Saturday, April 27, 2013

California American Slant Test Well: City of Marina City Council & Planning Commission, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority & LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Letter to City of Marina Mayor & Members of the City Council

ABSTRACT:  Regarding California American Water Company’s Slant Test Well, City of Marina City Council AGENDA & MINUTES for REGULAR MEETING (November 7, 2012), Marina Planning Commission Goals for 2013, Projects Being Prepared Under a Fee Agreement (February 28, 2013), Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Regular Meeting Minutes  (Thursday, March 14, 2013) and LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP letter, dated April 17, 2013, to City of Marina Bruce Delgado, Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Cal-Am Slant Well Application to City of Marina (Coastal Development Permit 201205) stating “Ag Land Trust strongly objects to any approval by the City of Marina for the pending Cal-Am Water slant well application...Should the City approve the slant well application, our client has authorized us to take all necessary legal action to prevent the harm that is reasonably likely to arise from the approval,” are presented. 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL, AIRPORT COMMISSION,
MARINA ABRAMS B NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Council Chambers
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, California

2. ROLL CALL & ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM: (City Council, Airport Commissioners, Marina Abrams B Non-Profit Corporation, and Redevelopment Agency Members) Nancy Amadeo, David W. Brown, James E. Ford, Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chair Frank O’Connell, Mayor/Chair Bruce C. Delgado

8. CONSENT AGENDA: Background information has been provided to the City Council, Airport Commission, Marina Abrams B Non-Profit Corporation, and Redevelopment Agency on all matters listed under the Consent Agenda, and these items are considered to be routine. All items under the Consent Agenda are normally approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of the public or the City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff will provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed at the end of Other Action Items.

g. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS:
(1) City Council consider adopting Resolution 2012- , approving a Fee Agreement between the City of Marina and California American Water for provision of planning and attorney services related to review and processing of a slant test well project located at the north-west corner of the Lonestar California, Inc. site, Marina (APN’S 203-011-019 & 203-011-001), and; authorizing the Finance Director to make the appropriate accounting and budgetary entries, and; authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fee Agreement on behalf of City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:00 P.M. 
REGULAR MEETING 
CITY COUNCIL, AIRPORT COMMISSION, 
MARINA ABRAMS B NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

2. ROLL CALL & ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM: (City Council, Airport Commissioners, Marina Abrams B Non-Profit Corporation, and Redevelopment Agency Members)
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Amadeo, David W. Brown, Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chair Frank O’Connell, Mayor/Chair Bruce C. Delgado
MEMBERS ABSENT: James E. Ford (Excused)

8. CONSENT AGENDA: Background information has been provided to the City Council, Airport Commission, Marina Abrams B Non-Profit Corporation, and Redevelopment Agency on all matters listed under the Consent Agenda, and these items are considered to be routine. All items under the Consent Agenda are normally approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of the public or the City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff will provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed at the end of Other Action Items.

g. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS:
(1) City Council consider adopting Resolution 2012-168, approving a Fee Agreement between the City of Marina and California American Water for provision of planning and attorney services related to review and processing of a slant test well project located at the north-west corner of the Lonestar California, Inc. site, Marina (APN’S 203-011-019 & 203-011-001), and; authorizing the Finance Director to make the appropriate accounting and budgetary entries, and; authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fee Agreement on behalf of City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney.
 
  
Item No. 8g (1)
City Council Meeting of November 7, 2012
City of Marina
Staff Report, Theresa Szymanis, AICP, Planning Services Manager,RESOLUTION, “EXHIBIT A” DRAFT FEE AGREEMENT

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, March 14, 2013

Report from Cal-Am Regarding Test Well Design, Development and Permitting 
Action: Update Provided by Cal Am Water Representative 

Cal Am Water Representative Catherine Bowie discussed changes that have occurred since the last Authority update. She reported that four of the six required permits have been submitted; the State Lands Commission and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary are outstanding. Construction of the test wells is on track to begin in November 2013 and the project is on track to meet the current construction schedule. Ms. Bowie then answered questions from the Authority.

