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.

On an evening that was set to honor a decade of service from City Manager Peter Grant, the Cypress City Council meeting on Monday ended in mystery as a long-time and respected department head showed up to suggest the city manager should be fired.

Earlier in the meeting, Council member Bonnie Peat said she had just wanted to mark Grant’s ten years of service and gave a glowing account of Grant’s tenure with the city.

Peat provided a series of supportive letters and testimonials from local officials praising Grant’s work. Also, a handful of residents and others turned up to speak for and against Grant’s performance.

Later in the meeting, during the second oral communications period, however, when former Public Works Director Douglas

Dancs showed up to speak, the legal fireworks began. There was no glowing account of Grant’s tenure from Dancs.
Dancs, has been prominent at every meeting in recent years when called on the explain public works projects, etc.

Without explanation, Dancs had mysteriously disappeared from the staff area in recent months with no mention from the city manager or the Council as to why.

He showed up Monday, however, and suggested there was a darker side of the city administration and began spilling the beans as he sees them before the city attorney shut things down.

“After my departure, I waited patiently and never expected to return here,” said Dancs, “but some recent councilmember comments caused me concern,” he said.

“As for the recognition of the city manager (Grant), in my opinion, the City Council should fire the city manager for cause,” said Dancs.

Dancs said he spoke with the authority of 32 years of experience, 23 of which he served as a public works department head, serving under seven different city managers and 28 Council members.

“I speak from deep experience,” said Dancs, as he began.

He said his opinion to fire Grant for cause “stems from alleged unlawful acts of misconduct during my….”

“Excuse me,” interjected Cypress city attorney Fred Galante, loudly and firmly interrupting Dancs in mid-word before he could finish the sentence.

“This is completely inappropriate,” said Galante, shutting Dancs down, saying that “these comments should not be made in a public setting.”

“To the extent you’ve gained some information, Mr. Dancs, that you are now sharing or to the extent that there is anything contained in an agreement, I would caution you not to make those comments OK,” the city attorney said.

Dancs agreed, then appeared to confirm for sure there was some sort of underlying agreement, but did not specify.

“My agreement,” said Dancs, “per recent state law, says nothing that prevents employees from discussing or disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment, discrimination or conduct an employee believes violated the law,” he added.

“I respectfully disagree,” said Galante, adding that “I think your agreement encompasses everything you were just mentioning and to the extent there are any future actions, I can understand your comment,” said Galante.

“That is my advice to this Council, to not allow that comment or any further comments to the extent they were gained during Mr. Dancs employment,” said Galante to the Council.

Mayor David Burke paused a moment to think following Galante’s comments, then continued, giving Dancs the option to continue speaking…or not.

“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,” he said.

“If he (Galante) is saying that everything I ever learned (during his long employment at the city) is confidential, then I will stop, based on what he’s just said to me,” Dancs said to Burke.

“I provided my suggestion,” said Dancs, “and I’m happy to describe it further,” he said before deciding to give in to the pressure not to say anything further.

Dancs had enjoyed a spectacular career in Public Works leadership for decades in Cypress, as he had done before that in the City of Seal Beach.

“Are you saying he’s not allowed to make a comment,” the mayor asked Galante.

Galante now seemed to acknowledge the existence of an agreement, at least some form of confidentiality agreement.

“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 Burke.

Galante’s comments may suggest that whatever is in the agreement is confidential and that it should not be discussed “in a public setting.”

Asked by Burke if they should then retire to an emergency closed session, the city attorney said “you could certainly add a closed session based on information that just arose tonight to discuss this. Whether the council finds it urgent, that is another matter,” said Galante.

‘I’m not going to continue with what I was going to say,” Dancs, said, even though “First Amendment-wise and within my agreement,” Dancs said he thought he had a protected right to speak.

However, “based on what the city attorney said,” Dancs concluded, “I’m not going to continue with what I came to say.”