EDITOR: At this point all I know is what read in the June 16
edition of the Morgan Hill Times in which Councilman Steve Tate is
quoted as saying,
“I don’t want to know what the legalities are, that is not what
I am basing this on, but to get this behind us, minimize our
expense, but to make sure this does not happen again.”
EDITOR:
At this point all I know is what read in the June 16 edition of the Morgan Hill Times in which Councilman Steve Tate is quoted as saying, “I don’t want to know what the legalities are, that is not what I am basing this on, but to get this behind us, minimize our expense, but to make sure this does not happen again.”
It also quotes Mayor Dennis Kennedy as saying, “We as council elected to conduct this investigation using city funds … the City Council hires two city employees directly, the city manager and the city attorney, and it is our responsibility to insure that they are provided with a safe and healthy working environment, free from harassment of any kind.”
Apparently, what occurred is that someone hired a an attorney to investigate the Morgan Hill city manager and city attorney. Now, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, the City of Morgan Hill is a public corporation that is technically owned and operated by and for the citizens of Morgan Hill. The Mayor and City Council are elected by its citizens to conduct their civic business in their best interest and in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the Federal Government. The City Council may have a duty to provide a “safe and healthy working environment” for its employees but it has a higher duty to the interests of the public.
Just for the sake of discussion, let us assume that one or more members of the City Council suspected that one or more of their direct employees were engaged in activities that were not in our best interest. What should or could they do? Well, first of all the Brown Act forbids a majority of the City Council (three or more) from discussing any matter relative to the city outside of an official public or closed meeting. This means that they could not talk about their suspicions without the subject employees knowing about it. They then have dilemma because they still have a duty to assure that the city is being operated in our best interest.
The only options I can think of besides ignoring the issue is to take it to an outside agency such as the county District Attorney, Grand Jury or investigate it privately. Going to county agencies is problematic unless one knows that no personal relationships exist between them and the subject parties. Therefore, it does not surprise me that some unnamed person initiated a private investigation and, so what that they did.
Let us assume for a moment that there was, in fact, nothing wrong going on. In that case an honest investigation would dispel the suspicion and that would be that; all of it done privately, nobody adversely affected, and the public’s interests would be served in the bargain.
Now, according to The Times, the city manager suspected he was under surveillance. He then took this to the City Council in a closed session, which may have been a violation of the Brown Act, and the council decided to spend our money to investigate this alleged surveillance. But why? If they thought that the motive behind the alleged surveillance was to compromise our interests as citizens then it may have been justified. If I went on a business trip, came back to my company and told my boss I thought I was under surveillance, I seriously doubt they would be interested in hiring an investigator for me, and I can’t imagine even asking them to do so.
Now Councilman Steve Tate is not interested in the legalities. Sorry Steve, but that is the only thing that should be of interest. The meeting in closed session to spend city funds to investigate an alleged surveillance could be constructed as a conspiracy to obstruct justice in addition to just plain wrong.
Bruce Tichinin should be praised rather than condemned for what he did. True, we do not know what his investigation would have found or what his client would have done with the information. But that is not his fault. We will never know if it would have been put to appropriate or inappropriate use because the city manager, city attorney and City Council apparently used our public resources to quash the investigation. If the city attorney and/or city manager had ever been publicly accused of wrongdoing, then use of city resources may have become justifiable. They jumped the gun. At a minimum, the Council abused their authority.
Condemnation goes to the Council; it is their actions that must not be repeated.
Dennis Pinion, Morgan Hill