Vice President Burnett added that with respect to the City of Marina application, it has not yet been approved due to an agreement with the Sierra Club. The permit requires any applicant requesting a Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have approval from the Sierra club. Vice President Burnett has been working with Marina Mayor Delgado with respect to this requirement.

Congressman Farr is assisting with coordinating with the federal agencies for alignment of interest to expedite the permitting processes. 

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment and had no requests to speak.

 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Letter to City of Marina Bruce Delgado, Mayor and Members of the City Council, April 17, 2013
Re: Cal-Am Slant Well Application to City of Marina (Coastal Development Permit 201205)

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
By KELLY NIX
Published: April 26, 2013

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WORKSHOP April 25, 2013

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Carmel workshop solicits public concerns on latest water project
Public's concerns include fairness, financial risk
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 04/25/2013
Excerpts Highlights: 
Sponsored by the Peninsula mayors water authority and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the workshop was touted as a way for the public to address the issues in concert with the local public officials and a range of organizations who are formal participants in the state Public Utilities Commission review of the project proposal. Held at Carmel's Sunset Center, the event drew about 60 people.
Several residents questioned the wisdom of risking the public's money on a project facing a number of challenges with no public ownership stake and the spectre of paying "stranded costs" if the proposal falters. They also questioned the fairness of asking current ratepayers to pay higher water bills immediately for a savings benefit that will materialize over several decades.


CHANGE OF LOCATION:
Cal Am water project workshop moved to Carmel City Hall
The Monterey County Herald, 04/24/2013
A workshop aimed at seeking resolution of a number of issues around California American Water's proposed Peninsula water supply project will be held 9 a.m. Thursday at Carmel City Hall.

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WORKSHOP
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 25, 2013

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES April 25, 2013

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 25, 2013

Mprwa Meeting Minutes 04-25-13
MINUTES REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 25, 2013

Sunday, April 21, 2013

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: Closed Session 23 April 2013

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 – 3:45 p.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT: On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a Closed Session at 3:45 P.M. to consider the following: Property Negotiations -- Government Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations between the City Administrator Jason Stilwell and the Flanders Mansion property. The Closed Session Agenda is embedded.
 
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session
Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Friday, April 19, 2013

CITY GOVERNMENT: Is Carmel-by-the-Sea a ‘Well Managed,’ ‘Open and Transparent’ City Government? (Part V)

ABSTRACT: E-Mail #1 (sent April 3 and resent April 12, 2013) from Paterson to Ilona Ng and Heather R. Coffman, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW), E-Mail #2 Ilona Ng, with Attachment, to Paterson and E-Mail #3 Paterson to Heather Coffman, with copies to J. Scott Tiedemann (Managing Partner LCW), City Administrator Jason Stilwell, Administrative Services Director Susan Paul, City Council Members Carrie Theis, Steve Hillyard, Victoria Beach, Ken Talmage and Mayor Jason Burnett, are presented.  Both City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Mayor Jason Burnett had knowledge and opportunity to intervene and stop the inappropriate and indefensible conduct of Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch, but they both failed to demonstrate the requisite leadership to do so. Hypocritically, Mayor Jason Burnett demands Cal-Am accept public financing for its’ Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project to reduce the overall cost of the project yet allows wasteful and unnecessary taxpayer money expenditures in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
  
E-Mail #1 (sent April 3 and resent April 12, 2013) from Paterson to Ilona Ng and Heather R. Coffman, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

Sent: Fri 4/12/2013
From: Paterson [SebViz2@sbcglobal.net]
To: 'Ilona Ng'; 'Heather R. Coffman'
Cc: 'Jason Stilwell'
Subject: FW: Response from City of Carmel-By-The-Sea to Request dated March 22, 2013

