City Council Cleared in Gatch Case

The Ventura County district attorney’s office found no evidence that the Thousand Oaks City Council violated the state’s open meeting law in its dealings with a former city manager.

The investigation, which the district attorney’s office considers closed, centered on the circumstances surrounding the promotion, performance and retirement of former City Manager Phil Gatch.

The mayor and several community members had accused Councilman Andy Fox of violating the Brown Act by meeting alone with Gatch. Fox denied forcing Gatch, a 38-year city employee who had the longest tenure of anyone in city government, to announce his retirement.

“We saw no evidence of violations of the act, nothing to support either a criminal or civil prosecution,” R. Thomas Harris, special assistant district attorney, said Friday. “There will probably be those in the Thousand Oaks community who may not be pleased with this result, but we’re always open to additional information. If someone has any hard evidence, we’d love to see it.”

Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Pena originally urged her colleagues to hire an outside attorney to determine whether a council member had violated public meeting laws or a city ordinance that states the city manager shall take orders only from the entire council.

During a contentious meeting April 19, the council instead narrowed the probe to focus on possible Brown Act violations and decided not to incur the cost of a private attorney until the district attorney or state attorney general’s office ruled on whether any violations had occurred.

“The argument that the city shouldn’t spend the money was weak, because you can’t put a price tag on upholding ethics,” Bill-de la Pena said Friday.

Councilman Dennis Gillette said he hoped the council would put the matter behind it and concentrate on running the city.

“It was an emotional time, an extremely important point in a city’s life. The changing of a city manager always is. To have an objective, third party look at this was important,” Gillette said. “We’ve already had the analysis and review; now it’s time to move forward.”

A week after ordering the investigation, three of the five council members voted to accept Gatch’s resignation. Gatch, 64, whose annual salary and benefits were worth more than $215,000, retired effective Thursday, receiving a termination package of nearly $158,950. He also received nine months’ credit toward vacation and sick leave equaling $24,454. He further was allowed to cash in 1,704 hours of unused sick leave and 1,300 hours of unused vacation time, totaling $306,075.

As a government employee for 41 years, Gatch will receive the maximum retirement pay allowed under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or nearly $205,000 a year based on his salary.

Fox, who voted against Gatch’s appointment as city manager in 2003, said in an earlier interview: “This is, and has always been, a personnel matter.... State law basically forbids any discussion of personnel matters. I’ve honored that, and I’m going to continue to do so.”

Gatch, the city’s planning and community development director for more than three decades, was credited as the principal author of the city’s General Plan, its basic blueprint on growth. But his rise to the top administrative post was marked by controversy.

His final promotion divided the council, with some favoring hiring new blood and others supporting the longtime insider.

Harris said more than 100 hours of staff time was spent probing allegations of wrongdoing at City Hall. After interviewing council members and city staff and reviewing numerous city documents, tips from individuals and Gatch’s termination agreement, investigators determined nothing illegal had occurred.

“Although our investigation and contacts with council members and council watchers revealed an abundance of mutual distrust plus many nonspecific suspicions and accusations, it provided no evidence to support any of them,” Harris wrote in a June 30 letter to Thousand Oaks City Atty. Amy Albano, who wrote to the district attorney to request the review.

“It was really important the council had this done to have the public see and understand there was no wrongdoing,” Albano said. “I’m not really surprised there was no evidence. I think it’s healthy the city knows there were no violations.”