S.D. City Attorney Defends Secret-Payment Cover-Up : Scandal: Witt says he followed city manager’s orders. Council plans meeting today on controversy.

San Diego City Atty. John Witt said Sunday he acted appropriately and was following orders when he did not inform City Council members about a $100,000 payment to an employee who had filed a complaint against her boss--the city planning director--with whom she had a personal relationship.

Saying he was following a directive from then-City Manager John Lockwood, who approved the payment, Witt added: “The decision not to inform the City Council was made by the city manager. I see no reason for me, completely out of the loop, to somehow countermand that decision.”

At the demand of Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Planning Director Robert Spaulding resigned his post Friday when word spread that his involvement with a female employee had led to the $100,000 disability payment.

City officials, who say they cannot disclose the employee’s name because of privacy concerns, say the woman is no longer on the job. According to sources, the woman was an experienced member of the Planning Department who handled much of the Gaslamp Quarter planning.

The employee filed a sexual harassment complaint late last year that evolved into a stress disability complaint, Councilman Ron Roberts said. This complaint, he said, may have been laundered into a more socially acceptable one.

“There appears to have been an attempt to replace the original complaint with a disability agreement,” he said.

While declining to answer questions concerning the incident with Spaulding’s employee, Witt said that “sexual harassment cases could result in stressful situations that could result in disability claims. That happens.”

Witt also said the handling of the incident was legitimate and broke no law. “There was no legal problem with it. There’s nothing wrong legally with what went on.”

Today, the City Council will meet in closed session to review the facts of the scandal that has rocked the city during the past two days. City officials will try to piece together what occurred between Spaulding and his employee, as well as determine which officials knew about the payment. Roberts and other council members believe officials with the Personnel Department--in addition to Lockwood and Witt--may have been aware of the case.

“There appears to have been a polite agreement among several people,” Roberts said.

Rich Snapper, the city’s director of personnel, was unavailable for comment.

At today’s meeting, officials will also discuss whether it was appropriate for the mayor to ask for Spaulding’s resignation, Witt said. According to the City Charter, he said, the City Council, not the mayor, has the power to fire the planning director.

“I’m not saying she (O’Connor) did it wrong, but we have to look into it,” Witt said.

Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer also said she questioned the mayor’s actions.

“Basically, I don’t know whether simply having a relationship is grounds for dismissal,” Wolfsheimer said.

Witt is also coming under increasing fire as officials blast him for failing to inform the council about the “stress disability” case. However, he said he played a minor role and only approved the wording of documents that enabled the woman to forfeit future claims concerning the incident against the city.

“I had no part of the thing itself. I have not reviewed the facts of the case and I don’t care to know the facts,” said Witt, who added that if the case had been adjudicated through the courts, it could have cost the city $1 million.

Councilman Bruce Henderson said it was “incomprehensible” that Witt neglected to inform the council about Spaulding’s role in the disability claim, especially because the council oversees, hires and fires the planning director. A sexual harassment complaint is relevant as the council evaluates Spaulding’s performance, he said.

“As soon as the city attorney discovers these facts, he has a duty to advise City Council,” Henderson said. “The fact that he didn’t do it is utterly incomprehensible to me.”

Witt’s response that he was taking his cue from Lockwood was “passing the buck,” Henderson said.

Wolfsheimer said: “The person who ends out looking the worst is Mr. Witt; he is the one who has the authority to make the settlement or not. And it just looks like Mr. Lockwood was trying to become the scapegoat for him.”

Councilwoman Judy McCarty said the entire episode seemed to demonstrate an ongoing battle between elected and non-elected officials over who holds the reins to the city.

“Elected officials are there for a reason. . . . We are supposed to be in charge,” she said.

McCarty denounced Spaulding’s actions, saying: “You don’t get into these behavior situations at that level--you are supposed to know better. And if you do, you don’t hide it.”

Lockwood, who retired as city manager in March after working 41 years for the city government, said in an earlier interview that he deliberately kept secret the $100,000 payments to Spaulding’s employee because he wanted to protect the families of those involved. Lockwood said he tried to keep the cash payment under $20,000 to avoid detection. At that amount, the council must be informed. Roughly $70,000 was intended to be paid to the woman in deferred payments for long-term disability.

Lockwood, a longtime ally of O’Connor, also said earlier that the details of the claim would have become public if the matter had come up at a council meeting.

Roberts, however, disputed Lockwood’s version, saying: “There’s a willingness on Lockwood’s part to take full blame, but I don’t think that’s where it stops. . . . I’m not buying that this was done for the most noble motives to keep families out.”

Lockwood, now director of general services for the state of California, has maintained that his actions were legal and ethically correct--a position Witt endorsed.

In fact, Witt said, Lockwood faces no punishment for his role in approving the payments or attempting to keep the payment a secret.

“How do you do it? He’s gone. There’s no recourse in criminal court--there’s no crime committed,” Witt said.

Spaulding, who was initially scheduled for an annual review by the council within the next few weeks, was unavailable for comment. Spaulding, who is married with four children--the youngest of whom is 12--earned slightly more than $100,000 a year. During his review, council members would have evaluated whether Spaulding warranted a raise. Spaulding had held his post since November, 1987.

Tom Story, deputy director of development and urban planning, said most Planning Department employees were shocked to learn that Spaulding had quit. He was an “able administrator” who had brought a burst of energy to the department, Story said.

“He was really a shot in the arm in having someone at the city articulate a vision of where the city needed to go . . . and how we dealt with our customers,” Story said.

But Spaulding clearly was a controversial figure in the department.

His abrupt departure capped what had been a stormy four-year stint in the Planning Department. From October, 1988, to October, 1989, 42 members of the department’s 255-member staff quit. At least 28 of those employees were involved in the actual planning or review of residential, commercial and industrial development projects. According to a report issued by Spaulding, low pay was a major reason for the departures.

At the time, however, several disgruntled employees blamed Spaulding, saying he had destroyed morale with an emphasis on accommodating developers.

In an anonymous two-page letter dated Oct. 16, 1989, to O’Connor and all eight council members, complaints were voiced about the attrition rate in the Planning Department, dismissal of managers “without apparent reason” and “unfair” promotions.

“The staff of the Planing Department is severely strained and feels powerless to improve the situation for fear of recrimination,” according to the letter. “I implore you to take what action you can to correct these basic problems within the department before the public is made to suffer.”