A five-month investigation into why a private investigator was
following the city manager could end with a local attorney and a
city councilwoman in hot water. The City Council will hear and
discuss the report, and hear the other side of the story, in public
at 5 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall. The resulting report, prepared by
Councilmen Greg Sellers and Larry Carr, reads like the script for a
detective show.
A five-month investigation into why a private investigator was following the city manager could end with a local attorney and a city councilwoman in hot water.
The City Council will hear and discuss the report, and hear the other side of the story, in public at 5 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall.
The resulting report, prepared by Councilmen Greg Sellers and Larry Carr, reads like the script for a detective show. It alleges that attorney Bruce Tichinin – a long-time resident with a lengthy history of public involvement and generosity – had hired the investigator to prove an “adulterous sexual relation” between the city manager and the city attorney. The report suggests two possible reasons why he may have done so.
Councilwoman Hedy Chang, the report states, had hired Tichinin to defend her against claims of defamation and harassment made against her by City Attorney Helene Leichter.
Leichter’s claims arose from statements allegedly made by Chang to others that Leichter and City Manager Ed Tewes were having the adulterous relationship. Both are married and have children.
The second possible reason stems from several land-use cases Tichinin is handling – which council will decide – taking into consideration recommendations by city staff, including the city manager.
Chang said Monday afternoon that she was sure her name would be cleared.
“I received the report Friday afternoon and strongly disagree with the assertions concerning me,” Chang said. “A detailed rebuttal will be issued after I have a chance to fully review it with my attorney.”
Chang, a two-term council member and former school board member, was also the 1994 Woman of the Year and has worked tirelessly for the Dayworker Center and other issues benefiting the local population. She said she hoped residents would remember who she is.
“The citizens of Morgan Hill have known me for a long time and know what kind of person I am. I am fully confident that, after the truth is out, my name will be completely cleared,” she said.
Tichinin did not return calls Monday asking for a statement.
At a Feb. 3, 2004, lunch meeting between Tichinin, Tewes, Leichter and Tichinin’s client and financial partner, Howard Vierra, the report said that Vierra said he was disappointed that Tewes was “not on his side” in a land-use matter. Also present was Vierra’s wife.
“What would it take to get you on my side,” Vierra is quoted as saying in the report.
Tichinin is alleged to have told Tewes and Leichter that they risked a lawsuit seeking personal damages, saying he thought they had a personal interest in the outcome motivated by “personal animus related to ‘that other matter.’”
Since Chang had used the same language, Sellers and Carr in an interview Monday said they suspected this referred to Chang’s allegations of an improper relationship between Tewes and Leichter and Leichter’s claims of harassment against Chang.
At the meeting, Tewes mentioned an upcoming trip on city business. According to the report, later that afternoon, Chang phoned Tewes urging him “not to be angry” at Tichinin since he was no longer acting as her attorney in the defamation matter, trying, the report claimed, to distance herself.
Chang asked city staff about Tewes’ travel plans, including schedule and hotel reservation but did not contact him while he was at a League of California Cities meeting in Huntington Beach, the report states. The fact that Leichter would be out of town during the same period was known only to council members.
THE PRIVATE EYE
While Tewes was on his trip, the report said, he encountered several odd things.
First he returned to his room to find a room service order of hot chocolate for two that he had not ordered.
Carr and Sellers later found that Hyatt room service only takes orders from the phone in the room doing the ordering.
“It is possible that someone, other than hotel staff was in Tewes’ room,” Sellers said.
Next a League staffer mentioned that Hyatt hotel staff had changed a man’s room assignment to one across from Tewes’ room “because they were co-workers.” The report says the man in question told the bellboy who helped him move his belongings that he was a private investigator, explaining that “he needed to be close to Mr. Tewes to ‘keep an eye on him.’”
The hotel’s security director was alerted and notified the League staff.
“Mr. Tewes found the information very alarming,” the report said.
Tewes also received a phone call from a man looking for a “Jason” who, the front desk confirmed, was not registered at the hotel.
Finally, when Tewes left his room to check out, he did so loudly thinking he could be followed. He waited in a hallway alcove where he saw a man walk past him with a video camera that appeared to be turned on.
“Upon seeing Mr. Tewes in the alcove,” the report said, “the man immediately diverted his camera.”
Tewes followed the man downstairs to the lobby. The man waited nearby until Tewes’ car arrived but did not follow.
POSSIBLE MOTIVES
Tewes told Carr and Sellers that he carefully reviewed his personal and professional actions, wondering what could have prompted someone to order the surveillance.
Because he could think of no marital problems, family or social concerns, nor any workers’ compensation claims from his office or other controversial situations, he concluded that the cause must be from his professional life. On Feb. 20, Carr and Sellers, as the investigating subcommittee, directed Leichter to hire their own private investigator to look into the case.