From: Paterson [mailto:SebViz2@sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:16 PM
To: 'Heather R. Coffman'
Cc: 'sebviz2@sbcglobal.net'
Subject: RE: Response from City of Carmel-By-The-Sea to Request dated March 22, 2013


Heather R. Coffman, Associate, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore:

Thank you for your response dated April 1, 2013.  However, in my e-mail to City Clerk Heidi Burch on March, 22, 2013 I requested “and any and all other materials related to the City’s fiduciary obligation to citizens to account for taxpayer money expenditures.”  Accordingly, “any and all other materials” means documents related to Expense Accounts 01 61051 0002, 01 61051 0040 and 01 61051.  Specifically, email me e-copies of documents pertaining to Expense Account Titles and Descriptions for Expense Accounts 01 61051 0002, 01 61051 0040 and 01 61051.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Ms. Paterson

E-Mail #2 Ilona Ng, with Attachment, to Paterson

Sent: Thu 4/18/2013
From: Ilona Ng [ing@lcwlegal.com]
To: SebViz2@sbcglobal.net
Cc: spaul@ci.carmel.ca.us; J. Scott Tiedemann; Heather R. Coffman
Subject: PRA Request to City of Carmel-By-the Sea
Attachments: Letter re Response to Further Request for Information.pdf

<> Dear Ms. Paterson:

Attached is a letter of today's date from Heather Coffman regarding the subject matter.  Please contact this office with any questions or concerns.  Thank you.

 

Letter re Response to Further Request for Information

E-Mail #3 Paterson to Heather Coffman (Associate LCW) with copies to J. Scott Tiedemann (Managing Partner LCW), City Administrator Jason Stilwell, Administrative Services Director Susan Paul, City Council Members Carrie Theis, Steve Hillyard, Victoria Beach, Ken Talmage and Mayor Jason Burnett. 

Sent: Fri 4/19/2013
From: Paterson [SebViz2@sbcglobal.net]
To: 'Ilona Ng'; 'Heather R. Coffman'
Cc: 'stiedemann@lcwlegal.com'; 'Jason Stilwell'; 'Susan Paul'; 'ctheis@ci.carmel.ca.us'; 'hillyard@onsoundings.com'; 'vbeach@ci.carmel.ca.us'; 'kktalm@aol.com'; 'Jason@BurnettforCarmel.com'
Subject: RE: PRA Request to City of Carmel-By-the Sea

Heather Coffman, Associate, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore:

For purposes of observation and review:

I.          My original e-mail was sent to then-Deputy City Clerk Molly Laughlin, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, on March 2, 2013 and after 47 days has not been answered.

II.         City Administrator Jason Stilwell, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch and Mayor Jason Burnett appear oblivious to the fact that they, as public servants, serve the public; the public does not serve them. 

III.       My 2 March 2013 e-mail was a question which could have been answered by a competent city employee within five minutes by referring to the expense accounts on the check register and respective titles; my e-mail was not a formal public records act request.

While this charade generated monetary compensation at taxpayer expense for you and LCW, to me it represents time and effort which should have been constructively expended on legitimate legal cases.

Ms. Paterson

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee AGENDA & MINUTES 22 April 2013

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
FOR THE
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

California American Water Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Governance Committee Members:
California American Water Robert MacLean
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Jason Burnett
Alt. - Chuck Della Sala
County of Monterey David Potter
Alt. - Simon Salinas
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Bob Brower
Alt. – Jeanne Byrne

Staff Contact:
David J. Stoldt, MPWMD
Arlene Tavani, MPWMD

REGULAR MEETING
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Governance Committee
***************
Monday, April 22, 2013, 2:00 PM
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Conference Room,
5 Harris Court, Building G., Monterey, CA

Call to Order/Roll Call

Pledge of Allegiance

Public Comments
Anyone wishing to address the Committee on matters not listed on the agenda that are within the subject jurisdiction of the Committee, may do so during Public Comments. The public may comment on any other items listed on the agenda at the time they are considered by the Committee. Please limit your comment to 3 (three) minutes.

