Dear Editor, I suspect the real reason for the diatribe of Steve
Harkness against me in your August 9-12 edition is that he believes
a city council candidate he backed some years ago lost the race
because I withdrew my support for her.
Dear Editor,
I suspect the real reason for the diatribe of Steve Harkness against me in your August 9-12 edition is that he believes a city council candidate he backed some years ago lost the race because I withdrew my support for her.
In any event, I want to point out the errors in what he has written.
I admit bad judgment in my choice of licensed private investigators, but I had nothing to do with the way that independent-contractor conducted the surveillance, and I deplore the approach, which I knew nothing about before it occurred, and would never have allowed, of his employee sending two cups of hot chocolate into the City Manager’s hotel room, apparently, (in Harkness’ words), to “frame” him.
I have done nothing at all to perpetuate the rumor about the City Manager and former City Attorney. I kept the investigation entirely confidential, and, if evidence of the relationship had surfaced, I would not have publicized it, but merely would have taken it to the city council members privately and requested assignment of another attorney to the case because of the conflict of interest. It was the City Manager, City Attorney and City Council who “perpetuated” the rumor by “taking it public” through publishing the “subcommittee report” that they prepared in complete secrecy. I can only surmise the intent of the publicity was to halt the investigation – because it was quite predictable that publicizing the rumor that would seriously harm the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s reputations, and nothing could justify self-inflicting so serious a wound, except forestalling a more serious one.
I remain a slow growth advocate, though I was never the author of Measure E or Measure P. I was, however, both a campaigner for the measures, and the (uncompensated) attorney who enforced the measures by representing Citizens For Orderly Residential Development in litigation against attempts by the City and developers to disregard them.
The development I proposed was not “hillside development,” but was slated for flat ground at the base of El Toro, rather than on its slopes, and would have been seen by no one but the three immediately adjoining neighbors, each of whom is putting their own land at the base of El Toro to the same use, i.e. residential. As the attorney who represented the Save El Toro Association at sizeable personal sacrifice and largely uncompensated, I would never do anything to harm the scenic value of El Toro Peak. I had intended to use my share of the profits to allow fund development of a plan to preserve a permanent greenbelt around the entire City – before nothing is left to preserve. I remain true to my original objectives of growth control and open-space protection.
I have not cost the city anything settling employment issues. Unless the City Council is crazy, it never paid a dime on my account, because it is only legally responsible to pay for the errors of city employees, not private citizens.
Harkness shows that he believes he cannot “win” against me without hitting below the belt – by simple character assassination, by appealing to what he believes is a widespread prejudice against lawyers (and which may well exist). He insinuates that I think that because I am a lawyer I am smarter than most people. The fact is that I find it depressing how many people are clearly smarter than I am, the vast majority of them non-lawyers. So, I am inclined to doubt that I have done or said anything to create a different impression. But if Harkness is right about this, I apologize, because that is certainly not the way I see it.
It is the legal duty of an attorney to investigate his cases and to make sure that he has evidence supporting his theories before he takes any action based thereon. The City Council crossed a line in implying that I had committed a crime or an ethical violation. I am suing only to clear my name and require them to admit that they had no grounds for any such implication, and to apologize for these very damaging false statements. Anyone in my position would do the same thing.
Bruce Tichinin, Morgan Hill
