Is Money Behind the Recall Effort?

by Jack McCurdy

The majority of the Morro Bay City Council has moved to negotiate the departure of City Attorney Rob Schultz with the fate of City Manager Andrea Lueker up in the air. This despite continuing attacks on that move by organized supporters of the two top City officials, supporters who are loud and sometimes repulsive despite their dwindling numbers speaking from the lectern at Council meetings still centered on the fate of Schultz and Lueker. But what is motivating those crowds at Council meetings? It now appears financial benefit may be motivating them, not just the ideology of Mayor Jamie Irons and Council Members Christine Johnson and Noah Smukler replacing the recallers favorites on June 5, 2015, the fateful day for the City, Bill Yates, Carla Borchard — and Lueker and Schultz.

It was part of man's nature to be fractious, Thomas Jefferson said in the 1790s, reflecting on the colonies' revolutionary past. (Women had no rights and almost didn't exist as political entities in colonial times, which is why he talked of "man's" nature, but you get the point — about colonists being fractious or quarrelsome.)

And who would say it doesn't exist worldwide today? But in Morro Bay — no way?

People in Morro Bay tend to think of our beautiful little community as being friendly, caring, its residents being considerate of each other and, well, united.

But the movement to recall Morro Bay City mayor Jamie Irons — with sporadic side attacks on City Council members Christine Johnson and Noah Smukler — has exposed a classic cleavage in the society of our town over the move by Irons, Christine Johnson, and Smukler to force out City attorney Rob Schultz, with City Manager Andrea Lueker possibly next in line.  Interestingly, it's a clear minority of residents driving it, hurling vicious epithets mainly at Irons and, on occasion, at Christine Johnson and Smukler.

Those recallers — potential recallers, anyway — are not among the clear majority who elected Irons, Johnson, and Smukler on June 5, 2012 to become a new Council majority in an unprecedented primary victory, even though the recall advocates have been turning out in huge numbers to levy their verbal, and often time repulsive, assaults on the three winners. As Nicole Dorfman sized it up, they are infuriated that their Council members got swept out of office on June 5, reflecting the power that business and special interests exerted through the previous Councils. This is seen, and is apparently alluded to by Dorfman, as a psychological feeling of loss by the supporters of the ousted Council majority. But now it appears it goes deeper than that, and financial benefit also was lost.

After several meetings of assailing Irons from the lectern, Council members Nancy Johnson and George Leage got into that distasteful act at an October 22 Council meeting when Leage blustered, "Our City attorney has been protecting us a long time. There is no need to bring in interim people. (The Council is planning to hire an interim attorney until a permanent replacement of Schultz can be found.) I am tired of this. Schultz could do the job. He is above reproach. This is getting ridiculous."

He later added, "We have become the laughing stock of the county. I am too flustered to talk." The fluster was visible.

Nancy Johnson, in an agitated voice, said, "I agree with you, George. You are one of the (most) sensible people up here. I am damned tired of this!"

Irons, who as mayor presides at Council meetings, told Johnson, "Please control your language and temper." She took on silence, temporarily.

(That kind of  easily quotable behavior probably won't be an asset if Nancy Johnson and League decide to run for reelection next year.)

It was the first time in five September and October meetings centered on the possible discharge of Lueker and Schultz that Irons had reprimanded anyone, despite the appalling and shocking words hurled at him from the lectern during the first of those meetings on September 12 (See: Council Majority Attacked). . . and at subsequent meetings, although by fewer speakers, and in spite of long-standing Council rules prohibiting attacks on Council members by name or office.

One speaker at a recent Council meeting denied what he said were accusations that the turnout at meetings to criticize the Lueker-Schultz move had been organized. But a widely circulated email from Leage repudiated that denial. (See letter below.)

Among the charges hurled at Irons is that his handling of the Lueker-Schultz matter has lacked transparency, meaning he as well as Christine Johnson and Smukler have not offered explanations as to why the Council is reviewing procedures for dismissing both. However, on Oct. 21, the Council by a 3-2 vote (Irons, Christine Johnson and Smukler versus Nancy Johnson and Leage, which is the count on all such matters) authorized a new outside counsel to conduct termination settlement negotiations with Schultz. That attorney is Steven Simas of Simas and Associates, located in San Luis Obispo with an office in Sacramento (Simas Gov Law). A 3-2 Council agreed to pay him $12,500 for his work.

The City's agenda states: On Oct. 21 at a Special Closed Session meeting involving the City Attorney's contract, the City Council directed contract legal counsel (Simas) to negotiate a separation agreement between the City Attorney and the City of Morro Bay.

Only two cities in the county reportedly have full-time attorneys, like Schultz. All but those two contract with law firms or attorneys to serve them as needed and not as full-time employees of their cities. As a full-time attorney, Schultz earns $154,682 a year and Lueker $155,354, among the highest in the county. Severance pay for Schultz is $116,011 and for Lueker is $116,515. If they are dismissed, that severance pay is expected to be paid by the City. But the City stands to save considerably in contracting for outside legal counsel. And, if she is dismissed, Lueker's successor is almost sure to earn much less as a starter with the City.

