- 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
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
• 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
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
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
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment