ABSTRACT: On the one hand, three former Carmel-by-the-Sea employees and a long-time employee corroborated the allegations made by Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to reporting in the Monterey County Weekly. Quotations are presented. On the other hand, according to the City’s MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, dated September 1, 2009, the City asserts that upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, i.e., May 2008, the City hired an “outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims.” “The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated.” A COMMENT and two Questions are presented.
And while most current city employees are keeping quiet, three former employees who spoke with the Weekly on condition of anonymity backed up Miller’s claim, saying it’s mostly consistent with their experiences working under Guillen.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
(Source: Monterey County, Confidential – Carmel Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Three former city employees, all of whom asked not to be identified by name, say the complaint is consistent with their impressions of Guillen’s workplace demeanor.
“The reason I quit was because of the way the city was going under his direction,” one says. “He was creating a divide-and-conquer kind of favoritism.”
“There were a lot of rumors going around,” says a second. “He did show favoritism to women he liked, to pull them to his side. He had pet names for people he favored, always women.”
“GUILLEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE FEMALES WERE PROTECTED WHEN THEY ENGAGED IN A SEXUALLY CHARGED MANNER.”
“I’m not in the least surprised that Guillen would have problems with subordinates,” adds a third. “It was fairly ugly there, and I suspect it still is.”
(Source: Hot Carmel Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, June 25, 2009)
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
(Source: Case No. M99513, MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, September 1, 2009)
COMMENT:
• Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaint against the City includes the assertion that on or about May 20, 2008, attorney Michael Stamp wrote a letter to the mayor and city council advising them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response. The complaint further asserts that City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he would respond to the letter; however, that letter, and subsequent correspondence, received no response from the City, according to the lawsuit.
Questions: If as asserted, the City hired an “outside investigator” “upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations” and the investigator concluded the “Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated,” then why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman communicate that information to attorney Michael Stamp, as he promised he would respond to attorney Stamp’s May 2008 letter? And instead of stating it’s “nothing,” why didn’t Mayor Sue McCloud respond to Squid Fry by stating an investigation had been conducted and the allegations were determined to be “unsubstantiated?”
2 comments:
The city’s outside investigation raises red flags. Whenever an accuser has charges that a superior is threatening and intimidating to effect certain behaviors, like resignation, retiring early or taking severance pay offers, you have a situation where the only way an investigation can be conducted in a fair and impartial manner is for the alleged perpetrator to be put on a leave of absence while the city employees are being interviewed. In this case, Rich Guillen was never put on a leave of absence. So there could very well have been coercion present with city employees telling the investigator what he/she wanted to hear in order to protect their jobs. The proof of whether or not the sources backing up Jane Miller or the sources interviewed by the city’s investigator are more credible will play out at trial, if there is a trial. The other red flag is the city not being up front with having conducted an investigation. It is not against the law for the city to have told the public of an investigation and the outcome of an investigation – this should have happened before Jane Miller’s lawsuit was filed in 2009. And another red flag is from Michael Stamp when he said he had represented city employees for six years and the city never brought disqualification up at any of those times
Something is fishy in Carmel-by-the-Sea. I do not believe anything Mayor Sue McCloud or the city says. For too long, too many have not had the courage to tell the public what is really going on at city hall. I think Jane Miller's lawsuit gives us a small window into our sick city government and dispeals the cover certain Carlelites have been used to continue to play the "Sue says" game. It is past time to stop.
Post a Comment