Agenda Items
1. Approve Minutes of March 20, 2013 Committee Meeting
 


2. Adopt 2013 Governance Committee Meeting Schedule


Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Governance Committee Schedule April – December 2013
Revised 5/3/13
Day
Date
Time
Monday
April 22
2 pm
Thursday
May 16
1 pm
Friday
Special meeting
May 17
1 pm to 4 pm
Thursday
May 23
1 pm
Tuesday
May 28
2 pm
Friday
May 31
1 pm
Thursday
Special meeting
June 13
1 pm to 4 pm
Wednesday
June 19
10 am
Thursday
July 11
1 pm
Thursday
Special meeting
August 1
1 pm to 4 pm
Thursday
August 8
10 am
Thursday
September 19
3 pm
Thursday
October 17
3 pm
Thursday
November 14
3 pm
Thursday
December 19
3 pm


3. Presentation from William Merry, General Manager of Monterey Regional Waste Management District on Landfill Gas as an Alternative Energy Source for a Desal Facility

4. Review California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Response to Governance Committee Request for Workshop on Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR)
A. Develop Agenda Topics for CPUC Workshop on GWR

B. Review Draft GWR Criteria as Discussed by Water Authority TAC
(See Exhibit G C-4 attached)
 


5. Finalize Schedule for Cal-Poly Design Team Review

6. Update from Cal‐Am on Status of Procurement for the Desal Design Build Effort

7. Discussion of Items to be Placed on Future Agendas

8. Schedule Next Meeting Date

Adjournment

Upon request, the Governance Committee will make a reasonable effort to provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please submit a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service by 5PM on April 19, 2013. Requests should be sent to the Governance Committee Secretary, MPWMD, P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA, 93942. You may also fax your request to the Administrative Services Division at 831-644-9560, or call 831-658-5600.

After staff reports have been distributed, if additional documents are produced and provided to the Governance Committee regarding any item on the agenda, they will be made available at, 5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA during normal business hours. In addition, such documents may be posted on the MPWMD website at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/governancecommittee/agendas. Documents distributed at the meeting will be made available in the same manner.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES April 15, 2013

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE: Agriculture representatives want study on groundwater basin before drilling, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 04/15/2013
HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:
Dale Huss and Nancy Isakson of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition told the Peninsula mayors water authority's technical advisory committee that water experts from the coalition and Cal Am should start working together soon on studies designed to fully assess the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, which the water company wants to tap for its desalination plant planned for north of Marina.
Cal Am officials are hoping the state Coastal Commission will consider a test well permit by August, when the commission plans to conduct a local session, and to have an approved permit by November.

 
AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 15, 2013

Tac Mprwa Draft Minutes 04-15-13
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 15, 2013

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES April 11, 2013


AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 11, 2013

 

DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
April 11, 2013

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch: The Case for Dismissal from City Service

ABSTRACT: Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch’s Record of Employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, as follows:
  • Burch hired as City Clerk with no public sector or City Clerk experience by City Administrator Rich Guillen, August 2005.
  • Burch received promotions, unprecedented pay raises, benefits and higher “Job Titles,” including Assistant City Administrator, by City Administrator Rich Guillen based on “favoritism,” not merit.
  • City’s Motion to disqualify plaintiff Jane Miller’s counsel attorney Michael Stamp was based solely on the Burch Declaration; the “Burch Declaration” was “materially false, stretched and exaggerated the truth, and grossly mischaracterized documents.”  Note:  After the Honorable Larry E. Hayes, Judge of the Superior Court, denied the City’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel on grounds of Lack of a Substantial Relationship and Unjustified Delay, the City settled the case for $600,000 plus over $200,000 in attorney fees.
  • Jane Miller received two direct communications from Heidi Burch, where Ms. Burch makes certain demands and representations on behalf of the City, some of which were retaliatory.”
Based on Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch’s aforementioned Record of Employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including unprofessional and inappropriate conduct, her previous relationship with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and actions in the Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea case, her more recent contact with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for the purpose of using taxpayer monies to answer a resident’s request for check itemization information which had routinely been accomplished by Deputy City Clerk Molly Laughlin and her violations of the City’s Code of Ethics (“We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all.”), the City Administrator should discharge or remove Heidi Burch from City service with the support of the mayor and city council members; to not dismiss her from City employment signals that the City, particularly the mayor and city council members, rather protect an unethical and incompetent city employee than act with integrity in the best interest of the public.  Supporting documents for background purposes are embedded, including COMPLAINT, Letter of Jane Miller to Mayor and City Council dated October 23, 2008, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP letter dated January 2009, FILED UNDER SEAL: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO CITY'S IN CAMERA DOCUMENTS and  PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO CITY'S BRIEFING, with EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS.

