Cunliffe Will Lose Job if Charges Not Refuted--Bradley

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley on Monday told General Services Department chief Sylvia Cunliffe that he intends to seek her dismissal unless she can refute a series of accusations by the city attorney, including harassment of a city employee who accused her of misconduct.

“The city attorney, at my request, investigated all of the available facts,” Bradley said. “He has responded by providing me with a list of allegations that are supported by credible, admissible evidence. I have reviewed those allegations and determined that they are serious enough to warrant Sylvia Cunliffe’s discharge.”

However, the mayor said, he will reconsider if she can show that the charges against her are without foundation.

Cunliffe’s Response

Cunliffe replied: “I feel my constitutional rights and my human rights have been violated. I was promised I would have an opportunity, not only to answer questions, but to show the significant advances made during my tenure.

“I have acted properly in all respects with the city’s best interests in mind,” Cunliffe said in an interview. “I have made major accomplishments with little or no resources because I am known as a ‘get it done’ person.”

Neither Bradley nor the city attorney’s office would release the charges against Cunliffe. “Based upon the city attorney’s advice, and in the interest of basic fairness, I will make no further statement on the number or nature of the charges or the evidence upon which they rest,” the mayor said in a statement to reporters at a City Hall press conference.

But Godfrey Isaac, Cunliffe’s attorney, said the “primary” accusation involves Robert O’Neill, a real estate officer in the General Services Department, who made several anonymous telephone calls on a city hot line set up to receive complaints. He accused Cunliffe of improprieties, including renting a city-owned house in the Pacific Palisades to a top employee of Street Scene, a downtown music festival that had been one of Cunliffe’s favorite projects.

Disparaging Memos

Cunliffe found out O’Neill’s identity, even though hot line callers were promised anonymity. She then sent memos to Bradley and the City Council that said O’Neill had an arrest record and had suffered from alcoholism. O’Neill said that the arrests were when he was a teen-ager in Connecticut and that he has been in an alcoholic recovery program for 20 years, all of which he said was known to city officials.

Reprisals against public employees who blow the whistle on their supervisors are prohibited by city and state law.

City law forbids supervisorial action against workers who report illegalities, “gross waste of city funds, gross abuse of authority, specific and substantial danger to public health or safety, . . . use of a city office for personal gain or . . . conflict of interest. . . .”

While city law offers limited sanctions (an employee may file a complaint with the Personnel Department) the state law provides for a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and a year in County Jail for supervisors convicted of reprisals against whistle-blowing employees.

Isaac said another allegation involved the Palisades house rental. Another, he said, referred to the fact that Cunliffe’s mother worked for the General Services Department.

Bradley’s action against the $90,243-a-year executive sets off a potentially long and complex procedure strictly regulated by city laws, which the mayor has long sought to repeal, giving department heads Civil Service protection.

Cunliffe must reply to the charges by Oct. 5. If he is not satisfied with her answers, Bradley says, he will fire her, an action that must be approved by a majority of the City Council. After that, Cunliffe could continue her fight before the city’s Civil Service Commission and in the courts.

City Council President John Ferraro said he thought a majority of the 15-member council would support Bradley if the mayor made a final decision to fire Cunliffe.

“I would think the mayor’s position would be sustained,” Ferraro said. “If he felt it was necessary to discharge her, I would think there would be support on the council for that.”

As for himself, Ferraro said he wanted to see the evidence, but he added, “As cautious as the mayor has been, if he recommended dismissal, I would probably go along with that. You know how cautious Tom is.”

The council’s personnel committee chair, Joy Picus, said, “I am sure she (Cunliffe) has some support” but, as for most of her colleagues, she said, “They may be where I am at. They want to hear the facts before making up their minds.”

But Isaac said, “I think she has tremendous support on the City Council.”

Isaac said Cunliffe will fight, declaring “her intention is to remain as general manager.”

But Cunliffe indicated that she is worried about her ability to sustain a long job fight.

“The biggest problem is an economic one,” she said. “If you are charged, tried and convicted before you are heard and if you have to engage legal counsel to represent you and if you are a wage earner, it becomes economically devastating. I have not been motivated to make a lot of money and I don’t have a lot of money.”

Cunliffe has filed the papers that clear the way for retirement. But if she fights and wins, and remains on the job until she reaches the age of 55 next spring, she would not only receive a pension of about 65% of her salary but, city officials said, would be eligible for a cash payment for part of her unused vacation time that they said would bring her $17,000. This month, Cunliffe will have finished her 30th year in city service, entitling her to pension benefits that would be less than if she remained on the job until her 55th birthday.