CC min 1994-01-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Councilmember of fraud or forgery. Let me set the record straight on two poi nts: I never, ever accused) a, colleague of fraud or forgery." Councilwoman Steinfeld descfibêa' ~If'fèsponse to news reporters' questions regarding the memos she had not seen and stated she correctly characterized them when she stated they "must be a forgery" as they were undated, one was unsigned and their authenticity was not verified nor attested to, the dictionary definition of forgery or fraud. Councilwoman Steinfeld stated she challenged in writing the allegations contained in the City Attorney's memo of October 21, 1993 and asked on three occasions that the person making those allegations listen to the audio tapes. Councilwoman Steinfeld described her conversations with Mr. Franke, and staff of Senator Kopp's office regarding violations of the Brown Act. Councilwoman Steinfeld stated "the things that were stated about me and my family in a publ ic hearing, not listed as alleged, which have become a permanent part of this City record are untrue, unqualified and unfair. When they are retracted I have no problem. But until such time that bias, that aspersion is removed, then I have to assume this is a person who is not working directly with me." Councilwoman Steinfeld stated she questioned the need for additional expenditure of the taxpayers' money for outside counsel and the original bias of the letter of the investigator. Councilwoman stated she was tired of hearsay, gossip and innuendo, and that she had not made counter charges against anyone. Councilwoman Steinfeld stated she did not understand the purpose of the request for additional funds and it was a waste of money. Councilwoman Steinfeld added she would like to know why outside legal counsel was needed and what is the other piece of important information to be gathered. Councilman Greenalch stated he was at a disadvantage because the investigation was ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment on the contents of that investigation. Councilman Greenalch explained that outside legal counsel was necessary because the City Attorney, from the beginning had been put under attack and his lègal advice to the Council and the Personnel Committee had been questioned, in writing. Also it was necessary to separate out the issues, the issue of the letter that was sent regarding whether or not an investigation was legally permissible and under the purview of the City Council. That document is the one being questioned. Regardless of that document, the Council Members received letters stating that this process violated civil rights, civil procedures and the Brown Act in the conduct of this investigation. Those allegations were made in writing. The Council requested a response from the City Attorney and he stated those allegations were not true. Councilman Greenalch stated "when you attempt to seriously undermine the professional competency of another individual then it is extremely difficult for that individual to stay involved in the process. That is one reason we are asking for outside counsel. And it is, my esteemed colleague, because of some of your behavior that we have come to this point of making this recommendation. The second reason we are making this recommendation is that from the beginning of the process we had agreed that if Mr. Schricker were to stay involved and advise regardless of what the record would show the integrity of the process would continue to be questioned." Councilman Greenalch stated the process was undertaken for one reason - there were serious allegations of misconduct. The issue of the letterhead was resolved, but there was an allegation of a Regular Meeting Minutes January 17, 1994 MINUTE BOOK NO. 52 Page 5 Page No. 97 - o_,eO" , r' -- C --