 

COMPLAINT

EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS
(Note: Female B believed to be Heidi Burch)

Guillen was involved in an inappropriately close relationship in the workplace with Female B, who had been hired by Guillen in 2005 and who had received a favorable and non-standard pay raise from Guillen within the first six months of her employment. By March 2007, Guillen had "reclassified" Female B's position and provided her with favorable salary, benefits, and working conditions, including responsibility for actions that she had never performed previously and for which she needed training to perform. Female B's work activities involved spending private time with Guillen, going to meetings with Guillen, taking steps to deceive other employees about her activities. and jointly undertaking City tasks with Guillen.

In May 2007, Guillen created a new job title for Female B. via the draft City budget, giving her power and responsibility not approved by the Human Resources Manager and not approved at the time by the City Council. Contrary to standard City policy, Guillen and Female B did not create a job description and Female B was not given a performance evaluation. Plaintiff, the Human Resources Manager, was excluded from personnel/human resources decisions involving Female 8, because Plaintiff had objected to Guillen's similar favoritism toward Female A. Female B's salary had been increased by about 70% since 2005, far above that for other employees and positions of a similar nature in the City, including Plaintiff's.

In July 2007, Guillen made sure that Female B was officially reclassified with a 19% raise.

In October 2007, Plaintiff asked for routine authorization to use leave time to care for a family member. Guillen said he approved the leave in discussions directly with Plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, Female B challenged Plaintiffs leave, singling out Plaintiff. City staff then contacted Attorney O'Neill in an effort by Female B to challenge Plaintiffs routine entitlement to leave and embarrass or humiliate Plaintiff. In December 2007, Female B challenged Plaintiffs right to a small reimbursement under a benefit provision that had been in place for years, again singling out Plaintiff. Plaintiff was advised by the City that Guillen had been the instigator of the challenge, and Plaintiff reasonably understood that Female B was acting with the consent of Guillen in both cases. Plaintiff was being ostracized and isolated by Guillen, while he continued to undercut her role in the office.

In March 2008, Guillen gave Female B another 5% raise. Guillen claimed that Female B should get another raise because she had been successfully performing her management job, which was not a standard City rationale for such raises.



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

EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS

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/rnonth. 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.

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. (When 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 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 from 4th to 5th.)

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 he 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, an 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.

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.

 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, California 93940
January 12, 2009

Richard C. Bolanos
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

Re: Jane Miller and City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS

At the same time, my client. Jane Miller, has received two direct communications from Heidi Burch, where Ms. Burch makes certain demands and representations on behalf of the City, some of which are retaliatory.

As for the direct contact with Ms. Miller by Ms. Burch, I do not understand what the City hopes to accomplish with it. The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Burch has been the beneficiary of Mr. Guillen's actions, and that Ms. Miller has made claims about that favoritism and about the role of Ms. Burch. Nevertheless, Ms. Burch has been authorized by the City to act on behalf of the City in regard to Ms. Miller, to bypass Ms. Miller's legal counsel, and to communicate directly with a represented party. It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate person to be designated to give orders and impose deadlines on Ms. Miller. Once more, as I did with Mr. Guillen's attempt to intimidate Ms. Miller back in May, I ask that the City not contact Ms. Miller directly. also ask that Ms. Burch stop communicating directly with Ms. Miller.

