continues to spend money on outside attorneys as officials grapple with budget shortfalls that are expected to continue for several years. In drafting the current budget, supervisors slashed spending to the marshal’s office by about 50 percent and cut funding to other programs – such as 4-H – to avoid a deficit.
Supervisor Reb Monaco, one of two current board members whose seat is safe through 2006, said the county must address its continual spending on private attorneys. He’s eager to discuss solutions with other supervisors, he said. But for now, he’s not sure how to fix the problem.
“I think we really, seriously need to look at the hemorrhage of funding that’s going on,” Monaco said.
Monaco also said some spending on outside attorneys is inevitable. County officials have defended the lawyers’ fees, saying many cases demand expertise.
“Any county, I don’t care where it is, there’s always times when you’re going to need outside counsel,” he said.
Officials from similar-sized counties – such as Tuolomne and Yuba – have said they don’t spend nearly as much on private firms as San Benito.
Some of the cases or matters for which San Benito has retained outside attorneys include:
n A civil lawsuit brought by Salinas lawyer Mike Pekin alleging several acts of political corruption by Supervisor Richard Scagliotti
n A civil suit against District Attorney John Sarsfield, filed by two subordinates in August, alleging he’s having an affair with his office manager that’s caused a hostile work environment
n A 9-year-old civil suit filed against the county by a mining operation, Sandman, disputing official’s attempts to restrict the company’s use of its 100-acre property along the San Benito River
Most funding for outside lawyers on such cases comes out of the county’s general fund. But in the approved 2004-05 budget, the county created a line item, a projected amount of money going to outside lawyers. Instead of merely allocating the money as litigation arises, the board earmarked $250,000 for private attorneys into the county counsel’s budget.
That department, some observers say, should be better equipped to handle many cases being assigned to private firms. It’s headed by County Counsel Karen Forcum, who makes $113,000 a year, and has a staff of three full-time deputy attorneys.
The two candidates squaring off for the District 2 supervisor’s seat, Anthony Botelho and Anthony Freitas, both blamed officials – and not the people suing the county – for the rising expenses.
Getting private lawyers involved, Freitas said, causes litigation to drag along and expenses to accumulate.
“If we could to it in-house, we could negotiate with people and be a friendlier county,” Freitas said.
Botelho thinks the county has instigated much of the costly litigation. He pointed out how the board’s initial approval in 2003 of a growth control initiative – which voters eventually overturned at the polls – led to litigation that could have been avoided.
“It’s the county putting themselves in the position of being sued,” Botelho said.
Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz also said supervisors have caused the spike in spending. He called it an “institutional problem.”
De La Cruz was the subject of a board-commissioned probe into allegations he committed elections fraud – on which private attorney Nancy Miller advised supervisors. He still could lose his seat if convicted of pending felony charges.
“We have a tendency to say it’s going to be our way, or hit the road,” De La Cruz said. “And if you don’t like our way, we have tons of public dollars to use against you.”
Kollin Kosmicki covers politics for the Free Lance. Reach him at 637-5566, ext. 331, or [email protected].
