Anti-Firing of Lueker, Schultz Buried in Politics

Synopsis: Last month two City Council meetings, focused on whether City Manager Andrea Lueker and City Attorney Rob Schultz might be reprimanded or fired from their jobs, drew packed audiences scarred by attacks on the Council majority of Jamie Irons, Christine Johnson, and Noah Smukler, who were accused of needlessly considering the  dismissal of the two administrators. Those attackers claimed it was all about them being fired when it could just as easily be reprimands.

An effort to recall Mayor Irons was revealed by Council opponents as Irons issued responses to that effort and charges contained in it. It remains to be seen whether Lueker and Schultz will be held accountable for not informing the public about a meeting of the old Council (before Irons/Johnson/Smukler were elected last year) on November 1, 2012, where their severance pay was increased by 50%, and the public was reportedly never informed — until now.

Nicole Dorfman, a prominent and insightful Morro Bay resident, said it best at the City Council meeting on September12. That meeting was packed with residents, mostly those who castigated the Council majority for considering some kind of action, ranging from reprimand to dismissal, against City Manager Andrea Lueker and City Attorney Rob Schultz, .

She sought to explain the packed Vets Hall for the meeting by saying, "A big part of the town is not happy because their 'playground' has been taken away."

She was alluding to the election on June 5, 2012, of Jamie Irons, Christine Johnson, and Noah Smukler to the Council, which took away the political power of the business and special interests in city politics by removing their elected supporters on the Council, Who had controlled it for decades, as well as during nearly all of the city's 49-year-history.

Instead of a big part of the town, she might have more accurately alluded to a relatively small but moneyed and powerful part of town. But she got it right politically.

That's right — their accusations against the Council members that the allegations against Lueker and Schultz were all about politics, were actually all about politics themselves.

The Council-attackers were seeking to undermine the efforts of Irons, Johnson, and Smukler to investigate and possibly hold Lueker and Schultz accountable (reportedly) for their role in a closed session on November 1, 2012 of the previous Council — one controlled then by four of five members beholden to business and special interests, which may have violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law for public agencies. Lueker's and Schultz's severance pay was increased by 50% at that meeting.

There are those who find holding such a meeting just about a month before the new Council majority was to be seated (December 11) to be highly unethical, if not illegal. Why? Because raising the severance pay of the city's top two administrators, an extremely significant act, should arguably be left to the new Council, who would have to work with those administrators, while most of the Council that increased their severance would be gone in thirty-nine days.

Even though the notice of the September 12 Council meeting (Morro Bay - Archive Center) stated it was to consider "discipline/dismissal/release" of Lueker and Schultz, only dismissal or release of those top two city administrators was mentioned by those speaking at that meeting, even though, obviously, the Council would be and is free to pursue either discipline or dismissal/release. Obviously, those supporters of Lueker and Schultz and opponents of the Council majority had been tipped about the September 12 closed session because they were able to pack the meeting room with only a day's notice of the meeting. It seems likely the tip came from Council members Nancy Johnson or George Leage or Lueker or Schultz.

Supporters of Irons, Nancy Johnson and Smukler did not turn out in larger numbers because there was no reason to. Their Council members were in control and doing the right thing. So why turn out? No one knew in advance the other side would pack the place, verbally assault the Council majority, and claim a recall was in the making.

At both the September 12th and 24th meetings, speakers announced that a move to recall Irons has been launched. It is far from being ready for submission to voters, the city clerk's office said. Even if a recall petition is approved by the city clerk, a date for voting on the recall is still up in the air.

By focusing on dismissal/release and perhaps not even mentioning discipline, it was easy for the tipper(s) to motivate followers to pack the meeting room and to instill their supporters with passion, which their comments at the meeting were filled with. But certainly not passion regarding discipline, which was not even mentioned.

On September 24, the Council held another meeting on the Lueker-Schultz issue, this time on Irons' proposal to "Obtain Outside Independent Legal Counsel to Advise City Council on City Manager and City Attorney Contracts and Related Issues" at a cost not to exceed $12,500.00. (See item A-7 at Morro Bay - Archive Center). It was approved by a vote of 3-1, with Leage voting "no" and Nancy Johnson absent from the meeting.

The independent legal counsel is expected to be hired soon and begin an analysis of the legal propriety of the November 1, 2012, meeting. The possible "charges" against Lueker and Schultz claim the public was not notified in a timely way that a meeting had taken place after the November 1, 2012, session, and that he topic of discussion was their severance pay.

It is virtually certain that neither Lueker nor Schultz will be be charged or prosecuted for the November 1, 2012 meeting not being handled properly. The statute of limitations has expired. That is likely why Lueker and Schultz would not be dismissed "with cause." But cause is not needed — both Lueker and Schultz serve at the will of the Council majority.

Irons, Johnson, and Smukler have the majority power for use in exercising their will and are likely to have agreed to use it throughout the consideration of the Lueker-Schultz episode. And they have stood united on practically every matter that has come before the Council since they were seated nine months ago.

As far as the recall, the city clerk's office said it is now waiting for Iron's "answer" to recall charges, which is due by today, Tuesday, October 1. Then the proponents will have ten days to provide that office with two blank copies of the recall petition as well as proof of publication of the notice of intent to recall. Once that occurs, the clerk's office has ten days to validate the recall petition. If it is found to be insufficient, then proponents have the opportunity to correct their insufficiencies. If the recall petition is found to be sufficient, proponents then have 90 days to collect signatures and present them to the city clerk's office.

The grounds of the proposed recall and its proponents are here: Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition