In an attempt to keep an investigative report into his office
under wraps, District Attorney John Sarsfield filed a statement
with the court arguing the report into his office should remain
private because it contains sensitive information about personnel
matters and criminal proceedings. He also promised to sue the
county and two county employees for a breach of confidentiality
because a summary of the report was leaked to the Free Lance.
Hollister – In an attempt to keep an investigative report into his office under wraps, District Attorney John Sarsfield filed a statement with the court arguing the report into his office should remain private because it contains sensitive information about personnel matters and criminal proceedings. He also promised to sue the county and two county employees for a breach of confidentiality because a summary of the report was leaked to the Free Lance.
Bill Marder, who represented Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal in their harassment lawsuit against Sarsfield, will go before a judge next week in an attempt to obtain the entire investigation into Sarsfield’s office through a court order. He believes Sarsfield and the county violated the California Public Records Act when they refused to release the report to the media and interested members of the public.
However, Sarsfield wrote in the court declaration that the report includes confidential job evaluation information of people in his office and discussions of pending criminal prosecutions. He also said he understood the investigation would remain confidential, and says Marder is pursuing a personal vendetta against him.
If the information was made public it could jeopardize “existing law enforcement actions” and “trample not only my privacy rights, but also the privacy rights of other people who simply happen to work in this office and now have to deal with Petitioner’s baseless accusations,” Sarsfield said in the declaration.
Sarsfield also stated he will sue the county, Marder, Fancher and Roybal because The Free Lance obtained a copy of a summary of the report in February. That spurred a county-commissioned investigation to discover who leaked the information. Although the investigation won’t be finished for several weeks, Sarsfield is certain only a county employee, Fancher, Roybal or Marder would have the access or desire to make the findings public.
“The only way this information could have emanated from the mediation hearing is from the parties who attended it,” said Jon Giffen, Sarsfield’s attorney. Sarsfield directed all comments to Giffen.
The report was commissioned by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors and paid for with public funds after Fancher and Roybal filed their sexual harassment suit against Sarsfield. While the summary sustained several of the allegations, including that Sarsfield retaliated against some of his own employees because he believed they were aligned with the previous administration, it also concluded that the allegations “did not establish liability for sexual harassment or gender discrimination.”
Because of this finding, the county agreed to pay $20,000 of Sarsfield’s attorney’s fees, but Sarsfield is also threatening to sue the county for the remaining portion – $12,000, said Interim County Administrative Officer Susan Lyons. Sarsfield, who paid $2,500 out of his own pocket to defend himself against the suit, said the county’s failure to reimburse him for the fees and pay off the remaining balance could get it slapped with a lawsuit, according to his declaration.
Lyons said the county agreed to pay a portion of the fees, but hasn’t decided if it will cough up the rest. The county also agreed to settle the suit for $35,000, which Fancher and Roybal split. A county source has said the county has already spent at least $160,000 on the matter.
Lyons will present a detailed account of Giffen’s charges to board members to inspect at the April 26 meeting, she said. They should decide at that time if they’re willing to cover the entire expense, she said.
But Giffen believes the issue of attorney’s fees will be resolved in the near future in order to avoid another lawsuit. But whether attorney’s fees are covered or not, the county could field another lawsuit from Sarsfield’s Office Manager Nancy Leon, who Sarsfield said in his declaration has already filed an administrative complaint with the county based on the mediation brief’s disclosure. If the complaint is denied, Leon will sue the county, the women and Marder for revealing private information about her, according to the declaration.
Supervisor Reb Monaco said he has no idea why Sarsfield would think that either the women, Marder or a county employee leaked the report and didn’t seem worried about another lawsuit heading their way.
“In my eyes you can get sued for just about anything,” Monaco said. “But I don’t know the particulars of why he thinks (the county) had anything to do with the leak.”
Supervisor Pat Loe was shocked to learn about Sarsfield’s possible suit, but said she believes there must be a middle ground to work things out before resulting to lawsuits.
“I have to believe a county department head would not sue the Board of Supervisors,” she said. “I have to assume we can work something out before that would ever happen.”
While she was upset the summary brief was released to the Free Lance, Loe said if the report is made public it should be through a judge’s discretion and a court order.
Fancher and Roybal declined comment because they are still prohibited from speaking publicly due to the confidentiality agreement, Fancher said. But Marder, who adamantly denies releasing the report, believes the confidentiality agreement is moot in the first place because a California Court of Appeals ruled that elected officials are prohibited from entering into confidential agreements.
“Either they didn’t know the law or they were hoping other people wouldn’t know the law,” Marder said. “Since it’s invalid (I signed it because) I knew it won’t make a difference anyway.”
While Giffen disagrees with Marder’s reasoning and believes Sarsfield and his employees have every right to keep the information private, California Newspaper Publisher’s Association lawyer Jim Ewert said Marder is correct. Ewert, who specializes in Freedom of Information laws, said because Sarsfield is an elected official the county has a duty to release the report with names other than Sarsfield’s blacked out.
“I don’t see what he has to hide. If he keeps claiming he’s Mr. Clean then why is it important to keep everything secret?” Marder said. “It’s ironic that he’s against people suing the county, but when he wants to sue the county, it’s OK.”
Sarsfield filed a civil suit against controversial lawyer Michael Pekin for filing frivolous lawsuits, and initiated a criminal grand jury investigation into Pekin for the same charge – which resulted in an indictment. He has criticized Pekin, Fancher and Roybal and Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz for filing unwarranted lawsuits against the county.
Giffen said if Sarsfield sues the county, his lawsuit would be different.
“A lot of people sue the county for (monetary) damages. But we would be suing to keep the information confidential as everyone agreed to make it,” Giffen said. “That’s the primary purpose of the suit, but that doesn’t necessarily exclude damages.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
