Despite a $233,000 payment settlement to City Attorney Helene
Leichter in return for a promise not to sue and her resignation,
City Council members say they are surprised not to have hardly
heard from the public.
Despite a $233,000 payment settlement to City Attorney Helene Leichter in return for a promise not to sue and her resignation, City Council members say they are surprised not to have hardly heard from the public.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy said he had received only one call.
“And it wasn’t an actual complaint about the payment,” Kennedy said.
Councilmen Steve Tate, Greg Sellers, Larry Carr and Mark Grzan all said they hadn’t been contacted by the public.
“I’ve had casual conversations with acquaintances about the subject but I haven’t gotten any calls or e-mails,” Tate said.
Sellers and Grzan reacted the same way when asked about the settlement.
“We can console ourselves with the notion that, given the same information, most people would have done the same thing,” Sellers said.
“It’s the right thing for the city,” Grzan said.
This is the second settlement apparently stemming from allegations by former Councilwoman Hedy Chang that Leichter was having an affair with City Manager Ed Tewes – which they both continuously and strongly deny.
In September 2004, Leichter was paid $25,000 and her attorney $15,000. It allowed her to work from home two days a week through the end of the year and to take an additional seven weeks’ vacation. The payment was in compensation “for emotional distress and physical injury,” the settlement said.
Leichter has been on leave for much of 2005.
The latest settlement requires the council not divulge the reasons for the action unless ordered by a court.
“The community has a right to know the details behind the settlement,” Times Editor Walt Glines said in explaining the newspaper’s filing of an Open Records Act request for correspondence and e-mails related to the action. “This is a lot of money for a city that is facing serious budget problems. The council owes the community more of an explanation.”
The latest settlement includes $161,250 for “compensation for alleged physical injury or sickness.” The agreement does not list any description of what the injury or sickness might be.
The remainder includes $53,750 for Leichter’s salary and benefits to July 1, $18,055.80 for accrued vacation to July 1 (at $70.73 per hour).
Leichter’s current contract was to have been in effect until Sept. 1, 2006. Although Leichter will remain on the city payroll through July 1, she has been “relieved of all job responsibilities and authority effective” April 20, according to the agreement.
As is usual in California employment agreements, the Leichter-city agreement is “at-will” – meaning either party can separate from the other at any time with, in this case, 60 days’ notice on either side. If Leichter was still willing and able to perform the duties of city attorney and the council ended the relationship, she would receive a lump sum equal to 12 months’ base salary and benefits, according to the contract.
One difference between the two settlement agreements is that in, April 2005, Leichter agreed not to file any lawsuit even if new information comes to light. This was specifically not included in the September 2004 pact. It says:
“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.”
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.
