IN HER OWN WORDS: On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s Letter about Employment to the Mayor & City Council

ABSTRACT: On October 23, 2008, eight months prior to her filing a legal complaint, on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea regarding her employment with the City and her concerns about the workplace environment at City Hall. Jane Miller’s letter is reproduced in its entirety, a total of thirteen typed pages. The Mayor and City Council never acknowledged or responded to Jane Miller’s letter.

Jane Miller

October 23, 2008

Confidential
Mayor and City Council
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Hall
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. 93921

Re: My Employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Dear Mayor and City Council:

For years, I watched City Administrator Richard Guillen make professional decisions based upon favoritism, gender, age and inappropriate relationships. Guillen is a manipulative boss who needs attention from and cultivates relationships with women at work into something which can turn them into “work spouses.” When those women respond to his behavior, Guillen rewards them financially and professionally. On the other hand, Guillen gets rid of women employees if they don’t respond to his needs. Over the years, I’ve tried to maintain a friendly, professional working relationship with Guillen, respected him as the “boss” and have not challenged him for his inappropriate actions. I now believe that was a mistake.

In April 2008, Guillen told me that he wanted to eliminate my position of Human Resources Manager. He gave me no legitimate justifiable budgetary or organizational reason. Guillen said that he wanted to fund three additional firefighters, and that he had to find the money “somewhere.” (Guillen ended up not including the additional firefighters as a cost in the budget submitted to the Council on May 20th, but did include the elimination of my position, among others.) I was shocked by his decision to get rid of me. Although he had made comments in the past about my age and his views of retirement, I knew that there was no legitimate basis for eliminating my position. I started to seriously reflect on his history of favoritism-based management and question his motives even more than I had before.

I provide the following information to illustrate my complaints against Guillen. I have personal notes, personal emails, copies of instant messages and other information to support the allegations in this document. A City employee told me that City staffers know a lot about Guillen’s behavior, but are afraid that if they say anything they will lose their jobs.

I have always been professional with Guillen. I have had no personal or inappropriate relationships with him, and have not been involved with him in any capacity except work. I wish to be very clear about that. Over the years, throughout numerous personal emails and Instant Messages, Guillen peppered me with inappropriate comments of affection, appropriate for a girlfriend, but not a subordinate. He did so while maintaining his position as my “boss,” a position that he explicitly reminded my of-that he was my “boss.” In a very poisonous way, Guillen combined work and his version of sexual attraction – frequently calling himself “the boss” as he referred to me as a “hottie” or his “blond worker bee” and repeatedly saying things like, “I completely adore you.” He would announce that he know that I didn’t like his compliments about my looks, and then say something like “I know it embarasses [sic] you to know this, but I liked you from the day I met you, always have and always will.”

He told me to get used to his compliments and affectionate comments “because you will always get them from me whether I’m your boss or your pal (especially your pal after we retire).” He would talk about his retirement, envisioning some shared future where he would be my friend, talk about how I had become “that age,” and tell me “I want to enjoy your company for many years to come.” He liked to repeat his idea that "we'll be pals way past our experiences in CBTS." He described himself as “your boss and friend for life,” projected simultaneous retirements for the two of us, and commented about how I do not look like a grandmother. He frequently referred to me as “grandma.” He said that his talking to me all the time is a burden I will carry for the rest of my life.

It became common for Guillen to try to give me “hugs” when I was on the phone at work or when I was leaving the work place, but only if others weren’t around. He once tried to give me what he called a “virtual hug” because he said he had wanted to give me a hug at work, but another co-worker was present. Once, in the parking lot after work, when no one else was around, he gave me a hug and a kiss on the cheek. I did not know what to say and decided to ignore it. I tried to think of the “hugging” behavior as just a “thanks for being a friend” thing, although it made me very uncomfortable. Guillen would often come into the copy room when I was trying to work and mess up my hair, in a flirtatious manner.

