City and former finance director settle lawsuit
By Jane Northrop
Posted: 06/17/2010 06:00:00 AM PDT
The lawsuit former city finance director Maureen Lennon filed against the city of Pacifica and City Attorney Cecelia Quick last year settled recently for an undisclosed amount.
The lawsuit arose when Lennon as finance director and human resources director Ann Ritmza competed for the same position of director of administrative services. The (then) city manager made the decision to merge the two positions to try to save the city money. Ritzma won the position. Lennon's union filed a grievance on her behalf, saying she was the proper candidate for the job based on contract seniority rights.
Quick was named as a defendant because Lennon alleged Quick retaliated against her because Lennon, as finance director, had questioned the high budget for the city attorney's office. Lennon alleged Quick advised the then city manager not to write her a letter of recommendation because it might cast a too favorable light, considering the union's grievance had not been decided. In addition, Lennon had alleged Quick undermined her chances of reemployment as a finance director with the city of Palm Springs by saying in a phone call that she was a "troublemaker" who is "suing the city," asking for damages, and was responsible for a large budget deficit, the second amended complaint alleges.
Read more...
Posted by Steve Sinai
7 comments:
So, when will the legal budget show cost to pay-off this "settlement", or will the legal cost be spread-around from various departments and/or funds?
City council last meeting gave Lionel Emde a bad rap for his lawsuit in defense of Prop 218 requirements, which is "chump change" for this city. Here again, couldn't this citizen inquiry and issue have been handled better, researched and corrected if need be? I suspect Lionel was "stone walled" when he inquired.
Based upon what we know (my opinion) Maureen Lennon, Mike Angel, David Carmany are all good people; and, the North Pacifica LLC lawsuit, and Coastside Scavenger greenwaste dispute should not have happened. These legal actions and others have been a big waste of city money, also destructive and unnecessary.
Further, all these hostile legal actions happened on the watch of this city council. "Nothing for Pacifica" except lawsuits, a purposefully failed city economy, and 3 newly proposed property owner taxes for "basic services" after the election. Think its time for them to go?
If one were to be so inclined, one would simply make an RFI to include the ledgers listing who all those checks actually went to that are approved on the consent calendar. Me thinks some may be going to law firms and the amounts should be interesting.
I watched the City Council meeting on Monday night too and don't find $175,000 to defend against Emde's continual second guessing "chump change". That is as much as probably an additional policeman on the street would cost us in this town. On the other hand, I have also heard our City Hall attorney is not the easiest to work with or the friendliest.
When I was looking at the city budget last year, it seemed as if 1/4 of the budget was in "miscellaneous" or "overhead" accounts, and it was impossible to find out how that money was actually spent. My guess is that the settlement costs will be hidden inside those accounts.
Kathy,
Add in the Thomas Snow settlement and legal costs, and the city's browbeating of Arno Rohloff . . . and the current lawsuit involving the surfers and builders and City of Pacifica (for which I am still digging for more information).
My cost/benefit analysis of our City Attorney is she costs too much and provides no competent legal protection for the City. But she follows orders well and will drop the hatchet on uncooperative city employees . . .
Jeff, thanks for the additions.
Anon @5:32 the amount the city has spent on the Prop 218 lawsuit brought by Lionel Emde is currently $55,000, so stated at the last city council meeting. 3x repeated with pauses and sighs was the projected potential cost of an additional $125,000 when settled, higher cost if it goes to court.
So, with this reasonable citizen inquiry, why didn't city legal do a couple of hours of research and clarification-- rather than stonewall, and cause this city another lawsuit? But no, once again City legal assumed an aggressive posture against a citizen-- and, the plan once again appears to be to keep the lawsuit going until the opposition (a citizen)is financially depleted and exhausted.
Mind you, the issue is whether the city is in compliance with State Prop 218 notification. Again, why has the city allowed this inquiry to escalate to the level of law suit? Should we really believe the State was not able to advise or clarify?
Wow suing the City Of Pacifica and winning is easy. I should have filed suit and got a big pay day.
Post a Comment