Lewis Did Not Reveal Unfavorable Report : Government: The recently fired city manager had obtained a legal opinion stating that some of his personnel practices may have been contrary to city codes.

Shortly after dodging a City Council investigation into his job performance earlier this year, City Manager Mark Lewis quietly obtained an outside legal opinion that some of his personnel practices may have violated city codes.

Lewis--who was fired July 22 by council members who cited improper personnel decisions, among other things--never disclosed the legal findings to the council. Instead, he says, he filed the report away and did not reverse any of the personnel actions in question.

One council member, Judy Chu, charged last week that Lewis intentionally hid the March 27, 1991, report from the council, and then ordered a staff member to destroy all copies of it. The staff member, whom Chu would not name, rescued one copy and gave it to her two weeks ago, she said.

Lewis strongly denied that he had tried to conceal the report.

Chu provided reporters with copies of the legal opinion at a press conference she called Friday to explain her reasons for firing Lewis. She said she decided to publicize the issue, along with other actions Lewis has taken, to counter criticism that she acted unfairly.

Chu, along with Mayor Betty Couch and Councilwoman Marie T. Purvis, formed the majority in the 3-2 vote to fire Lewis. They blamed him for several department head resignations and low employee morale. The council suspended him for 30 days, effectively giving him notice. Lewis appealed his ouster Friday, and awaits a public hearing before the City Council on the matter.

The cost of the legal opinion, issued by the now-disbanded Palo Alto firm Whitmore, Kay & Stevens, was $1,170, said acting City Manager Chris Jeffers.

The law firm, which provided Monterey Park with legal advice on labor matters, stated in its opinion that Lewis may have violated city codes when he gave Economic Development Director Keith Breskin a 10% raise in October, 1990, his third raise in 15 months.

It also states that Lewis may have failed to comply with city codes and a contract with an employee association last year when he promised certain benefits to his new administrative assistant, Beth Fujishige.

Upon hiring Fujishige, Lewis gave her an automatic two weeks each of sick leave and vacation time. However, under the city’s personnel rules, Lewis should have waited a year before giving Fujishige vacation time, and 30 days before giving her sick leave, the report said.

In addition, the opinion warned that another salary raise Lewis offered, while not in direct violation of city personnel rules, was excessive and could have contributed to low employee morale and charges of favoritism. That raise was given to Assistant City Manager Susan Chow while she served as acting community development director.

Lewis said he ordered the legal opinion shortly after two City Council members, Couch and Purvis, accused him of violating city codes in a wide range of matters, including those mentioned in the report.

On March 11, the two council members had called for an investigation of Lewis’ management practices and employee complaints, but were turned down by the rest of the council, including Chu.

That same day, Purvis also had asked City Atty. Anthony Canzoneri for a legal opinion on the raises given to Breskin and Chow, Fujishige’s benefits and several other matters. But she was told by Lewis that she needed a majority council vote to order such a report.

Later that month, Lewis went ahead and asked for a legal opinion from the Palo Alto firm, expecting to prove he had done nothing wrong.

Instead, the report came back saying he may have acted improperly.

“To be extra careful I asked for a confirmation, for a memorandum to back up our decision, to make sure we had done the right thing,” Lewis said. “I was surprised.”

Still, Lewis did not reverse the raises or vacation benefits. He said he decided he would not offer similar perks in the future.

He maintained he was not required to share the contents of the taxpayer-funded report with council members--even though he knew two council members were concerned about the issues raised--since he had ordered it himself.

Some council members, even one of his allies, said Lewis exercised poor judgment in keeping the report secret.

“If I were Mark I would have shared it with the council,” said Sam Kiang, who voted against firing Lewis and has defended the city manager. But he added that Lewis was under no obligation to show the report to council members because they had not initiated the request for the legal opinion.

Others were more critical.

“Why didn’t he show it to us?” Purvis said Monday. “Had that report said I was wrong, that report would have been thrown in my face. Since it was against (Lewis) he wasn’t going to show it.”