San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
What Was the Deal Between the City of Atascadero and the Former Chief of Police?
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
There was no violation of law or other improper action by the City Manager of Atascadero in negotiating and signing a mutual agreement to terminate the employment of the former Chief in accordance with Section 3A of the former Chief’s Employment Agreement.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The City of Atascadero’s announcement on January 7, 2011 that the former Chief of Police resigned his position in order to spend time with his family omitted any announcement of the fact that the former Chief had at the same time signed a Settlement Agreement with a Settlement Payment of $126,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The City Manager released the Settlement Agreement only in response to a public information request.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The City’s partial and sequential disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the mutual agreement to terminate the employment of the former Chief exposed the City to media and community complaints about a lack of transparency from the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The City of Atascadero should review and consider an appropriate revision to the process by which its personnel decisions are disclosed to the public. This recommendation relates to
F5
A disparity existed between Section 5B of the former Chief’s Employment Agreement and what the Grand Jury learned was the actual evaluation process the former Chief received. 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The City Council should review the possible risk it is exposed to by a disparity between an Employment Agreement that requires the City Manager to provide a written annual review and an actual practice that does not conform to this provision. This recommendation relates to Finding 5.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Grand Jury determined that the way the City chose to disclose the story about the mutual agreement to terminate the Chief’s employment led to public confusion and complaints of the City being insufficiently transparent with respect to its expenditures. The Grand Jury is satisfied that the negotiation process which resulted in the mutual agreement method of termination was fair because under the Settlement Agreement the former Chief was advised he had a right to the assistance of counsel before he signed it, which he waived. He also had a right to revoke the Settlement Agreement before its effective date, which he did not invoke. The Grand Jury determined that the former Chief’s Employment Agreement entitled him to an annual written performance evaluation by the City Manager. The Grand Jury learned in an interview that the Chief received one written evaluation in 2009. The disparity between a 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 8 required formal written annual performance evaluation and continuing a practice that does not meet this standard warrants a further review by the City Council to determine what, if any risks, it might present to the City in the future.
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.