Gilroy
– Three days after their sweetheart retirement deals were
publicly exposed, the city’s top police officials and City Hall
have coughed up documents detailing the arrangements.
Gilroy – Three days after their sweetheart retirement deals were publicly exposed, the city’s top police officials and City Hall have coughed up documents detailing the arrangements. Yet city attorneys continue insisting the agreements are not public records, despite mounting criticism of the secrecy surrounding the deals.
“I decided yesterday that if (the city) was not going to release (the agreements), I would,” Police Chief Gregg Giusiana wrote Wednesday. “The ‘letter of agreement’ is such a simple document, it is in the best interests of the city and the department to release it to the Dispatch and stop all the divisiveness being generated by your articles.”
On Saturday, the Dispatch published a story detailing how Giusiana and Assistant Police Chief Lanny Brown quietly retired this winter and returned as part-time employees. The change in employment status puts them in a position to collect more than $240,000 in pension payments and hourly wages – nearly double what they made as full-time employees.
Though the deal will also save the city $100,000-plus in retirement and medical payments, the secrecy surrounding the issue has roiled some councilmen and rank-and-file police officers. Neither groups were informed of the retirements until last week, after the Dispatch started inquiring about the matter, and suspicions have mounted with the city’s refusal to release the agreements.
“I’m concerned about the secrecy,” said Cpl. Jim Callahan, president of the Gilroy Police Officers Association. “My salary is subject to disclosure, and I’m concerned about why this contract wasn’t. Certainly it’s public funds that are being spent … This is supposed to be open and above board.”
State open records laws aim to ensure that government takes place in the open, Councilman Craig Gartman pointed out.
“When you hire someone, the terms of their employment should be transparent,” he said. “After looking at these documents, I don’t see anything in here that screams confidentiality.”
The agreement provide basic details about the chiefs’ terms of employment. Giusiana has earned $70.29 an hour since formally retiring Dec. 1, while Brown has earned nearly $61.95 per hour since Jan. 11, according to the agreements. Both receive $350 in monthly car allowances.
On Wednesday, city attorney Jolie Houston authorized the release of the agreements, noting however that the city does not regard them to be public records.
“Although our opinion has not changed, we understand that Lanny Brown and Gregg Giusiana have given you the records requested and therefore waived any confidential privileges for such records,” she wrote.
The Dispatch first requested the agreements Feb. 12 and did not receive a response until Tuesday, after the request was forwarded to the city attorney. In denying the Dispatch request, Houston cited a portion of the Public Records Act that permits agencies to withhold police officers’ personnel records, as well as a court decision barring release of salary figures for unionized police officers.
Neither the statute nor the court case override a separate provision that says all public employee contracts, without exception, must be disclosed, said Terry Francke, counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit advocate for open government.
The vast majority of law enforcement agencies comply with that statute, said Francke, who recently surveyed 200 California agencies. Not every agency writes a contract for its chief, he said, but almost every agency that does handed it over when asked. Thirty-eight agencies released their top official’s contract; only one, the Fresno County Sheriff, withheld it.
“I think we’re taking a conservative view,” Houston said. “I’m not going to get into what other agencies do, I just know it was our interpretation of the law.”
City Administrator Jay Baksa stood firm by Houston’s legal advice.
“With the complexities of labor law, the city has a responsibility to get input from their city attorney,” Baksa said. “You can’t ignore what they say.”
Francke said his group planned to sue the city had officials withheld the records.
Calling the case a “slam dunk,” Francke said that, “if the council is lulled into belief that it can sit on a police chief’s contract, unlike that of any other employee, then it’s going to cost them some money down the road. No one is going to put up with that kind of position.”