Guillen had a habit of coming into my office when I was on the phone in a serious work-related conversation, and he tried to distract me by putting his arm around me, indicating that he wanted me to end my phone call and talk to him instead. I ignored his behavior and rationalized it as best I could. I regret not directly confronting him about his inappropriate behavior, but I did not because I was intimidated, afraid to lose my job, and well aware of his absolute power in the work place and in City government.

In addition to touching me, he would frequently compliment me, at work, on my hairstyle, or what I was wearing. He told me that “I always think you look beautiful.” He even called himself “your secret admirer,” as if we were in grade school and he had a crush on me. He know it made me uncomfortable, he acknowledged that I did not want his attention, but he said he was going to do it anyway.

In electronic messages and in person, Guillen used words that no professional manager should use with a co-worker. He often addressed me as “Hottie,” “Beautiful,” “Beauty,” “Good Looking,” “Missy,” “Girlfriend,” “Sweetie,” “Attractive,” or “Pretty.” Guillen also exhibited inappropriate behavior towards other women in the office, such as giving his favorite women nicknames. Christie Miller was “Queenie,” Karen Crouch was “Czarina,” and Heidi Burch is affectionately known as “H.” For a period of time, he called me “Bam-Bam.”

In addition to his activity during work hours, Guillen sent me instant messages and personal emails at all hours of the day and night. The emails started early (such as 5:46 a.m.) and picked up again at night, going late into the night (including as late as 2:30 a.m.). The emails were sent to me from Guillen’s personal email account. They were sent on weekends, holidays, during my personal vacations, and late at night on work nights. The vast majority of his communications were not about work-related matters. When he did allude to work-related matters in emails, it was sometimes in an offhand, frequently gossipy tone, instead of a professional discussion. The work issues he brought up were not urgent, and did not merit off-hours, off-line communications. I received his emails, and sent my own, usually in response to his. It was a form of conversation where he continually solicited information about my personal life.

The after-hours messages and emails include:

• Disrespectful comments about the Mayor and City Council (“I have stupid agenda packet review/with sue and ken oh brother/have pity on me” (sent Wednesday, 10:15 p.m.); “This Council like many others that I have worked for usually have no concept what is takes to run city hall” (sent Sunday, 8:04 a.m.); “. . . unethical behavior (like the Mayor wanting us to hire her stupid acquiantance ]sic] as a Librarian)” (sent Thursday, 6:58 a.m.)).

• Demonstrations of the complete security Guillen felt in his City position, and his power over me (repeatedly acknowledging that he was making me uncomfortable, but insisting that he, as “boss,” would continue to do as he wished; making certain H.R. decisions without my input; trying to blame me for his own lack of attention to his duties).

• Incessant personal comments about me, in addition to the inappropriate terms of endearment and attraction, and the suggestive comments such as “You know I completely adore you and nothing and I mean nothing will ever interfere with that...” (sent Saturday, 8:59 a.m.); “What’s up with work interferring [sic] with out friendship?!” (sent Saturday, 7:23 a.m.); “it’s back to work...bummer! Well, with the exception of getting to see you” (sent Monday, 7:48 a.m.). He told me how he liked my hair (“up”), and he remarked upon the way I dressed.

• He acted like my buddy, and claimed that “we’ve grown to be good buddies” even though he was my “boss”; he solicited and enjoyed hearing details of my personal life and would share details with me about how he spent his personal time.

Some of the instant messages were sent during the workday when Guillen was on the phone on official City business. He even sent me messages when he was talking on the phone with the Mayor (e.g., “on the phone with sue/but almost done/would love to see you!.../rather be talking to jane” (sent Friday, 11:41 a.m.)).

Off and on over the past several years, Guillen had a habit of calling me from his cell phone to “chit chat” while he was driving to work in the morning although he could have talked to me at work only a few minutes later. He also would call me on my personal cell phone when I was on vacation or on my way home from work, again primarily to chit chat, without any serious work related issues to discuss. He told me I could call or email him during his vacation, telling me “you know I love talking to you.”

