San Benito County Supervisors were dismayed about the release
Thursday of an investigative report stating that District Attorney
John Sarsfield retaliated against his own employees, saying they
had hoped to settle the case privately and put the matter behind
them.
Hollister – San Benito County Supervisors were dismayed about the release Thursday of an investigative report stating that District Attorney John Sarsfield retaliated against his own employees, saying they had hoped to settle the case privately and put the matter behind them.
The report’s release has caused other repercussions, however, including Sarsfield’s attorney saying he might file a lawsuit to find out how the document was made public, and one local lawyer planning to lobby the San Benito County Bar Association to join forces in publicly denouncing the prosecutor.
“It’s been our initial goal to try to remedy litigation problems as best we can,” said Supervisor Don Marcus. “We had settled with all parties. I was concerned that information (in the report) may cause further litigation.”
The investigation, which sustained a number of allegations made in a sexual harassment claim brought against Sarsfield by two women in the Victim Witness Department, has also led lawyer Bill Marder, who represented the women in the case, to ask local lawyers to discuss issuing a ‘no confidence’ vote against Sarsfield.
“Sarsfield is abusing his office,” said lawyer Bill Marder. “I’ve talked to a lot of folks about this and I’ve got nothing but positive support. I think most lawyers feel the same way (I do).”
The report, a confidential pre-mediation brief for the county, sustained Sarsfield “openly engaged in a romantic relationship” with his office manager, Nancy Leon, but retaliated against four employees in his office because he perceived them as a “threat to his administration.”
The Board of Supervisors commissioned the report, which was made public by the Free Lance Thursday, after Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal filed a complaint with the county alleging sexual harassment last summer. A summary of the report was presented to the Board last October. Since October, three members either left or were voted out of office, and newly-seated Supervisors Don Marcus, Anthony Botelho and Jaime De La Cruz agreed to settle Fancher and Roybal’s lawsuit last month without seeing the reports’ contents.
Fancher, Roybal and their attorney, Bill Marder, settled with Sarsfield and the county for $35,000, along with an agreement that the women move out of the prosecutor’s office, report to the county administrative officer instead of Sarsfield and that the women and everyone in Sarsfield’s office attend discrimination classes.
Botelho said the new board was anxious to settle the lawsuit and put the contentious matter behind the county. He didn’t believe the investigative report was relevant to settling the suit, and even if he had seen the report he said it wouldn’t have changed his decision.
“It was never offered to me and I didn’t feel it had any relevance as far as what I was trying to do,” Botelho said. “We had to settle. We can’t keep employing attorneys forever. If you get into litigation you have to reach some sort of agreement.”
The report concluded that Sarsfield perceived Fancher, Roybal, Deputy District Attorney Candice Hooper, who ran against Sarsfield in 2002 and lost, and investigator Pat Stevens as threats to his administration because he thought they were aligned with former District Attorney Harry Damkar’s administration, according to the report. Sarsfield declined to comment on the report because of its confidential nature, and said he has yet to set eyes on the findings. His attorney, Jon Giffen, also said Wednesday he hasn’t seen it, but said he now will be exploring options for litigation regarding the report’s release.
Marcus said all aspects of the mediation and settlement process were confidential, and he believes the information should have been kept that way to prevent further litigation against the county. He said his intention was not to sweep Sarsfield’s conduct under the rug.
“All of these litigations cost the county a lot of money. We wanted it to end,” Marcus said. “Until yesterday (Wednesday), the investigative report was nothing we were interested in pursuing – it was the previous board that sparked this investigation.”
Marcus said at this time, the board has no plans to act upon the information released in the report. Supervisor Reb Monaco, who was a member of the previous board, echoed Marcus’ sentiments.
“Nothing’s changed,” he said. “As far as the board’s concerned, it’s done. The board signed it (the settlement agreement), I signed it as chairman – it’s done.”
Supervisor Pat Loe, also a member of the previous board, was upset the report’s contents were made public.
“It is a court-sealed document. Nobody’s supposed to have it, I gave my word on that,” Loe said. “So I have no reaction other than that. And that’s a quote.”
However, De La Cruz, who Sarsfield charged with four felony counts for election forgery in December but dropped last month, expressed a more unabridged point of view. He also wasn’t privy to the report, but he said he had asked to see it and was denied.
“If the county pays for an investigative report with taxpayer dollars, I believe the taxpayers have a right to see it. No matter what it is,” De La Cruz said. “I’m an individual and I like to see all the information before I make a decision, but because the issue was discussed in closed session I will not further elaborate on it.”
Since the women filed their complaint, the county has spent about $160,000 on the discrimination issue alone, according to a county source. Although the report sustained Sarsfield had a romantic relationship with Leon, who is still employed as his office manager, acting County Administrative Officer Susan Lyons said there’s no county policy forbidding a relationship between a manager and a subordinate. That type of conduct is frowned upon but not prohibited as long as the relationship doesn’t interfere with the individuals’ job duties, she said. Lyons said the county hasn’t needed any kind of written policy because that issue has never been a problem.
Whether Sarsfield’s conduct has created a significant problem will be discussed by nearly every lawyer in the county during the San Benito County Bar Association’s meeting today at noon. Association President, Chenoa Summers, said members will decide whether or not to schedule a meeting in the future addressing the recent actions of the District Attorney.
Summers, who has been a lawyer in San Benito for three years and association president for two, declined to comment on the state of Sarsfield’s office.
“It’s too hot of a political issue to comment on,” she said.
However, Marder, who asked the item be put on the agenda, wants the association to discuss giving Sarsfield a no confidence vote because he believes Sarsfield is abusing his position as head prosecutor.
“I don’t know if they’ll agree to put it to a vote or not, but I’m definitely going to shoot my mouth off,” Marder said. “I don’t think it would do anything substantive, but whenever people speak out against him he tries to spin it. If everyone got together and made a statement, it would not allow Sarsfield to weasel out and say, ‘They’re all biased against me.’ His claim would be less credible.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
