Bradley’s Bid to Fire Croton Is Supported by Examiner

In a scathing report summing up two weeks of testimony, a hearing officer Wednesday strongly supported Mayor Tom Bradley’s reasons for moving to fire Fred Croton as head of Los Angeles’ Cultural Affairs Department.

Civil Service Commission Hearing Examiner Mark Burstein, after testimony by Bradley and several former Croton associates, concluded that Croton lied on his 1980 city job application. He also said Croton was “insubordinate” for not vacating his office Oct. 30, as ordered by Bradley. Croton has since left his office and is on a paid leave of absence from his $58,756-a-year job.

In the 43-page report, Burstein concluded that Croton’s explanations about his work history were “woefully inadequate . . . inherently suspect and thoroughly unsupported and contradicted by all of the credible evidence.”

Action Due

Burstein’s report will be considered Monday by the Civil Service Commission, and if the panel concurs, the matter will be referred to the City Council. The council is expected to consider Croton’s firing Tuesday.

If the council agrees with Bradley that Croton should be fired, Croton could become the first general manager fired in decades, city officials said. Bradley’s move to oust Croton comes at the same time that the City Council is considering whether to fire Sylvia Cunliffe as the general manager of the General Services Department.

Bradley has charged that Croton lied when he said that he had been the director of the Sharon Creative Arts Foundation in Sharon, Conn., between March, 1973, and July, 1975, at a salary of $24,000 a year. He also accused Croton of failing to report that he had once held a job with a defunct partywares firm in the same area during the period he claimed that he was the foundation’s full-time arts director.

Political Vendetta

Croton, 53, has defended his job application and countered that Bradley moved against him as part of a political vendetta. Although Bradley denied Croton’s charges, it was widely known at City Hall that the mayor for years has been dissatisfied with Croton’s dealings with the city’s arts community.

A number of witnesses from Connecticut were called by the city to refute Croton’s claims. They testified that Croton never held the position of director and played only a minor role in the foundation’s operations. It was apparent in the report that Burstein sided with the Connecticut witnesses, not with Croton.

Burstein was unimpressed by Croton’s claim that he was appointed by a “shadow president” no longer connected with the foundation and was paid his salary by another former foundation president who has since died. The testimony was designed to rebut testimony by city witnesses that the foundation never named Croton president, and that it could not afford to pay anyone a salary.

Credibility Hit

Characterizing Croton’s version as “incomprehensible,” “implausible” and “replete with other examples that demonstrated (his) lack of credibility,” Burstein concluded that the embattled general manager “knowingly and willfully” misrepresented his past.

“While resumes and/or applications are always subject to hyperbole and puffery,” Burstein said, “at some point acceptable exaggerations become false misrepresentations.

“Since Croton continued to maintain the veracity of the statement in his application and the evidence contradicted that claim, it is logical to infer and it must be concluded that Croton made knowingly and willfully false representations in his application.”

Not Surprised

Croton could not be reached for comment, but his attorney, Richard Grey, said Burstein’s report was “disappointing but not surprising given the kind of atmosphere we had to contend with during the hearing and the pressure the hearing examiner is under in his role.”

Asked to explain, Grey said, “The hearing examiner is appointed by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, and they’re appointed by the mayor.”

However, Grey said he was not questioning Burstein’s impartiality in the case.