Investigator Kelly Jones discovered that Brian Carey, a Santa Cruz resident who is not a licensed private investigator, was the man who followed Tewes, the report states. Jones was unable to find who had hired Carey but in March Tewes identified Carey as the man with the camera from a videotape.
Jones met with Carey several times who described himself as a “slammer” – someone, the report said, who beats up people for fun and as a skateboard punk involved in the ‘dharma punk’ movement, the report states.
NEXT CHAPTER
At the end of April Leichter asked Chang if she would waive her attorney-client privilege with Tichinin so Leichter could ask him if he was involved in hiring Carey. Chang said she would consult her new attorney. In the meantime Leichter called Tichinin and asked him if he had anything to do with Tewes’ surveillance. Tichinin said no, he had not hired or caused to be hired an investigator on Chang’s behalf, the report states.
In early May several things happened.
Tichinin denied any involvement to Sellers and said he didn’t think Tewes had adequately fulfilled his duties as city manager and should not have his contract renewed. Chang called Sellers and Carr about Leichter’s calls to herself and Tichinin. Chang denied having anything to do with, or knowing about the surveillance, the report states.
Tichinin sent a formal letter and fax to Leichter stating that he “did not hire a private investigator to conduct surveillance of Mr. Tewes on behalf of Ms. Chang.” He also denied ever discussing such surveillance with the councilwoman.
In mid-May Chang, Sellers and Mayor Dennis Kennedy went to Sacramento for a League legislative conference. Chang urged Sellers “several times” to discuss the investigation with Tichinin but did not explain why.
When Sellers met with Tichinin, the attorney admitted that he had arranged for the surveillance, apologized for having lied and said the surveillance was on behalf of a client other than Chang. Sellers reported that Tichinin said Tewes should “let go” of his concern over the surveillance, “get over it and move on.”
At a later meeting Tichinin told Sellers that the city had no legal recourse against him since no crime was committed. However, when Sellers asked why the surveillance, Tichinin is alleged to have told him:
“Mr. Tichinin stated that he felt the city council had made up its mind that there was no sexual relationship between Mr. Tewes and Ms. Leichter, and no reason to believe there was any improper influence on their judgment or advice to the city council on matters of interest to Mr. Tichinin’s clients. Therefore, Mr. Tichinin explained, his only recourse was to ‘offer proof’ by placing Mr. Tewes under surveillance in hopes of catching him with Ms. Leichter in Huntington Beach. That discovery could then be used to undermine the city attorney.”
Sellers said Tichinin continued to say he was confident that there was a sexual relationship between the two but could provide no proof; he questioned trips the two took – or planned to take – to Yosemite during the summer of 2003. Sellers said Leichter was going to the national park with her family; Tewes was scheduled to go with other city employees who were going to climb Half Dome. Tewes canceled his trip.
DID CHANG KNOW?
At a later meeting with Carr, Chang said she couldn’t say anything about Tichinin’s role in the surveillance because she “didn’t know what he was going to do.”
“I told him not to do it, but he did it anyway,” Carr said Chang told him; she later said the same thing to Sellers.
The report concludes that, despite denials from Chang and Tichinin, that Chang did appear to have acted with Tichinin before and after the surveillance.
It concludes that the surveillance involved not only watching Tewes but deception in lying to the hotel staff and that Tichinin gave misleading information to the city attorney and initially lied to council members.
It concludes that Chang discussed the surveillance with Tichinin before and after it happened and that her unwillingness to tell what she knew caused the city to incur as much as $50,000 in investigative costs, to date.
Both Chang and Tichinin will be able to respond to the charges at Wednesday’s meeting.
Tewes provided this statement Monday.
“My family and I have been deeply disturbed to learn that a local attorney, with pending matters before the city government, arranged for a secret surveillance of my activities in an effort to discredit me and the city attorney.
“That individual’s conduct is reckless and harmful. I am pleased that the City Council has understood the significance of this matter and has discovered important facts, and will now consider steps to hold those responsible to account.
“We may never know what motivated the individuals responsible, but we know with certainty that the belief that the city attorney and I were having an affair is baseless and untrue. We know that some may have spread damaging rumors no matter how false.
“This has been a trying time for me personally, but I have confirmed to the City Council my intent to meet my responsibilities to the community and the city staff without fear or favor.”
Leichter said she would have no comment at this time.
Mayor Kennedy was also reluctant to speak Monday.
“I would prefer not to comment until after we hear both sides,” Kennedy said. He expected to hear more information and interpretations at Wednesday’s meeting.
Councilman Steve Tate could not be reached for comment on Monday.
Carol Holzgrafe covers City Hall for The Times. She can be reached by e-mail at ch********@*************es.com or phoning (408) 779-4106 Ext. 201.
