The Cypress City Council met in a special session on Monday, May 19 to discuss the allegations made in April about its city manager.
Council member Leo Medrano chose not to attend, instead opting to attend a political gathering at a nearby restaurant, according to reports posted on Facebook.
Mayor David Burke said he called the special meeting of the Council to compel the city attorney to release information regarding an investigation into alleged impropriety by City Manager Peter Grant
“Protecting the organization from liability is a top priority,” said Burke. “We need to make informed decisions,” he said.
Former Public Works Director Doug Dancs unleashed a torrent of questions when he appeared before the Council on April 28 to suggest Grant should be fired for cause.
The questions mounted further as a settlement payment of $183,000 was acknowledged, as city attorney Fred Galante confirmed a “Separation Agreement” with Dancs.
Given questions by residents, the City Council has a right to the information and a responsibility to the public to understand the facts of what happened, Burke insisted.
Details of the stealthy staff controversy that began months ago, if not longer, are still sketchy. Burke said the special meeting Monday was another attempt to get the information necessary to allow the Council to understand exactly what happened and who is involved to protect the city.
Before the Council debated the one item on the agenda, citizens had plenty to say.
Former Mayors Anne Hertz Mallari and Jon Peat both appeared in support of Grant, with Mallari asking the Council “to lead professionally” while Peat said Grant “was an important part of what has made Cypress a welcoming community for all.”
Colin Edwards said “regardless of personal differences that could come into play, you can’t discount that Cypress is a well-run city,” he said.
Others expressed support for Grant while some chose to attack Mayor Burke.
“Mayor Burke has an agenda…he’s not a public servant, he is self-serving,” said Brooke Nefertiti. “He is allowing his ambitions and ideology to guide what he believes is best for the city,” she said.
Kelly Kay said she was surprised that Burke, a practicing attorney, was allowing a public discussion on the sensitive topic, “especially since it’s against the legal advice of our city attorney, and I find that it’s completely unethical for the mayor in a position of power to behave in such a way.”
“Irrespective of the quality of the person and the character of the person, I think the city residents have the right to see what where and what is happening in the city, said Dr. Malini Nagpal.
“So I am in full support of access to any information, any complaints and allegations that have been made,” she added.
“The city is not disclosing or discussing important activities and grievances to the residents,” said Ed Kraemer. “This closed-door, gate-keeping has to stop,” he said, suggesting the city is hiding information and censoring people who speak out.
“The issue is straight up,” said Bob Youngsma. “Somebody got $183,000 to keep his mouth shut. Normally, when you pay off somebody with that kind of money, that means that person has dirt on you on the backside, and you don’t want that word out,” said Youngsma.
“You guys sit up there and run from your responsibility and listen to all this stuff about how great he is,” he added. “He may have done something wrong,” said Youngsma.
“I want to acknowledge that our city is a wonderful place to live,” said Paul Kokkinos and overall, the city operates in a solid way, and that Mr. Grant has a significant number of supporters,” he acknowledged. ”But none of this matters,” he said.
“What matters is a previously secret, $183,000 separation agreement with Doug Dancs that has now been surrounded by a serious, and let’s call it for what it is, cover up, and that that cover up involves the previous City Council majority who is in the room today, along with the city attorney,” said Kokkinos.
“It truly is that simple. Everything else is just a purposeful distraction.” He said.
“It’s noise, it’s deflection. To turn your attention away from the issue at hand. If there is nothing to cover up, then release this previously secret agreement and let the public make up their own minds in order to regain the trust of the citizens,” he said.
As the procession of witnesses testified in the oral communications portion of the meeting, Council member Bonnie Peat repeatedly asked speakers to provide their name and city of residence. Burke did not support the odea and refused to compel them.
Former Council member Frances Marquez, who was a member of the City Council when the settlement was reached (October 2924), said the full Council should have been notified, but obviously, was not.
“So I have some questions. Why was the full council not informed about the confidentiality agreement with Mr. Dancs? I’m asking all of you the city manager was supposed to include all council members. It’s clear to me that you are allegedly hiding information about something that’s going on,” said Marquez.
“An allegation of illegal activity is a serious I’m calling on you to order an outside investigation,” she said, suggesting the Attorney General should investigate if the Council will not.
When the debate returned to the dais, Burke said the Council had a simple choice.
“So as I said at the beginning, we’ve got a very simple choice today. We can choose to bury our heads in the sand, we can engage in willful ignorance about alleged misconduct and put even more of our residents’ tax dollars at risk,” said Burke.
