James Rufus Koren, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/15/2010 08:21:59 PM PST
The District Attorney’s Office did not retaliate against an employee who says she had an affair with District Attorney Michael A. Ramos, according to a San Bernardino County memo released Friday.
The memo summarizes findings of an independent investigation commissioned by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in response to an employee’s claim that she was improperly disciplined after a local newspaper published a story alleging Ramos had affairs with her and other female staff members.
The county authorized spending up to $140,000 for a Santa Monica law firm to review investigative technician Cheryl Ristow’s complaint. The county received the report Wednesday.
The report does not address whether Ramos and Ristow actually had an affair, according to the memo.
That question “is irrelevant to whether or not (Ramos) or individuals at his request or suggestion retaliated against Ristow,” the memo says.
Investigators found that disciplinary actions taken against Ristow “were based on objective, verifiable and current concerns related to Ristow’s workplace actions unrelated to any of the Ramos-related statements made by her.”
Ramos’ personal attorney, Richard Marca, said in a statement that the summary vindicated Ramos.
“We denounce allegations of sexual harassment against Mike Ramos as politically trumped-up charges with no basis in fact or law,” Marca said. “Individuals that have been charged with serious crimes and their political enablers should be ashamed of themselves for helping orchestrate the complaint and putting the district attorney, his family, and the taxpayers through this expensive process.”
The District Attorney’s Office has charged several former county officials with fraud, misappropriation of public money and perjury. Its investigation into alleged corruption among top county officials is ongoing.
Former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, charged in March with perjury for allegedly failing to properly report gifts from a Rancho Cucamonga developer, has accused Ramos of various misconduct, including affairs with staff members and colleagues, since shortly after his arrest.
Erwin did not return calls for comment Friday.
County Supervisor Neil Derry – who briefly employed Erwin as his chief of staff – called for the independent investigation two months after a story containing similar allegations appeared in a local newspaper, the San Bernardino County Sentinel, in May.
After Ristow came forward in August, alleging retaliation, the Board of Supervisors commissioned the independent investigation.
“From the beginning, this county has had issues with lack of disclosure, with investigations being covered up,” Derry said Friday. “My goal was to ensure that when a complaint was made, a professional investigation was performed and that the public would be privy to that investigation.”
To read entire story, click here.
I guess no one is going to explain the term “pretext” as to the issues with Ristow.
If she ALL of a sudden had these disciplinary issues come up, then we might have a pretext to retaliation. Pretty simple to look through the smoke.
Who spoke on the behalf of Ristow when she was being interviewed? I doubt Ristow could call BS on much, unless she is very experienced on issues of retaliation.
Is there a record within that office that would show that other employees have been disciplined for similiar acts as Ristow? If not, then that might answer a few other questions.
Mr.Richard Marca is mistaken if he thinks this vindicates his client. I have read more than a few cases where someone was cleared by investigators and later found responsible for their actions.
Yes O.J.Simpson was acquitted of murder, the civil jury wasn’t so convinced and OJ has what, a $33 million dollar judgement against him that he has not settled.
I guess these exibits that are part of the report also clear Ramos?
If Ramos is so clean, then why wasn’t he cleared when the BOS spent the first $75k. GOOD investigators can see BS in short order if they know what their doing.
I will submit that lawyers milk everything they can down to the last penny. God forbid if they could get things done right the first time around.
Guess we will wait and see.
This is the legal fraud “game” and is the reason why lawyers always just say; “Show me the money” for saying whatever the client, in this case the County government and its new leader Devilreaux, wants them to say. The Devil is in the details.
If there wasn’t any affair as Ramos has stated repeatedly, then how could the report find that “it” was consensual? What was consensual? They both consented to having coffee. They both consented to sharing a piece of pie or whatever? They both consented to a good screw? How is a finding that he was screwing a subordinate characterized as vindication? What’s up with this county?