Partly cloudy. High 67F. Winds SSW at 10 to 20 mph..
Tonight
Cloudy this evening then becoming windy with rain developing after midnight. Low 59F. Winds S at 20 to 30 mph. Chance of rain 100%. Rainfall near a quarter of an inch. Winds could occasionally gust over 40 mph.
The criminal case against former San Mateo County Community College District Chancellor Ron Galatolo for potential financial misdealings will likely be stalled again until March or later due to continued disputes over electronic evidence collected from Galatolo’s former legal counsel, according to the District Attorney’s Office.
Just weeks after a judge ruled email evidence gathered from the office of Galatolo’s former lawyer, Stephen Pahl, with the Pahl & McCay law firm, would be allowed in the DA’s case against Galatolo, the matter is again up for debate.
A court-signed warrant allowed the DA’s Office to send in police and impartial lawyers to gather evidence from Pahl’s office. The special master’s evidence requires that when evidence is taken from a lawyer’s or doctor’s office, an impartial lawyer must be present to examine the records and make sure no privileged information from other cases is taken and used. The defense team, led by attorney Chuck Smith, had contested the taking of the records.
In a closed hearing on Jan. 15, a judge sided with the DA’s office and ruled that the evidence could be allowed, however, Galatolo and his defense team have asked for another review from the state Court of Appeals, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.
“The Court of Appeals, a bit to our surprise, decided they will take a look at it,” Wagstaffe said.
Before the higher court’s decision, Wagstaffe said he and his team were ready to go into court next week to schedule preliminary hearings. That process will likely be put off until March or April while the court of appeals decides whether it will require briefings and oral arguments, a process that could take until summer to resolve.
The defense has requested that the issue around the electronic evidence be resolved before moving forward with other hearings, Wagstaffe said. Neither party has had a chance to review what was seized, he said.
Recommended for you
It’s also unclear whether a lawsuit filed by the district against Galatolo’s alleged co-conspirators Wednesday will affect the DA’s case, Wagstaffe said. Rather than going after Galatolo, the civil suit is aimed at multiple construction firms — Allana, Buick & Bers; McCarthy Building Companies; Studio W Architects, formerly known as Bunton, Clifford & Associates; Bothman Construction; and Blach Construction Company. Pahl has also been named as a possible co-conspirator in the complaint.
The construction firms are accused of providing Galatolo and former Vice Chancellor Jose Nuñez with gifts like tickets to concerts and sporting events, free construction services and international and domestic travel. In exchange, the complaint asserts the firms were given special treatment during construction bidding processes in the district including helping to draft requests for proposals and the opportunity to resubmit their bids.
The management of more than $1 billion, acquired by the district through taxpayer bond money, has been called into question and more firms and individuals could be implicated in the future, said the district’s lawyers, Joe Cotchett and Anne Marie Murphy with the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Joe Goethals with Goethals Legal.
Wagstaffe said he and his office looked into whether they could file criminal charges against various vendors with seemingly close ties with Galatolo but ultimately decided there wasn’t enough evidence for a criminal case.
“Trust me, we tried,” Wagstaffe said. “I would have liked to.”
In January 2022, Nuñez pleaded no contest to two felony counts of using the community college district’s resources for political purposes, including the election campaign of district board candidate Tom Mohr and a bond measure providing $2 billion in funding for college district capital projects between 2018 and 2020. As part of the plea, he will testify as a witness in any proceeding or trials related to the District Attorney’s Office investigation into the community college district.
Galatolo was arrested in April of 2022 at San Francisco International Airport after returning from vacation in Europe. The arrest resulted from a multiyear investigation after a whistleblower complaint in 2019. The district operates three colleges in San Mateo County; Cañada College, College of San Mateo and Skyline College. Galatolo began as chancellor in 2001 and resigned suddenly in 2019 amid revelations about the investigation and after the district board offered him an emeritus title to use while exploring ways to create a four-year program at the district. He was later terminated of the position that paid $467,000.
Representatives of the firms did not respond to requests for comment and those of Galatolo could not be reached.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
The “electronic evidence’ must be pretty damaging to appeal to the Court of Appeals to have it suppressed.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.