Guillen has told me that if anything ever happened to my husband, Guillen would be there for me. Once, knowing that my husband had returned from our family vacation early and that I was in Tahoe on vacation alone, Guillen told me that he wanted to be with me there. He said that if he were my husband, he would never have left me along in Tahoe. (“What?! Scott left for a PG Council meeting! Wide [sic] horse wouldn’t drag me away from being in Tahoe with you!!! No siree, I wouldn’t leave you under any circumstances.”) I did not solicit or appreciate these comments, and I resented his intrusions into my personal time, but I felt that I needed to get along with him in order to keep my position.

Guillen repeatedly tried to insinuate himself into my personal life by proposing ways to involve himself with my life away from work. In a particularly difficult series of communications, Guillen has even told me that he’d like to be one of my grandkids. One weekend when he knew I was taking care of my grandkids, he asked me if he could come over and join my family for pancakes. Another time he wrote that he had the house to himself all day and would have called and invited himself to dinner with me and my dad. When I told Guillen that my oldest grandson had taken up golf, Guillen volunteered to give him golf lesions. There are many other examples. Looking back on his behavior, I realize he received some voyeuristic type of pleasure from engaging me in conversations about my personal life. He relished talking about personal issues, more than work-related issues. One of his favorite phrases at work was “Jane, you’re boring me” if I were engaging him in a complex analysis of a personnel matter.

Over the years, Guillen’s behavior towards me has ranged from being very friendly to cold, indifferent and non-communicative. He’s either been overly affectionate, inappropriate, fawning or totally oblivious to me, depending on which approach works for him. His subtle and sometimes not so subtle invitations to me to take our professional relationship to another level were inappropriate and frequent. He placed me in a position where I felt I had to tolerate his behavior. I found it unprofessional and sad. There have been many times when I have reflected upon whether or not is was better for me to be in his “favor” or ignored, where at least he didn’t constantly pester me with his attention.

For the past few years, Guillen has had many long meetings with Christie Miller behind closed doors. Many City employees believe that Guillen has been having an affair with Christie Miller for years. I believe that the Mayor knew about the affair, as did other top officials of the City. The affair was a frequent topic of discussion among City staff. An employee witnessed Guillen and Christie embracing and kissing when he opened the door to Guillen’s office and walked in. Others saw them together in non-work-related settings and compromising positions. Employees saw Christie Miller’s influence over Guillen, and watched with anxiety as Guillen gave her special favors, power, and money.

Prior to her service with Carmel, Christie Miller had only limited job experience working as a clerk in a medical office and minimal college education. In March 1998, Christie was hired by the City as a part time Office Assistant for Sunset Center. When Guillen started working for the City in late 2000, Christie was a Program Supervisor and her salary was approximately $17.00 per hour. Within less than two years after Guillen was hired, Christie began to tell Guillen that it was terrible to work for Brian Donoghue. Consequently, about five or six years ago, Guillen transferred Christie from Sunset Center under Donoghue’s supervision to Vista Lobos, without following standard City procedures. After her transfer, Christie reported directly to Guillen. This reporting arrangement was unusual. It was not in the City organizational chart, and was inconsistent with City policy, and no other staffer with a job title equivalent to Program Supervisor reported directly to Guillen. Under the City organizational chart, the direct-reports to the City Administrator are directors or department or managerial heads. In July 2003, Guillen reclassified Christie from Program Supervisor to Community Services Manager. This position was an at-will, new classification approved by Council Resolution which provided that Guillen could “establish the salary and benefits” for Christie, with Christie receiving a 12.32% salary increase. The salary was generous for the job duties.

Soon thereafter, several female employees including myself expressed concern that Guillen was obsessing over Christie Miller and spending a lot of time with her. There were rumors that Christie and Guillen were having an affair. Guillen was treating some staffers poorly or was ignoring them, and the workplace was affected. We didn’t know who to talk to and we went to see our EAP counselor, because the City had no effective way for us to deal with Guillen’s actions and their impact on the workplace. The EAP session did not revolve the issue.

