Fallout from Thursday’s release of an investigative report into
District Attorney John Sarsfield’s office continues to snowball, as
the San Benito County Board of Supervisors met Friday to discuss
the possibility of Sarsfield filing a lawsuit against the county,
and the San Benito County Bar Association decided to vote next week
on whether to issue a vote of
”
no confidence
”
in the prosecutor.
Hollister – Fallout from Thursday’s release of an investigative report into District Attorney John Sarsfield’s office continues to snowball, as the San Benito County Board of Supervisors met Friday to discuss the possibility of Sarsfield filing a lawsuit against the county, and the San Benito County Bar Association decided to vote next week on whether to issue a vote of “no confidence” in the prosecutor.
The supervisors met in a closed session late Friday afternoon to weigh all of their options concerning the release of a confidential report that concluded Sarsfield retaliated against his own employees because he believed they were aligned with the previous administration, according to supervisors. During the meeting, the board authorized an internal investigation into how the report became public and instructed the county counsel to contact the Attorney General’s office to ask for an investigation into who was responsible, according to County Counsel Karen Forcum.
The report obtained by the Free Lance sustained a number of allegations made in a sexual harassment claim brought against Sarsfield by two women in the Victim Witness Department. Besides retaliating against some of his employees, it sustained the prosecutor “openly engaged in a romantic relationship with his office manager,” Nancy Leon, who supervisors worry could also file suit against the county, according to supervisors.
Supervisor Don Marcus, who met with Sarsfield earlier in the day and relayed the district attorney’s concerns to the rest of the board during their meeting, blamed much of the controversy on the previous board for commissioning the investigation in the first place. Sarsfield did not return phone calls Friday, but told the Free Lance Wednesday that, “whoever gave it to you, I guarantee, is going to get a lawsuit.”
“Whoever suffered a loss because of the document being made public (could sue). The county is susceptible to lawsuits from all directions,” Marcus said. “The information released by this investigation was triggered by the previous board and now we’re responsible and concerned that what was supposed to be confidential was somehow leaked.”
Most of the supervisors were outraged to learn the report had been made public, and Marcus said one of the board’s concerns is how to keep a tight lid on confidential documents in the future.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said Sarsfield believes someone in the county released the document and plans to sue the county to find out who it was. Botelho believes the report should have been kept confidential because it deals specifically with personnel issues, and the supervisors gave their word they wouldn’t make the report public “short of a court order,” he said.
But lawyer Bill Marder, who represented Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal in their harassment suit against Sarsfield, disagrees with the supervisors’ thinking and brought the issue before the San Benito County Bar Association Friday.
Because Sarsfield is an elected official and can only be removed from office by a recall of the people, Marder believes it’s important for the public to have as much information about Sarsfield’s actions as district attorney so they can make informed decisions to evaluate his performance.
“I think sunlight is a disinfectant. The business of government should be as open and transparent as possible,” Marder said. “People talk about the board doing this and the board doing that – the board can’t fire him. All the information should be public. This wouldn’t happen anywhere else. If you tried to do this in L.A. County, you’d have a thousand ACLU lawyers after you.”
Besides the issues brought up in the report, Marder expressed concern that Sarsfield is retaliating against county residents who speak out against him and bringing them before a criminal grand jury illegally.
Marder said several other lawyers spoke about their aversion to Sarsfield’s actions during the bar association’s meeting Friday, and next Friday the association will vote on four options:
Issue a ‘no confidence’ vote against Sarsfield
Send a written complaint to the California State Bar
Issue a ‘no confidence’ vote and send a complaint to the state bar association
Do nothing
SBC Bar Association president, Chenoa Summers, said some members were ready to put it to a vote Friday, but she believes the issue requires a full meeting devoted only to this topic and that all members should have plenty of notice to attend. About 20 of the 35 members were at the meeting, and the association has invited Sarsfield to attend personally so he can defend himself as necessary and offer his perspective.
“We want to make sure he gets a chance to participate so we can hear his side,” Marder said.
If contacted and the California State Bar chose to investigate, it has several options in dealing with attorney misconduct, Marder said. The bar could issue a public letter of reprimand, suspend Sarsfield or disbar him, among others. However, disbarring an attorney is incredibly rare and usually someone has to have violations in the past to warrant disbarment, he said.
“You have to do something really bad to be disbarred,” Marder said. “In general, the odds of a lawyer getting disbarred are very slim.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or em*******@fr***********.com