None of the Council members, including Irons, who originally took the initiative — at least publicly — to investigate the dismissal or reprimand of Lueker and Schultz under California Government Code Section 54957 (b) (1) (FindLaw.com), have said why their contracts and employment by the City are being reviewed for cancellation.

But, as only a few residents may understand, it is against the best interests of any Council member, especially Irons, to state why Lueker and Schultz are being targeted because, if any reason were revealed, it would open an individual member or the City to being sued by Schultz to contest that reason in court, and he might win a settlement that could cost the defendants a significant amount of money. And those defendants would likely wind up to be taxpayers via the City.

That is seen as an unnecessary risk because the Council apparently has the legal authority to discipline or dismiss Lueker and Schultz or any City employee at will. But that doesn't reduce the desire of some residents — probably mostly recall advocates, who may know the risk and would like to see Irons and his two closely-allied colleagues sued and penalized — from demanding to know why they are going after Lueker and Schultz. Hence, their demand for "transparency." And it doesn't reduce the desire of even the Council majority's supporters to know what is going on.

The only thing Irons has said about causes of the actions against Lueker and Schultz was at the October 21 Council meeting, when he said declining to explain those causes originally mentioned at the September 12 meeting was only up to that point, and "after this meeting we will discuss what we can." But nothing yet has been forthcoming.

Irons has asked for trust by supporters, and few, if any, have refused —  at least publicly.

But the number of his critics is dwindling, as gauged by their comments declining at Council meetings in October.

Maybe that's because the bases for their attacks are paling. People are starting to ask questions about the rationale for the verbal abuse: why the uproar over the possible dismissal of the top two administrators in the City of Morro Bay —  Lueker and Schultz — when City staff members leave and reportedly have been elbowed out all the time.

The main argument being leveled against either's dismissal is that they have been cordial and supportive, and seemingly competent, to those voicing their support for keeping them with the City, i.e. the would-be recallers. If those arguments seem to lack substance, what about Lueker or Schultz possibly helping certain forces behind the scene? For example, helping people make financial gains, like with acquiring waterfront leases? The City has jurisdiction over 41 highly-valuable lease sites with four now vacant. The leases are for limited periods when they must be renewed. Who gets those leases is supposed to be up to the Council, but in the past Lueker and especially Schultz may have had a controlling hand.

Some of the recall supporters also are blaming the new Council majority for seeking other sites for a new water reclamation facility, an accusation that could be a major force behind he recall movement. But most of that blame is probably coming from Embarcadero and other businesses nearby, who are concerned about a new water reclamation facility (sewer plant) being built somewhere other than where the present plant is now located. If that happens, as is almost certain, the site of the old plant on the shore of Estero Bay would be opened to development of visitor-serving facilities such as shops, restaurants and motels, which would compete with and likely draw customers from the Embarcadero.

What the Embarcadero "special interests" fail to recognize is that the California Coastal Commission has made clear that upgrading the old plant and keeping the water reclamation facility there would violate the Coastal Act and the City's local coastal plan because that scenic area must be used for visitor-serving legally. But that truism has fallen on deaf ears for years, including those Council members ousted last year and the two still on the Council.

_______________________________________________________________

*Letter sent by George League

Morro Bay Emergency

The community crisis initiated by Mayor Irons continues.

The mayor has called for yet another special meeting of the City Council THIS MONDAY at 3:00PM at the Vet's Hall.

We need your help Monday at the 3PM meeting.

It's clear that the mayor still is intent on getting rid of Morro Bay City Attorney Rob Schultz at the meeting.

With a questionable authorization of $12,500 of city money and no contract approval by other members of the council, the mayor has engaged the services of an outside law firm for the purpose of helping him to fire both our City Attorney and City Manager. The mayor apparently began receiving legal counsel from the firm of Simas and Associates on or about October 7th.

At the regular Tuesday council meeting the Mayor intends to have the council approve the law firm contract retroactive to October 7th. The terms of the as yet unapproved proposed contract show the contract to be for services for a period of a full year with hourly attorney's fees billed at $250 per hour.

Meantime, if the mayor has his way, the Monday special meeting  will be City Attorney Rob Schultz's last service to the City.

It is clear that both the city administrator and city attorney have behaved ethically and done their jobs well. Between them they have approximately FORTY YEARS of experience serving Morro Bay.

What do you think the mayor has planned once admittedly experienced, competent and ethical people have been removed from their positions???

Where is our community headed??

What you need to do -  

SHOW UP!     BRING FRIENDS!

Even if you don't like speaking at public meetings your presence in support of speakers is important.

We're counting on you being present at the council meeting!

Signed,
George Leage & Nancy Johnson
Members Morro Bay City Council


P.S. We are informed that recall petitions will be available at the Vet's Hall on Monday.