Another employee overheard phone conversations between Christie and Guillen, where Christie encouraged Guillen to get rid of Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio and Sunset Center Director Brian Donoghue, because they were “losers.” The employee has said that Christie was the driving force behind Guillen’s actions in getting rid of Donoghue and D’Ambrosio. An employee also told me that Christie was the driving force behind Guillen’s eventual decision to eliminate my position.

In early 2006, after lengthy private meetings behind closed doors with Christie, Guillen wanted to give Christie a retroactive salary increase. I analyzed the proposed increase in accord with City policies and rules, and determined that a retroactive salary bonus was unusual and unnecessary under City policy. Guillen gave Christie a 10% salary increase, retroactive to July 16, 2003 (almost 2 ½ years worth – which was unprecedented, to my knowledge – equaling approximately $9,000 in unbudgeted funds). It was, in effect, a retroactive renegotiation of the 2003 agreement. There was no business reason or legitimate municipal government reason for the City to take this action. In face to face meetings with Guillen, I objected to the retroactive payment. In a subsequent personal email to me, Guillen explained that I should no “concern” myself “about Christie’s salary issue . . . because it was an honest mistake and Christie understands that.” I had not made a mistake; Guillen was the one responsible for directly supervising Christie and for her salary. Guillen then immediately said to me in the same email: “You know that I completely adore you and nothing I mean nothing will ever interfere with that.” The message was clear – Guillen’s relationship with Christie had a direct financial impact on the City, and Christie’s pay raise was more important than City policies or the City’s legal obligations to its employees, or the professional judgment of the City’s Human Resources Manager. I feel that he tried to get me to buy-in to his decision by reverting to personal, affectionate and inappropriate comments to me, with a clear message to me to get out of the way.

In the summer of 2006, Christie was reclassified to Community Services Director based on a job description that she prepared and negotiated directly with Guillen. Guillen gave me the description, which was not consistent with standard City job descriptions. Guillen told me to modify the job description to represent what should actually be relevant in a Director level position. In the job description, among other changes, I included education of at least a Bachelor’s degree plus 5 years of supervisory experience. I told Guillen he should encourage Christie to get a Bachelor’s degree because she couldn’t compete for this position in the world outside of Carmel. So, he placed her on the 1st step level of a range that I had developed which would fit in alignment with our other classifications, and proceeded with her reclassification.

By October 2007, Christie’s husband John Miller had been put on notice that his job with the City of Pacific Grove was being proposed for elimination for budgetary reasons. My husband sits on the Pacific Grove City Council. That month Guillen gave Christie a raise from Step 1 to Step 5, retroactive to July 1, 2007, along with a 3% COLA. Guillen did not discuss his decision regarding the business necessity of this pay increase with me. I was personally appalled, but Guillen had not sought my input; the increase was directed and processed by Guillen because that’s what he wanted. Any outsider would construe this as a gift of public dollars, because there was no legitimate business reason given by Guillen for the move. I felt it was an effort by him to “bump up” her last final year of compensation as a factor in her impending retirement in June 2008. But, from that point forward, Guillen also appeared to continue to include Christie (although she soon would be leaving the organization and had no recognized City role in such matters) in many of his business decisions, including finding a contract IT person to replace an existing employee and a contract HR person to replace me. The situation made me feel powerless because Guillen precluded me, the Human Resources Manager, from performing my job duties, deciding personnel matters by himself for reasons that were not consistent with a professional City government.

In June 2008, Christie Miller retired from the City. She was permitted to stay on the City payroll beyond her announced retirement date of June 30th by using her vacation and management leave. In doing so, she received what probably is at least an additional two months of salary and benefits paid by the City, although this expenditure was unbudgeted in the budget adopted by Council for 08/09. When Christie left the City she was making about $50 per hour plus full benefits as Community Services Director. Recently, ostensibly to replace her, the City posted a job announcement for a part time Community Events Coordinator, at a salary of $15-$19 per hour. The entire financial arrangement with Christie was irregular and extremely generous. I don’t believe there was sufficient transparency to the Council or the public regarding the lucrative benefits provided to Christie compared to the actual value of her position to the City. Her value to the City was based upon her value to Guillen.

