From: Dorian Hargrove
Subject: Leon Schorr’s Letter…San Diego Reader
To: “Save Imperial Beach” <saveibonline@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:07 PM

I’m looking for a response to Leon Schorr’s letter informing residents that the Rose appointment does not merit a criminal investigation. Would you like to comment on the decision? Are you surprised by the outcome?

Thanks!

Dorian

Dear SaveIB.com:

I read your (I.B. ROCKN’)  “Conflict of Interest” expose with interest and believe it necessarily raises important questions about the role of Attorney, Steve Haskins, Councilwoman Patricia Mc Coy, the City’s firm of attorneys and the conflict of interest findings of the court in the matter of BOYD v. CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH.   (Also Rachovic Vs. Haskins)

Before I point out why I believe Attorney Haskins conflicts of interest pale in comparison to the conflicts of interest engaged in first by Councilwoman Patricia Mc Coy and second and more blatantly by the City’s firm of attorneys, I must mention the court papers you made available on the saveib.com website are only one party’s pleading to the court and not a court’s holding or decision. While it is believed the court has recently rendered the decision you reported, and your comments are likely based on research into the court’s decision saveib.com should publish the actual finding of the court.

If Attorney Haskins has been found libel to his clients Miss Boyd and Al Rachovic for, among other things, failing to tell her he was also personal attorney to Councilwoman Mc Coy while Haskins was representing Boyd & Rachovic in an action against the City, then I ask you why aren’t Councilwoman McCoy and the city’s firm of attorney’s likewise being held libel for knowingly and purposely failing to disclose to the court their knowledge of the same conflict of interest?

McCoy has been on city council for over 12 years now and is a sworn officer of the court. McCoy carries a gold badge like all other law enforcement personnel and has been lectured and reminded repeatedly about her responsibilities as a sworn officer of the court.

McCoy can’t claim she merely forgot Haskins was her personal attorney because, truth be known, she consults with him frequently. She can’t claim to have merely forgotten the city was involved in a lengthy and costly (to the taxpayer) legal action with Miss Boyd and Mr Rachovic, because, the city’s various attorneys repeatedly discussed the legal action with Mc Coy in many, many closed sessions over a period of several years. She can’t claim to have been merely unaware the city’s and Boyd’s interest were conflicting because, Mc Coy adamantly and vocally wanted IB Rocking closed, while Boyd depended on for her livelihood and brought the action precisely to keep it open. The only reasonable conclusions anyone can come to is: 1, Councilwoman McCoy was absolutely aware of her personal conflict of interest; 2, Mc Coy was absolutely aware of Haskins’ conflict of interest and dual representation; 3, Mc Coy knew, or had reason to know the City’s attorneys were likely aware of the numerous conflicts; and 4, Mc Coy was absolutely aware of the potentially libelous position she was placing the City in by failing to disclose the underlying conflicts of interest.

What about the city’s attorneys and their liability for failure to disclose to the court any conflicts of interest they were aware of?  The city’s attorneys are charged with representing the municipality of Imperial Beach rather than the interest of individual members of the city council, or even the city council as a whole. They advise the council in the council’s capacity as the duly elected representatives of the municipality. Therefore if a potential conflict of interest arises between the municipality and an individual member of the council the city’s attorneys are obligated to advise the individual council member to seek legal advice from the councilperson’s personal attorney. The city’s attorneys are also obligated to exclude the council member (with a known conflict of interest from the city’s interest) from all privileged attorney-client discussions of the underlying matter that are held with the remaining members of the council. So one question here would be, were the city’s attorneys aware of the fact that Attorney Haskin’s was Councilwoman Mc Coy’s personal attorney at the time of the Boyd v. City of IB action. It’s hard to believe they didn’t. After 12 years of being in a close legal representative capacity with Mc Coy, involving hundreds if not thousands of closed session meetings about pending legal matters before the city and potential conflicts of interest concerning individual members of the council, it’s unlikely the city attorneys were not perfectly aware Haskins was Mc Coy’s personal attorney. If they did know such was the case, and, if they failed to notify: first of all their client (the council as a whole or if that failed then the municipality via a publication), secondly, Mc Coy and Haskins and, thirdly, if that failed the court and the State Bar in a timely fashion then why aren’t they likewise being held libel for failing to disclose the same conflict of interest. It seems to me the city’s attorneys knew of the conflict of interest and failed to disclose it because they stood to gain financially from it. This underlying action was before the court for years and will possibly continue to be before the court for years to come. The city’s attorneys have collected hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars out of this while, if known, failing to disclose material facts concerning conflict of interest to the court.

Where is a good District Attorney who can recognize conflict of interest by State Actors when it is sitting on her face? Where is a good District Attorney who understands her role is to protect and serve the citizens of a community and not its abusive elected officials? Where oh where can a good District Attorney be when you need one?

John Carr