Cypress is abuzz this week following the dramatic showdown in the Council Chambers last week that saw the city’s attorney suggest damages and verbally shut down to a former city employee who said he witnessed “unlawful acts of misconduct” by the City Manager
During a meeting when Cypress City Manager Peter Grant was on the agenda, Council member Bonnie Peat’s praise of the city manager was eventually overtaken when former Public Works Director Doug Dancs showed up to express his own, much different, view of Grant.
“I think the city manager should be fired, for cause,” said Dancs to the Council.
The ENE has posted a detailed narrative of the exchange on its website.
This week, surmising available data and comments, it is becoming known that the city quietly sidelined Dancs, or Dancs sidelined himself by making allegations of “unlawful acts of misconduct” for at least the last three months of 2024.
That was during a period when the city was busy promoting a controversial ballot initiative, Measure “S” that ultimately would give the city, and eventually developers, the right to develop more of the valuable racetrack land.
Not until Dancs’ surprise appearance at the Council meeting on April 29 did the city, or perhaps the Council, know exactly what was going on. Most, however, is still a mystery.
However, the “Separation Agreement” released by the City of Cypress, signed by former Mayor Scott Minikus, pays Dancs $183,000 and includes a confidentiality clause and a non-disparagement clause, which city attorney Fred Galate alluded to when he warned Dancs to stop.
“There is a confidentiality agreement,” said Galante. “To the extent that he violates it, it’s up to him to proceed, and to the extent that any damages result, it is up to the city to consider what actions they may take,” the city attorney told Mayor David Burke.
“You’ve heard the city attorney,” said Burke to Dancs, “but you’re free to comment. You have your three minutes to use as you see fit.”
“I am not going to continue based on the city attorney’s comment,” said Dancs.
Nevertheless, said Dancs, “I have a First Amendment right. I’m allowed to have opinions. I’m allowed to bring forward what I consider to be misconduct.”
According to a relatively new law signed by Gav. Gavin Newsom, Dancs is correct in that the city, as an employer, has no right to stop any employee from speaking publicly about unlawful conduct.
The firm’s opinion became law in 2022 after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 331 into law in 2021.
An opinion written by the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo explains that the new law mandates that any non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions must include language relating to the employee’s right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace.
The law makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to sign a non-disparagement agreement or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment or discrimination.
An examination of the ‘Separation Agreement” between Dancs and Cypress, indicates that it does indeed include language that meets the standard of this new law, while it also includes strict confidentiality requirements.
Section 12 of Dancs Separation Agreement states as follows:
“Employee agrees that he will not disclose and will return any confidential information assessed and or gained in the course and scope of his work at the city. The city agrees not to make disparaging remarks about Employee, and Employee agrees not to make disparaging remarks about the city,” the document claimed.
“’ Disparage,’ as used herein, shall mean any communication, oral or written, or false information or the communication of information with reckless disregard to the truth, or falsity. Nothing in this agreement prevents Employee from discussing or disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment or discrimination or any other conduct Employee has reason to believe he is unlawful.,” the agreement states.
For the purposes of the agreement, “city” was described in the Dancs Separation Agreement as referring to either the “City of Cypress, the City Council, City Council members, boards, executors, successors, and assigns.”
While city attorney Fred Galante stepped in to halt Dancs during the meeting, the signatures on the agreement suggest it was negotiated and developed by a specialty law firm hired by the city.
The ENE has reached out to Galante for clarification but at press time, has not heard back.
Liebert, Cassidy, and Whitmore, an L.A. law firm known to specialize in human resource matters, claims on its website to provide human resources investigations to public entities, corporations, and others.
“We bring our extensive employment-law knowledge and experience to conducting workplace investigations… We deliver timely, cost-effective, and legally compliant investigations that withstand scrutiny,” the firm says on the site.
The firm, according to its website, has “extensive employment-law knowledge and experience in conducting workplace investigations,” including for public entities.
Further, entries in the warrant register in the City of Cypress indicate the earliest payment to Liebert, Cassidy, and Whitmore in May of 2024 and have continued into 2025. The firm has been paid well over $100,000 in taxpayer funds thus far.
The warrant register listed a series of payments to Liebert, Cassidy, and Whitmore as “Legal Svs:HRmatter.” While the payments stretch from May of 2024 until current, the largest push of activity occurred in October of 2024, when the warrant register shows a payment of more than $68,000 to the firm.
According to documents researched by ENE, the city of Cypress did no issue a warrant register in October, November or December in 2024, clumping those months together in a four-month register issued in January covering from Oct. 1 (2024) through Jan. 10, 2025.
What is less clear is what investigations they performed as part of any agreement. The ENE has requested any further public documents related to the agreement so while it may be assumed the firm conducted investigations of Dancs’ allegations, and perhaps an investigation of Dancs, yet there was no mention in the Separation Agreement.
Any matters of such nature are generally handled in Executive Session and while the significant outlay of public funds involved may have been approved in closed session, no mention of the Dancs affair was made during any public meeting.
Former Council member Frances Marquez, who did not run for re-election, was in office at the time, said this week that as a sitting Council member, she had never heard of the agreement nor voted on any authorization of funds. She left office in December.
Since Dancs reported witnessing “unlawful acts of misconduct,” it was not immediately clear whether Liebert, Cassiday, and Whitmore conducted and if so, how any results figurany investigations and if so, how they figured into the settlement amount.
The nine page Separation Agreement was dated October 31, 2024 and signed by Dancs and Mayor Scott Minikus representing the City of Cypress. It was also signed by Attorney Vasko Mitzev, of Ferruzzo & Ferruzzo, LLP, representing Dancs and Attorney J. Scott Tiedmann, of Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore.
According to Transparent California, Dancs was being compensated as Director of Public Works with a salary and benefits package worth just over $415,000 annually at the time of his separation.
Under the agreement, Dancs was to receive a $183,000 settlement, his full pay up to the date of the signature (Oct. 31, 2024), and he was also to receive payment for “administrative leave” for November and December of 2024, another estimated $80,000 or so.
The lack of any public discussion made it less clear what exactly the $183,000 amount represented.
Several citizens interviewed by ENE said debates on the city’s public social media discussion pages have been filled with lively debate since the surprise appearance by Dancs at the last meeting and many say they plan to appear at Monday’s Council meeting to seek clarity,In a letter published herein, at least one citizen suggested the Orange County District Attorney be asked to investigate to rreinforce the faith in Cypress city government.