Guillen and Heidi Burch are now involved in a relationship that is inappropriate for the work place. For more than a year before Guillen told me that he was eliminating my position for budgetary reasons, Guillen and Heidi Burch had almost daily meetings behind closed doors and went to lunch together on a daily basis. It’s been observed by me and several other staff members that Guillen and Heidi often try to be secretive about their time together by coming and going out of separate doors at City hall, but then joining up in the parking lot. They have gone together to functions outside the City, sometimes in circumstances that bring into question their professionalism and relationship.

Guillen hired Heidi on August 1, 2005. Heidi had a good education, but no public sector or City Clerk experience. Her starting salary was $5,379/month. In February 2006, after six months on the job, Heidi received a step increase from step 2 to 3 which was equal to 5% increase in salary.

By March 2007, Heidi was unofficially “reclassified” by Guillen to City Clerk/Deputy City Administrator for taking on more of Guillen’s responsibilities. However, Guillen and Heidi continued to participate in most City Administrator functions jointly, rather than independently. In July 2007, Heidi was officially reclassified via the budget documents as City Clerk/Deputy City Administrator at a salary that was 19% higher. Later and prior to the new budget of 2008/09, without Council action, Guillen and Heidi decided that her title should be Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk. When I left in May 2008, Heidi had not been given a recent performance evaluation on the new job duties she had been assigned and no new job description had been created to categorize her duties. Her monthly salary in March 2008 was $9,125/month.

Heidi Burch and Christie Miller were issued City-provided cell phones. Neither Joyce Giuffre, Administrative Services Director, nor I have had a City-provided cell phone. Guillen called Christie and Heidi very often throughout the work day on his work cell phone. In comparison, he didn’t communicate as much on his cell phone with other City employees and elected officials (like the Public Safety Director or even the Mayor).

The discussion within City Hall about Guillen’s relationships was open and frequent. At one point in May 2007, Guillen even sent an email to several City Hall employees, including myself, with a link to an article about four employees in Hooksett, New Hampshire who had been fired for gossiping about an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee. In the email Guillen stated that there was “reason to be careful what we say in the workplace!” Guillen instructed me to inquire with legal counsel as to whether employees could be disciplined or fired for talking too much at work about rumors. He stated that it was time “to put a stop to” the “unfounded” rumors in the City. He made his threat clear to the women in the office who might be questioning his “work relationships.”

Guillen has made bad decisions regarding salaries and work responsibility based on favoritism that has not only created a discriminatory working environment but also has drained away City funds. The unprecedented raises, benefits and higher “Job Titles” he gave to Christie and Heidi were decisions that were not supported in the budget or by their qualifications. Other than with Guillen’s favorite female employees, Carmel-by-the-Sea has been trying to be fiscally conservative with employees based upon the economy of the past several years. (This fact is significantly obvious in the City’s fiscal policy used in labor negotiations with LIUNA, Police and Fire Associations.) Guillen did not give George Rawson, Public Safety Director, a comparable increase since George’s hire date, in spite of the fact that George took on significant additional responsibilities for the oversight of the Fire Department for Carmel several years ago. (Whey George’s salary was finally increased to reflect his additional responsibilities, it was not made retroactive to the date he took over the Fire Department several years earlier.) The numbers are clear:

• Since 2003, Guillen increased Christie Miller’s salary by about 83%.

• Since 2005, Guillen increased Heidi Burch’s salary by about 70%.

• Since 2001, Guillen increased George Rawson’s salary by about 25-30%.

• Since 2004, Guillen increased my salary by about 9% (5% of which was for a step increase form 4th to 5th.)

After years of suggestive and inappropriate comments, knowing my husband was away from home, Guillen got more specific. He proposed that he bring over a pizza and watch football at my house. I rejected that proposal. This exchange took place in front of Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell. Shortly afterward, Guillen told me that he was thinking of eliminating my position because I was getting to be “that age” and that he thought I would probably like to spend more time with my grandchildren.