 

FILED UNDER SEAL:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO
CITY'S IN CAMERA DOCUMENTS

EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS

The City's motion to disqualify opposing counsel, Michael W. Stamp, is dated 3 September 1, 2009. The City's sole factual basis for the City's allegations about the nature and extent of the former representations is the August 26, 2009 Declaration of Heidi Burch.

Ms. Burch inaccurately describes each matter, as the records show.

BURCH CLAIM NO.1.
As ICR pages 22 through 25 show, Mr. Stamp in 1965 did not address the issues in the way that Ms. Burch describes them in her Declaration.

BURCH CLAIM NO. 2.

BURCH CLAIM NO. 3.
Ms. Burch misstates the issue and the context of the cited material.

BURCH CLAIM NO. 4.
Ms. Burch misdescribes and distorts the 1987 documents in a troubling effort by the City to link them to the "personal relationship" of Mr. Guillen and Ms. Burch and of Mr. Guillen and Ms. Christie Miller in the current case

BURCH CLAIM NO. 5.
Ms. Burch materially misstates the contents of the document.

BURCH CLAIM NO. 6.

BURCH CLAIM NO. 7.
Ms. Burch's sole attempt to link the Miner matter to the current case is a misleading claim that Mr. Miner's matter “included issues related to medical leave.”

BURCH CLAIM NO. 8.
Despite Ms. Burch's effort in her Declaration to link Mr. Willett's knee injury to the current Miller case, there is no linkage, much less materiality… The exaggeration by Ms. Burch is misleading.

 ..  
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO CITY'S BRIEFING

EXCERPTS HIGHLIGHTS

The City's Showing - the Burch Declaration.

In filing this motion on September 1, 2009, the City stated under .penalty of perjury that City Clerk Heidi Burch had accurately summarized the records that the City was relying upon for its claim of a substantial relationship between a former representation of the City and the Jane Miller case. The Burch declaration was the factual basis for the City's motion.

At that time, Miller's counsel demonstrated that Burch's declaration supposedly summarizing the documents was materially false, stretched and exaggerated the truth, and grossly mischaracterized documents in an effort to fit them into the City's contention that there was an actual conflict with the Miller case.
In the City's most recent response filed November 17, the City makes no effort to correct the record, explain the Burch missteps, or show that the City did not in fact intend to mislead the Court and opposing counsel.

ADDENDUM:
2.52.010 Code of Ethics.
As public employees we are entrusted with the confidence of those we serve to fulfill the responsibilities of our roles. Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee. Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).

Thursday, April 04, 2013

CITY GOVERNMENT: Is Carmel-by-the-Sea a ‘Well Managed,’ ‘Open and Transparent’ City Government? (Part IV)

QUESTION: Is Carmel-by-the-Sea a "Well Managed," "Open and Transparent" City Government?

ANSWER: No.  The city government of Carmel-by-the-Sea has a well-deserved reputation and record (e.g. Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea) of city officials not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and suppressing and withholding crucial and germane information from consultants, courts and the public.  In this instance, City officials chose to waste taxpayer monies by contracting with legal consultant Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to ostensibly answer a public records act request when City officials should have employed the same procedure for check itemization that then Deputy City Clerk Molly Laughlin used based on Check Register Expense Accounts.  Sadly then, even with a new city administrator and new mayor, the culture at City Hall has not changed substantively from the previous administration for the better. And two employees involved in the Jane Miller et al. scandal, namely Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch and City Attorney Don Freeman, are still employed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Finally, as a recent email to City Administrator Jason Stilwell concluded: Not that long ago you professed to not engage in “situational ethics.”  However, honoring my requests for check itemizations in the past but not recently (and without explanation) is an example of situational ethics.  Once you compromise your ethical principles you lose all credibility forever.