“And if any city council member wants to take that path, you have the burden of explaining what possible reason you have for not getting the facts and for keeping things secret, from even ourselves,” the mayor said.
“Or we can take the other path and choose to be responsible leaders who handle accusations of misconduct appropriately. We can choose to protect our city from legal liability, and we can choose to restore trust in our city government,” said Burke.
“Supporting this agenda item (compelling the city manager to share the details) is the only way to accomplish those things, and that’s what I’m asking our city council to do here tonight,” said Burke.
“This is a difficult topic,” Council member Peat began, “because we’re not able to discuss because of the confidentiality of te issue. I vote no on this and I’ll tell you why,” she said.
While she was careful with her words, Peat said Burke was present when whatever deliberations did occur on the issue.
“He (Burke) was in the room. He knows what was discussed. He knows the decisions we made and he knows the actions,” said Peat.
“We knew what we needed to do, we got information that helped us make decisions and we followed the protocol that was recommended, using expertise beyond what we have so I am voting no,” said Peat.
Council member Scott Minikus, as he did at the previous meeting, went after Burke for alleged hypocrisy.
“There’s not a lot we can say about this,” said Minikus. “David (Burke) was in the room the entire time,” he said.
“You were in the room the entire time,” he said to Burke, “and you knew everything going on.”
Minikus, who was Mayor when this event happened, and whose signature authorized the settlement and payment of the $183,000, accused Burke of intentionally “willing to lie” to disrupt “our once quiet little city.
“Your only intention here is to get this information and then leak it out to your friends at the L.A. Times and to Frances (Marquez), to potentially help her in lawsuit,” said Minikus.
Marquez has filed a federal lawsuit alleging Grant improperly impeded the will of Cypress voters by treating Marquez differently than he elected colleagues. This slight from the city manager over this issue is just another example, she said.
Minikus had more to say.
“David, you’re so incredibly unethical in putting this forward after it’s already been settled and done. David only cares about David and his personal ambition” he suggested.
“I’m voting no,” concluded Minikus.
Council member Kyle Chang, who was elected to the Council in November, tried to ask if the investigation involved other city employees, but never got a straight answer.
Also, he hinted that Dancs could have played a major role in the accomplishments attributed to Grant.
“I have heard many positive things about the city manager talking to people, but I’ve also heard many good things about Doug Dancs, who brought the accusations,” said Chang.
“There’s a lot of accomplishments you guys have listed (for Grant), but I also think Doug Dancs (former Director of Public Works) played a major role in many of those same accomplishments,” he added.
“In terms of character or accomplishments (of Grant), you know those could be true, but on the other hand, accusations could also be true,” said Chang.
In closing, Burke recited a long list of cities in and out of Orange County that have released reports and information to the public when officials or management were accused of wrongdoing.
“I could keep going, but all over the state and country, cities are responding to allegations of misconduct in the same way. They conduct independent investigations,” said Burke.
“They discuss the results in public because that is how you responsibly manage an organization,” he added.
Burke said he was not going to dispute Peat on whether the proper protocol was utilized, but if she was so sure about it, why would she then object to releasing it to the public so “our residents can have proof of that?”
Peat said the city perhaps erred by not releasing a public statement, noting city officials had previously never acknowledged or announced any of the Dancs developments.
“From a transparency standpoint, I agree. The shameful thing that we have not is put out a public statement, but we were unable to do that and therefore they think we are misleading the residents, because they think we’re hiding something in the background,” said Peat.“I think our attorney gave us the information that we need to understand the issue and to move forward. Do I think this should go out to the public? Absolutely not,” she said.
Among the cities that released the information to the public named by Burke, a couple of those OC cities that were mentioned “probably some of the worst-run cities in Orange County,” said Peat.
“We did what we said we needed to do as leaders,” said Peat. “We got the information we needed to make a decision. We made a decision, we move forward. And here we are today, still talking about it and actually saying, Oh, well, we didn’t get the information. I’m sorry. I am on a completely different page than you.”
“I’m going to make a motion to get the facts that the Council needs to protect the city from liability,” said Burke, saying it should be discussed in open session.
Chang seconded the motion and voted with Burke to compel the city attorney to release the information, but Peat and Minikus voted against, leaving the city and its residents deadlocked 2-2 and now, left to wonder just what really happened and what will happen next.