I just came across a recently written letter by the attorney of former city finance director Maureen Lennon, who is suing the City of Pacifica, Jim Vreeland, Cecilia Quick, Ann Ritzma, and Does 1-20 (whoever they are). The letter castigates the City Council for refusing to negotiate a settlement with Lennon, who is suing for wrongful termination and defamation. I thought it was an interesting and juicy piece of legal gossip. The letter appears below (click to enlarge). This TRIBUNE STORY explains the lawsuit and what led up to it.
STEVE SINAI
Mister Fernork . . . if Maureen Lennon's initial claims were around $300,000 and this goes to trial, the city will be paying out a lot more than $150,000. If there is legitimacy to Maureen Lennon's claim that the City Attorney violated labor law and undermined the job in Palm Springs, damages could be much worse. And I can think of nothing more incriminating to our City Council and City Attorney than to have their former finance director testify under oath about their financial dealings.
And I have yet to receive an adequate reply to my inquiries as to why the city paid Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger over $20,000 for legal services out of the Sharp Pk WWTP Redesign - City Hall Capital Improvement Fund, or why the City refuses to release the appraisal that was performed on that property in summer of 2007.
What really baffles me is that this is one instance I would have actually supported the City Attorney to seek outside counsel instead of continuing to advise City Council. Seems pretty fundamental to me that if you are named in a claim or a lawsuit, prudence would dictate you not influence the other defendants.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | October 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Unfortunately, based on The City's poor past performance with regard to - well, everything - I have no confidence that Pacifica will prevail in this matter. With the delicate financial situation of The City, I'm amazed at the continued reckless behavior of counsel and council.
Posted by: Vicki Moore | October 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Wow! Here's my take on the outcome of this suit. Cecelia blusters like she knows what she's doing, her "dial-an-attorney" files a bunch of papers, stretch it out so that they can bill Pacifica a bunch of money, when it get's to discovery, scramble and set up settlement talks, bluster about what a strong case Pacifica has, Vreeland and Quick whisper in a corner, Vreeland demands a settlement be reached knowing full well that NO ONE can be allowed to testify about anything under oath, Pacifica settles, Quick announces what a great job she did protecting the city from another frivolous lawsuit, Pacifica cuts Lennon a check for $150,000, case closed. Brilliant lawyering! Why cut a check for $30,000 when you can put a struggling law firm to work for a few months on Pacifica's dime.
Damn, i love this town!
Posted by: Lance Fernork | October 12, 2008 at 08:41 AM
The city's case is uncertain.
What we do know is that in July 2007, the interim city manager Wm. Norton, on the way out the door, fired Ms. Lennon and recommended that the city consolidate the positions of Human Resources and Finance Director into a new position of General Administrative Director. (or some such,I don't have it all before me)
The result is that we have no one in the top tier of city management with financial expertise.
The city is rudderless, in my opinion. Without a finance director, how in the he** is one to understand all the complex issues that face us?
Posted by: Lionel Emde | October 10, 2008 at 10:13 PM