Several other incidents made it apparent that I had lost favor with Guillen. Guillen started checking up on me in odd ways, such as having another staff person call our labor attorneys Liebert Cassidy to ask if it was appropriate for me to take FMLA time to take care of my ailing father. Guillen never questioned me directly about it. I thought it was weird that her would ask another employee this question about me, but not even bring it up to me. It appears that Guillen took this action after Heidi had tried to field some question that came in for me when I was gone for the last hour of the day (to leave work and visit my father in Salinas) and she didn’t have the answers. In the final analysis, I didn’t use more than approximately 40 hours of sick leave (FMLA) in order to attend to my ailing father. He died on December 16, 2007.

Another situation where I felt I was being singled out for some weird reason was when I put in for a reimbursement for my annual physical exam costs not otherwise covered by insurance. This is a benefit of management. Heidi went to another employee and stated that Guillen wasn’t sure that I was eligible for this benefit, in spite of the fact that it had always been in our Confidential MOU and was an ongoing practice.

Longtime Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell, recently forced from her job by Guillen, has observed Guillen’s actions, including his obvious favoritism toward Christie and Heidi. Earlier this year, Guillen hired a new administrative staff person named Molly Laughlin. Molly Laughlin, as assistant to John Miller, Recreation Director for the City of Pacific Grove (and Christie Miller’s husband), had recently been laid off from the City of Pacific Grove. Although I was the City’s Human Resources Manager, Guillen did not involve me in Molly’s hiring process, except to do the usual pre-employment requirements of a fingerprint background and pre-employment exam, after he and Heidi had interviewed her and made the decision to hire her. There were no specific funds in the 2007-08 budget to support the expense of hiring Molly.

Although her experience did not merit it, Guillen directed that Molly’s salary be at the 4th step level of the Executive Assistant salary (the same range as Sandy Farrell). Shortly after Molly started work, Guillen stated to me and Joyce Giuffre: “Well, not to leave this room, but Molly is here to replace Sandy.” Shortly after that, Sandy Farrell left City employment, feeling totally stressed at the office, no longer willing to tolerate Guillen’s inappropriate behavior, and feeling that Guillen was trying to force her out anyway, based upon his hiring of Molly to pretty much take over her job. Guillen then negotiated a buy-out with Sandy, promising benefits to her that he had no authority to give without council authorization. I don’t recall that he ever discussed this potential “but-out settlement agreement” with Council in a closed session. He also never discussed with me his intent to enter into his agreement with Sandy, and the actions necessary to implement it. It just happened. Subsequently, I had to write a Resolution authorizing an additional “2 Years Service Agreement” with CalPERS (a golden parachute) for Sandy, after Sandy left. Contrary to one of the legal requirements of CalPERS for the golden parachute, Guillen didn’t intend to leave Sandy’s position vacant as he had already lined up Molly to take over Sandy’s responsibilities with a new title in the 08/09 budget: “Administrative Manager/Deputy City Clerk.” To my knowledge, no official job description was created for this position, which ostensibly replaced the Executive Assistant.

On April 16, 2008, the day after Sandy’s last day, Guillen called me to his office about 10 a.m. and said he was outsourcing Human Resources as part of a re-organization for the new budget. Mine wasn’t the only position, he said, and that he wanted me to hear it from him before it came from anyone else. I told him that he caught me off guard and that on a personal and financial level I wanted to work longer. I was too stunned to discuss his decision further that day.

Guillen’s behavior towards me changed drastically. He avoided me, did not acknowledge my emails at work and went through Joyce Giuffre to get information to me or from me, and generally made me feel ostracized from the organization. This was in stark contrast to his previous behavior of frequently conversing with me via email, instant messages and phone, and his frequent praise that I was a good worker.

I can’t think of anyone in the organization of Carmel-by-the-Sea or outside of the organization who wouldn’t give me the highest praise for being fair, ethical, professional, efficient, and dedicated. I have been professional and up front and have not entered into an intimate relationship with Guillen. Guillen himself has told me, in emails and in person, that I’m the “best,” that he wanted to take me with him when he leaves the City, and that I’m “painfully honest” while other managers are not.

