The state Attorney General’s Office is not conducting an
investigation of the District 5 supervisor’s race
– and for now only plans to examine if District Attorney John
Sarsfield can objectively oversee a local probe of a
supervisor-elect and his adviser.
The state Attorney General’s Office is not conducting an investigation of the District 5 supervisor’s race – and for now only plans to examine if District Attorney John Sarsfield can objectively oversee a local probe of a supervisor-elect and his adviser.
A spokesperson for the state’s top law enforcement agency confirmed it received “materials” from Sarsfield regarding the contested race, but that no probe had begun.
“I can tell you definitely, all we are doing is a review to determine whether he (Sarsfield) has a conflict,” said spokesman Nathan Barankin, who declined to divulge if Sarsfield also requested that the office investigate the alleged election fraud.
That potential conflict – causing Sarsfield to refer the probe to the state – relates to an allegation Jaime De La Cruz’s campaign adviser made against the district attorney in court documents filed May 24.
The motion claimed Sarsfield’s alleged affair with his office manager created a conflict of interest for the district attorney in overseeing the grand jury proceedings.
The county also is investigating allegations from two women within Sarsfield’s office of the same affair. They claim it has created a hostile and discriminatory workplace, according to involved lawyers.
The apparent delay of the election probe means that four months after the March 2 election, District 5 residents still won’t know who will represent them on the board in January. And one supervisor said if a new race is necessary in November, candidates may not have time to campaign effectively.
Sarsfield’s apparent conflict in overseeing a grand jury probe of alleged election fraud stems from his decision that he couldn’t oversee the investigation objectively. The probe was based on an inspector’s report that recommended felony elections charges against De La Cruz and his adviser Ignacio Velazquez.
But less than two weeks before the grand jury was set to investigate, Velazquez filed the embarrassing court motion against Sarsfield requesting his removal from overseeing the matter. Velazquez claimed it was a conflict because the alleged mistress is related to a leader of LULAC, members of which spurred many of the elections fraud claims.
Sarsfield at the time said the personal allegation prejudiced him, so he referred the probe to the attorney general.
Nearly three weeks went by before he sent a report to the state office. And it’s unclear if he followed up on a vow to have the FBI investigate Velazquez’s lawyer Mike Pekin for what Sarsfield claimed was extortion.
Before the scandal snowballed, Pekin had informed Sarsfield if he didn’t drop the grand jury probe the lawyer would file the embarrassing motion. An FBI spokesperson Wednesday declined to confirm or deny communication with Sarsfield.
Sarsfield didn’t return a phone call to his office Wednesday.
Now, with the state merely reviewing Sarsfield’s ability to handle the probe, some officials and involved parties are concerned how long it’s taking to resolve the race.
Supervisor Reb Monaco hopes the issue is settled by August 1. Otherwise, he said candidates won’t have a fair opportunity to sell themselves to the public.
“If potentially there is going to be a runoff, that doesn’t give enough time for candidates to campaign and run,” Monaco said. “I’m very, very concerned about the citizens in District 5 not having clear representation.”
In the March election De La Cruz beat two-term incumbent Bob Cruz by 10 votes. Shortly after, speculation grew of elections violations by the De La Cruz camp. The Board of Supervisors ordered an investigation of the race. And Cruz’s wife filed a lawsuit trying to nullify the race’s result to force a runoff in November. That case is also pending.
Cruz didn’t return calls placed to his cell phone Wednesday. And De La Cruz declined to comment on the investigation’s holdup.
But De La Cruz did say the scandals surrounding the election are getting in the way of county business and painting a negative picture of local government.
“The only thing that saddens me is that the public is beginning to have doubts in our county government,” he said. “When is enough, enough?”
Lawyer Harry Damkar, who represents Marian Cruz in her civil case, acknowledged the Cruz’s are frustrated about lagging progress on the criminal probe.
“It again creates additional problems for us in our case,” said Damkar, who only recently was able to view a copy of the investigative report. “We would hope the attorney general would take some action on it.”
De La Cruz’s lawyer Mike Pekin initially planned to send a report to the attorney general to offer a defense for his two clients.
But he won’t send anything to the state office until he’s clear on whether the attorney general will conduct its own probe, he said.
“I have no clue what the AG’s are doing or what they have,” Pekin said.
