Why did the San Benito County Board of Supervisors spend more than $585,000 of taxpayers’ money defending what boils down to ex-Supervisor Richard Scagliotti’s personal ethical misconduct? For the most part ethics violations are the individual responsibility of the office holder, especially when it involves personal finances. A supervisor with a hidden direct financial interest coming before the board almost always knows where his or her bread is buttered.
San Benito County, in perpetual financial difficulty, must be especially mindful of downside risk when making litigation decisions. The obvious course would have been to demand full disclosure of Scagliotti’s hidden interests to the board for evaluation before paying a penny to defend him. It could not have been more than five minutes after seeing the facts that the county counsel and/or outside legal counsel, said, “Oh boy, he’s got a problem,” and maybe they did. At that moment the board should have bailed out on behalf of the public. If Scagliotti refused to reveal those details it should have signaled game over.
Ethics rules can be complex and nit-picky, many small errors are made and are dealt with as the misdemeanors, but a 15-year old in Junior Government can explain direct financial conflict. Sure, the decade-old lawsuit by Los Valientes threw the kitchen sink at Scagliotti, but large pieces stuck, according to the $237,500 award made by Judge O’Farrell who concluded Scagliotti had a conflict of interest on a development decision and failed to properly report a series of financial conflicts.
Now the county has hired a legal firm at $240 per attorney hour to try and recover the unstated portion of the $585,000 legal fees – public funds – used to defend Scagliotti. We, the paying public, still do not know what that number is. Additionally, Scagliotti, with business still before the county, is now given the chance to claim that any future adverse ruling on his proposals is biased because the county claims he owes them money. Those opposed to his proposals can claim that any future advantageous ruling is designed to prop up his finances so he can pay the county back. Talk about a quagmire.
The board has an obligation to defend individuals, the board, and county from lawsuits when they believe that they have acted in good faith and in accordance with the law; however, that’s not what happened here. This case is clear: No matter the ultimate dot-the-i legal judgement, you can’t use public office for personal profit and the public should not pay to defend this sort of abuse.
I don’t buy the argument that failure to defend Scagliotti means good people would not run for office for fear of being sued. Why would we want office holders more interested in lining their own pockets than working for the public anyway?
Hopefully, once and for all time, this puts to bed the stupid idea that public integrity is just some nice to have attribute that rates way below “what have you done for me lately” on the values scale. Those without integrity always take care of themselves first and try to stick you with the bill.
