ABSTRACT: At the 5 April 2011 City Council Meeting, former mayoral candidate and resident Adam Moniz pulled Item J. Ratify Settlement Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Richard Guillen, City Administrator from the Consent Calendar. Item J was placed at the end of the agenda. Adam Moniz’s remarks are reproduced. At the end of Moniz’s remarks, Council Members had no comments; furthermore, Council Members and the City Attorney Don Freeman did not address Adam Moniz’s questions. The City Council voted unanimously to ratify the Settlement Agreement between the City and Rich Guillen.
Thank you very much Mayor McCloud and Members of the City Council for allowing me to pull this item.
Don is entirely correct. What he didn’t point out however is that there was never an opportunity for public comment on that so we are going to take this opportunity to serve that purpose.
I would like to start by showing you the current Monterey County Weekly that came out this week. Specifically I am going to turn and read to you from page 13: “all totaled, Guillen’s tally of harassment victims cost the City more than $1 million.” I want to make sure that everyone watching or listening understands the context of what’s happening right now. The City is getting ready to pay out more money. In other words, we’re going to add to that already over $1 million figure. What I am objecting to on principle is not necessarily the amount, though it’s significant, rather it’s who you want to give this money to. And why you want to pay out city money to Rich Guillen himself, I think it’s preposterous.
Generally speaking, best practices dictate that a proposed settlement should be memorialized and reduced to writing at the earliest possible moment.
QUESTION #1: Why did approximately a full month and a half elapse between the time Guillen announced his retirement in mid-February, and the time he signed the proposed Settlement Agreement at the tail-end of March?
QUESTION #2: Why is the City trying to approve a Settlement Agreement with Guillen Now, on April 5, 2011, nearly a week after Guillen has already retired and has already left? It strikes me that there is a better use of City money than throwing it at a problem that appears to have already resolved itself. This is especially true in these challenging economic times, when our village’s business district is still a far cry from being vibrant, when our city’s Scout House still remains ADA un-compliant, and when residential streets throughout Carmel could arguably hold the collective record for the most pot-holes in a 1.1 square mile area. My point – we could do a lot of good with this money by spending it to help our residents and local business owners, instead of giving it away to someone who quite frankly doesn’t deserve it. If you ask me, I think Rich Guillen should give the City of Carmel money, instead of the other way around.
Now let’s turn to the proposed Settlement Agreement itself...
Section 4, subpart E, of the proposed Settlement Agreement states as follows:
“Carmel will respond to any and all inquiries regarding Guillen’s employment by directing Carmel’s head of Human Resources to provide Guillen’s date of hire, date of retirement and his last position before retirement.”
QUESTION #3: What is the name of the person who currently holds the position of Carmel’s “head of Human Resources?”
Section 11, which states as follows:
“The terms of the Agreement reflect a compromise settlement of disputed claims arising from Guillen’s employment with Carmel.”
QUESTION #4: What specifically are the “disputed claims arising from Guillen’s employment with Carmel,” as that phrase is used in Section 11 of the proposed Settlement Agreement?
QUESTION #5: Again referencing Section 11 of the proposed Settlement Agreement -- do you believe that the generic reference in Section 11 to the undefined phrase “disputed claims” is vague? If you do not believe it’s vague, then please explain your personal interpretation or what you believe the specific “disputed claims” are.
For any one of the eight following reasons, you should each vote tonight to not ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen.
Voting to ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen:
1. would result in rewarding a wrong-doer;
2. would add insult to injury, especially for the victims and their families;
3. would reflect the utmost of fiscal irresponsibility;
4. would further divide our community, at a time when I believe we need to come together more than ever, for the common good;
5. would further exacerbate the loss of public confidence in the elected members of the Carmel City Council;
6. would set a dangerous precedent as to any future attempts by the City to enforce its harassment policy or revised harassment policy;
7. would be a dereliction of your individual duties as sworn public officials;
8. And, lastly, voting to ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen would be wholly inconsistent with the values of our small and close-knit community.
Finally, following public comment on this matter, many of you may try to convince the public that Guillen is entitled to this money under his original contract that has been in place for a number of years; that is irrelevant to this conversation. Further, such an argument is unpersuasive. There are a multitude of reasons why that contract provision is unenforceable at this point in time. If any member of the council does not fully understand and appreciate why and is still unconvinced that they should vote no, then at an absolute minimum you need to move that this matter be continued so you have time to do your homework and due diligence, instead of giving away more taxpayer money.
