Gilroy
– They met. They evaluated. And then they said little.
”
No reportable action
”
was the phrase popping off councilmen’s lips Tuesday, following
a late-night review of the city attorney and city manager for their
handling of some high-profile retirements.
Gilroy – They met. They evaluated. And then they said little.
“No reportable action” was the phrase popping off councilmen’s lips Tuesday, following a late-night review of the city attorney and city manager for their handling of some high-profile retirements.
City Administrator Jay Baksa was called before council for an impromptu “performance evaluation” after failing to disclose that the city’s top two police chiefs bumped down their employment status to part-time, a prelude to their departure from active duty. Callon’s firm, Berliner Cohen, was summoned for a job review after advising City Hall to shield the chiefs’ new contracts from public view.
“I think that council had two real good closed sessions and that we walked out of there with a good understanding of what to expect in the future,” Mayor Al Pinheiro said. “That’s about all I’m going to say.”
Councilman Dion Bracco said Tuesday that he does not believe there was any wrongdoing.
“We pay a lot of money for our city administrator and our attorneys,” he said. “We’ve got to put our trust in them, that they’re doing what’s in the best interest of the city. That’s what it comes down to. Do we have confidence in the people working for us? Personally, I do.”
The closed-door job reviews, which lasted two hours and stretched beyond midnight, cap two weeks of controversy involving the city’s top two police officials.
The Dispatch reported Feb. 17 that Baksa quietly brokered the official retirements of Police Chief Gregg Giusiana and Assistant Chief Lanny Brown. The deals took effect earlier this winter and let both chiefs “return” to work as part-time employees, putting them in a position to rake in more than $240,000 each in pension payments and hourly wages – double their current salary.
Baksa did not return a call for comment Tuesday, but in an e-mail to city council Feb. 2, he described the arrangement as a “win-win” that retains the department’s top brass while it moves into a new headquarters. He also alluded to the $100,000-plus in medical and retirement payments the city will save through the deals.
“We did not want to announce it this early, as we did not want (Chief Giusiana) to serve in a lame duck position for over a year, but oh well,” Baksa wrote to council.
The deal was less controversial than the fact that Baksa failed to disclose it to city council and rank-and-file police. Suspicions about the propriety of the arrangement mounted after city attorneys, in a decision they defended as a “conservative” reading of the law, advised City Hall to withhold the chiefs’ new contracts.
The city released the documents after the chiefs volunteered their own copies, but attorneys continued to insist that the California Public Records Act and case law prevent disclosure of police contracts. The stance flouts open records laws and runs counter to interpretations by dozens of other state law enforcement agencies, according to Californians Aware, a nonprofit government watchdog that recently surveyed 200 agencies across the state.
Callon, who spent an hour in closed session Monday night with Baksa and council, did not return a request for comment Tuesday afternoon. Her firm has an open-ended contract with City Hall dating back to 1999, according to City Clerk Rhonda Pellin.
On Feb. 22, the Dispatch filed an additional public records request for Giusiana’s past contracts and e-mails of top city officials related to the retirement arrangements. Berliner Cohen has not yet responded to the requests.
Pinheiro spoke with city attorneys last week, following the decision to withhold the police chief contracts.
“I think if we learned anything from this whole scenario, it is that we want, number one, as a council, to continue to have a priority of transparency,” Pinheiro said. “I think that our attorney has that understanding now of what that means … I don’t want them to take a conservative approach or a liberal approach. I want them to take the approach that lets us release the information, if it’s possible legally. We’ve got nothing to hide.”
Greater clarity is also needed about council’s role in hiring and firing department managers, according to Councilman Craig Gartman. Based on his reading of city charter, Gartman criticized Baksa last week for violating provisions that call for council to appoint department heads, including police chiefs.
“You go through and read the charter, and sometimes it’s open to interpretation,” Gartman said Tuesday. “Maybe that’s the issue – some people believe it’s orange and some believe it’s tangerine, and both believe they’re right.”
Council must define the proper roles of elected leaders and top administrators, Gartman said, and spell them out “in plain English.”
Pinheiro agreed that clarification of the charter language could be useful, and pointed out that Gartman is free to raise the issue as a study session topic or at one of several policy summits throughout the year.
Gartman said council was careful not to broach such policy issues in the closed session, during which each of the seven councilmen questioned Baksa and Callon on job-related matters.
State laws prohibit city councils and other governing bodies from discussing policy issues behind closed doors. Votes involving discipline or other actions affecting employment status can take place in closed session, but must be reported in open session after the meeting.
