A week after the district attorney filed a court document
claiming an investigative report into his office should remain
secret because it includes confidential personnel matters and
information on criminal investigations, lawyer Bill Marder filed a
response Monday refuting the reasons with the hope his arguments
will net him the report in court on Wednesday.
Hollister – A week after the district attorney filed a court document claiming an investigative report into his office should remain secret because it includes confidential personnel matters and information on criminal investigations, lawyer Bill Marder filed a response Monday refuting the reasons with the hope his arguments will net him the report in court on Wednesday.
Marder, who represented Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal in their sexual harassment lawsuit against District Attorney John Sarsfield, filed a statement claiming the investigative report should be made public because the public’s interest in evaluating allegations of an elected official’s misconduct outweigh the official’s privacy rights.
“The public has to know what’s going on,” Marder said. “There shouldn’t be secrets in government.”
While Sarsfield disagrees, claiming the report should remain confidential because it contains sensitive information about personnel matters and criminal investigations, an attorney with the California Newspaper Publisher’s Association has sided with Marder.
Marder says any mention of criminal cases not related to the allegations outlined in the suit could be redacted, and CNPA attorney Jim Ewert echoed his argument, saying because Sarsfield is an elected official the county has a duty to release the report with names other than Sarsfield’s blacked out.
But because of the office’s small size, Sarsfield said any reference to an employee would reveal their identity even if their name was removed.
“It would be one thing if we were a department of 2,000,” Sarsfield said. “The office is so tiny – if you simply take out the name of Suzie Smith, office assistant, everyone’s still going to know who that is.”
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.”
In refusing the release the report, the county contends that because it was prepared by county-commissioned attorneys it shouldn’t have to release it because of attorney-client privilege.
But because the county used the report’s findings as part of Sarsfield’s defense, Marder believes it negates the attorney-client confidentiality privilege and mandates that the report be made public. The county agreed to settle the suit for $35,000, which the women split.
Sarsfield, who promised to sue Marder and his clients, along with the county for a breach of confidentiality because a copy of a summary of the report was leaked to the Free Lance, raised opposing arguments in a statement he filed with the court last week.
While each side will present completely opposite arguments, it will be up to a judge to decide who’s right. Marder will go before a judge at 1:30pm on Wednesday at the San Benito County Superior Court.
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