Council Members and the City Attorney had no comments and made no attempt to address any of Adam Moniz’s questions.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda Item J, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
SOURCE:
Archived Video, Regular City Council Meeting, April 05, 2011, 04:07:35 – 04:15:25
ADDENDUM:
KION Video: Carmel City Manager Done, Gets Settlement For Retiring
Posted Apr 05, 2011 5:49 PM PDT Updated: Apr 05, 2011 7:42 PM PDT
By Brooke Holmquist
KION CENTRAL COAST NEWS
Duration: 2:21
KION Article: Carmel City Manager Done, Gets Settlement For Retiring
Posted Apr 05, 2011 5:49 PM PDT Updated: Apr 05, 2011 7:42 PM PDT
By Brooke Holmquist
KION CENTRAL COAST NEWS
Highlights, as follows:
Adam Moniz: "I think a city policy should be that Carmel government does not reward a wrong do-er and that's what they are getting ready to do tonight."
City Council Member Jason Burnett: "This is part of his original contract that has been in place for a number of years that provides that if he resigns or retires he is provided 6 months severance."
“But Burnett said the community should consider, this option could be the lesser of three evils.
Guillen could still be there. If he chose to stay, a majority vote would be needed to terminate him. And, if council did terminate him, he wouldn't get the severance package, but he could have sued.”
Adam Moniz: "That's irrelevent, it's about what's good for the city and the city should not be rewarding a wrong-doer.”
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Adam Moniz: ‘Voting to ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen…would result in rewarding a wrong-doer; would reflect the utmost of fiscal irresponsibility; would set a dangerous precedent as to any future attempts by the City to enforce its harassment policy; would be a dereliction of your individual duties as sworn public officials; would be wholly inconsistent with the values of our small and close-knit community’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Adam Moniz makes some good points but the bottom line really is that we're finally rid of Guillen after 11 years. No matter how much it cost, Carmel is the winner in this. Granted Guillen should never have been hired in the first place. His record in other Peninsula cities was well known. Presumably, of all of the candidates for Carmel city manager Guillen was the one, who was most willing to allow Mayor Sue McCloud to make the day to day executive and administrative decisions that were his and other senior staff members (who were later forced out) responsibility. After a year as interim city manager it was clear Guillen couldn't do his job even with McCloud telling him what to do. After he was hired on a permanent basis and he and McCloud forced the senior managers out, Guillen attempted to do their jobs too which only increased his ineptitude and the damage he was doing to the city. If previous city councils had been doing their job, he could have and should have been been fired any of the last 9-10 years. When Guillen's sexual abuse to female staff became obvious he should have been fired. The fact that we finally got rid of Guillen is totally due to Councilmember Jason Burnett, who in the face of the strongest opposition from McCloud was finally able to persist in ridding us of Guillen after 10 years of his mismanagement under McCloud's direction. McCloud is again trying to manipulate the choice of both the head hunting firm and the new city manager. Carmelites must work to be sure we get a really competent one this time. It will take years to fix the damage created by the mismanagement of Guillen and McCloud but it won't be possible to even start without a good city manager and councilmembers, who think for themselves about what is in the interests of Carmel's businesses and residents.
Carmel is in desperate need of real leaders, not politicians going to the media and preening before cameras with their issues du jour. And no, leadership is not telling constituents the community better accept the unanimous vote of the council to give Rich Guillen settlement money because the council unanimously voted for it weeks ago. Any councilman telling the community we should accept the lesser of three evils is not showing the kind of positive, constructive leadership we need. The issue is not Rich Guillen chosing to stay or requiring a 4/5 vote of the council to remove him, or whether or not Guillen would sue the city over terminination, the issue is this council is cowardly, lacks the guts to do the right thing and is definitely not looking out for the best interest of Carmelites, financially or otherwise.
Nothing conveys greater contempt and lack of respect for constituents than a mayor, city council members and city attorney not making a serious effort to respond to questions from a member of the public. From the time the city council voted to approve the $600,000 settlement to Jane Miller to the time the city council voted to ratify the Settlement Agreement between the City and Rich Guillen, all five city council members have acted as if they do not understand that they are there to serve the public, not there for the public to serve them. The people we need to be electing are those people like Adam who have the courage to articulate moral and ethical governing principles. To wit: Voting to ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen:
1. would result in rewarding a wrong-doer;
2. would add insult to injury, especially for the victims and their families;
3. would reflect the utmost of fiscal irresponsibility;
4. would further divide our community, at a time when I believe we need to come together more than ever, for the common good;
5. would further exacerbate the loss of public confidence in the elected members of the Carmel City Council;
6. would set a dangerous precedent as to any future attempts by the City to enforce its harassment policy or revised harassment policy;
7. would be a dereliction of your individual duties as sworn public officials;
8. And, lastly, voting to ratify the proposed Settlement Agreement with Rich Guillen would be wholly inconsistent with the values of our small and close-knit community.
Simply put, with no moral or ethical vagueness or ambiguity, by the council’s unanimous vote, the city council rewarded a wrong-doer, added insult to injury, was fiscally irresponsible, further divided our community, further exacerbated loss of public confidence in them, set a dangerous precedent, represented a dereliction of duty and was wholly inconsistent with the values of Carmel. In the unfortunate event that maybe the council really does represent who we are, we have only ourselves to blame.
Post a Comment