By Katie Shapiro
Dear Mayor Burke and Cypress City Council Members,
I write to you with deep concern following the revelations about former Public Works Director Doug Dancs’ separation from the city and his public accusations against City Manager Peter Grant. The $183,000 settlement paid to Mr. Dancs with taxpayer funds demands explanation, as do the allegations of “unlawful acts of misconduct” that were abruptly silenced during the April 28th meeting.
When a dedicated public servant of Mr. Dancs’ stature and tenure—a man who has overseen millions in city projects and earned respect across our community—is willing to risk legal consequences to speak publicly about misconduct, we must ask ourselves: What truth is being suppressed? What forces are working to maintain this silence?
The Troubling Pattern of Opacity
This incident does not exist in isolation. It follows a concerning pattern in Cypress governance:
- The questionable handling of Measure S, which conveniently reallocated housing density to benefit certain property owners while Mr. Dancs was being quietly separated from the city
- The preferential treatment in land transactions, where some developers paid market rates while others received land at nominal cost
- The extension of Mr. Grant’s contract with extraordinary protections against termination and limitations on council oversight
- The concealment of financial records by delaying warrant registers for October-December 2024
These circumstances create an appearance of governance by obfuscation rather than transparency. When even the Mayor lacks access to fundamental information about a significant settlement and potential misconduct investigation, our system of democratic oversight has fundamentally broken down.
As I wrote in my recent op-ed, “Fear begins in small geographies. Not in grand political theaters or sprawling metropolises, but in meeting rooms with fluorescent lights where voices echo too loudly against bare walls.” This is exactly what we witnessed when Mr. Dancs attempted to speak and was immediately silenced by the city attorney’s interruption.
The message was clear: “These complaints should not be made in a public setting.” This pattern of intimidation creates what I’ve called “a small geography of fear,” where residents and even city employees “learn to measure [their] words with the precision of someone defusing a bomb… until public discourse becomes a series of careful gestures signifying nothing.”
The Council’s Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations
As elected representatives, you have both a legal and moral obligation to:
- Exercise proper oversight of the city manager, who serves at the pleasure of the council
- Ensure appropriate stewardship of public funds
- Maintain transparency with constituents about matters of significant public interest
- Investigate credible allegations of misconduct within city government
The city attorney’s intervention to silence Mr. Dancs raises profound questions about whose interests are being protected. Is it the city’s interests? The taxpayers’? Or is it the personal interests of those implicated in potential wrongdoing?
The Path Forward
I strongly support Mayor Burke’s call for a special meeting on May 19th, but I urge the Council to consider these specific actions:
- Demand the immediate production of any investigation reports related to Mr. Dancs’ allegations
- Authorize an independent investigation if internal reports are inadequate or nonexistent
- Request a formal review by the Orange County District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal misconduct occurred
- Place City Manager Grant on administrative leave pending resolution of these matters
- Establish a formal whistleblower protection policy to ensure other employees with knowledge of misconduct feel safe coming forward
A Question of Trust
At its core, this is about whether Cypress residents can trust their government to operate with integrity and in the public interest. The handling of RHNA allocations, developer relationships, and now this settlement agreement have created a perception that decisions may be influenced by factors other than the public good.
As I observed in my op-ed, “The genius of local intimidation lies in its deniability. In its ability to make you question not just your conclusions but your very perception.” This dynamic has been at play for too long in Cypress. When residents report harassment, they face “a labyrinth of indifference.” When council members ask questions, they face censure.
I regret that I cannot attend the May 19th meeting in person due to the harassment I have previously experienced when speaking out at council meetings. This hostile environment toward dissenting voices may explain why we’ve seen very little of Mr. Dancs before or after his brief appearance on April 28th.
As I wrote, “I sometimes wonder what City Manager Grant truly fears. Is it accountability? Transparency? The exposure of whatever ‘unlawful acts of misconduct’ Dancs was prevented from articulating?” Whatever the answer, we cannot allow fear to determine the boundaries of our civic discourse.
The special meeting on May 19th represents an opportunity for this Council to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. I urge all council members to recognize that your highest duty is not to protect individuals or institutions, but to serve the residents of Cypress who placed their trust in you.
Democracy cannot function in darkness. It’s time to bring these matters into the light.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Shapiro