From the information available to me now, I can see that Guillen’s decision to eliminate my position is the result of a number of factors relating to gender and age. They include my not having acquiesced to his implicit suggestions to get together; my age itself; Guillen’s own reaction to his years of favoritism and his relationships at work; and Guillen’s unease with my professionally questioning his efforts to reward Christie/Heidi in ways that showed loyalty to these two women and not to the taxpayers, the public, or the City. I observed how Guillen pushed other women out of the organization who were getting older and were not on Guillen’s “favorites” list. I also have reason to believe that Christie Miller may have used her relationship with and influence on Guillen to wreak her personal vengeance against me, because Christie’s husband was re-organized out of the City of Pacific Grove where my husband was on the City Council.

Guillen’s conduct towards City employees over the years made it clear that he would force out of the organization anyone who complained about his behavior. I and others have endured Guillen’s conduct in silence for years out of fear of losing our jobs, while witnessing older female employees not favored by Guillen forced into early retirement. Guillen bestowed job benefits, unprecedented promotions, and raises on certain younger female employees who did not refuse his inappropriate friendships. In addition to being subjected to inappropriate comments, touching, emails and instant messages, I was frequently made to feel that I too had to acquiesce to Guillen’s advances in order to receive favorable treatment or at least to keep my job. A demeaning message was conveyed to women in the workplace that the only way for them to advance was through engaging in a relationship with the City Administrator on his terms. I did not receive the same increases in pay and benefits as “participating” female employees.

Guillen has acted inappropriately in many other aspects of his employment. His behavior toward female employees demonstrates his disregard for and flaunting of City policies. Guillen disregards and demonstrates indifference to the procedures laid down in the City ordinances, including the personnel policy. He gets rid of City employees for personal reasons. Guillen exercise unchecked control over the City budget, by unjustifiably increasing the salaries of and giving lavish benefits to favorite younger female employees, and by negotiating generous severance packages. As records show, Guillen spends an inordinate amount of time during the workday engaged in non-work related activities, such as chatting on the phone or instant messaging on the computer with his female favorites. Guillen flaunts his omnipotence and independence from the City Council’s authority. Guillen’s own disregard of the City harassment policy is just one example of a pattern of inappropriate behavior he has established in the workplace. Ironically, as of May of 2008, Guillen was one of only two out of 40-plus City supervisors who had not completed the mandatory harassment training, which was easily accessible on-line and established by the City in November 2007.

In retrospect, there were many warning signs that I wish I would have heeded regarding Guillen; his childish office antics, his fawning over me personally, his disrespectful attitude toward his own “bosses” (the Council), his unending need for attention from subordinates (especially women), his frequent focus upon my retirement and his flawed managerial skills. Frequent phrases which Guillen used in front of me were statements like: “I’ll just ‘Skelly’ him/her out of here” (when he didn’t like an employee); or ‘this is my super-secret plan”; or, “if you ever say I said this, ‘I’ll deny it,’” or “pinky-swear,” regarding not disclosing the contents of a conversation with me. He has cost the City a lot of money with severance packages which weren’t necessary, if he had only proceeded judiciously, rationally, and respectably regarding the needs of the organization. His managerial style has been troubling, discriminating and disruptive. If nothing is done, he will eventually bring extreme discredit to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

I suggest the City start by interviewing the following persons regarding information about Guillen and the work place, and ask them direct questions about Guillen’s actions, what they were told, what they knew, and when:

• Richard Guillen
• Heidi Burch
• Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council members

In addition, you can search Guillen’s email and phone records, and check the hard drive on his computer. You can review the records of the women who have left City service in the past few years under Guillen, and you can interview those women. You can contact Christie Miller if you choose to do so. What you cannot do is ignore the conditions that allowed Guillen to do what he has been doing. My career, my health, and the City’s well-being are at stake.

Sincerely,


Jane Miller