City Investigations

Public Records from Separate City Investigations Involving the
Community Services Department and the City Manager

Below are links to the redacted exhibits and matrixes from the investigation report prepared by attorney-investigator, Debra Reilly involving employees from the City’s Community Services Department. The investigation report itself contains Ms. Reilly’s impressions, conclusions, and legal opinions, which are attorney-client privileged and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). There is also a strong public interest in not disclosing all of the investigation report at this time in order to protect the City in defending a lawsuit should one be filed. The City can, however, make the exhibits relied on by Ms. Reilly publicly available, to the extent they are not otherwise legally protected, in an effort to be as transparent as possible.

The City has made everything we can publicly available within the limits of the law and in consideration of the best interest of the City.  All 1,731 pages of exhibits related to this investigation were reviewed and only minimal redactions were made to protect the privacy of persons involved.  Specifically, the City Attorney’s office redacted citizens’ home street addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses as they are protected by the California Constitution. Legal also redacted the City’s account numbers and credit card numbers because there is a need for confidentiality and it is in the public’s interest not to disclose this information. We redacted documents that would disclose the identity of the complainants because it would have a negative effect on employees and potentially discourage them from bringing complaints forward to the City in future. Finally, we redacted information from personnel files as the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of privacy.

The exhibits document improper discounts and fee waivers for the Powerhouse Community Center and City parks, unpermitted events, abuse of overtime, use of a city credit card for personal purchases, improper contracting with a City employee for duties normally performed as part of their job, and related misuse of public funds. In addition to the documentation in the exhibits, the investigator interviewed 20 witnesses and considered their statements and impressions related to exhibits and alleged activities.

The City made every effort to ensure that Mr. Vergne and the other employees under investigation were afforded the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Through the interview process, they were made aware of the documentation and alleged activity under review by the investigator and were given every opportunity to provide explanations of what occurred. They were given extensive opportunity, without time constraints, to review the documents and explain their actions.  And, they were given the opportunity to add any additional comments at the conclusion of their interview.  After his interview, Mr. Vergne’s attorney submitted a letter with additional information that was also considered by the investigator.

Additionally, the City Council has authorized the release of a redacted copy of the investigation involving the City Manager.  The employee that made the complaint, Pat Vergne, waived his right to privacy about having submitted the complaint when he and his attorney publically disclosed that they had filed a complaint against the City Manager.  For this reason, the complaint has not been redacted from the report.  The remainder of the report has been redacted in the same manner as the other investigative report as described above.  As discussed in the report, the investigator concluded that the complaint against the City Manager was without merit and unfounded.   The City Council will take no further action on this matter.

Community Services investigation Documents

City Manager Investigation Documents