Former Fire Chief Sues to Block Release of Fire Report Critical of Her Conduct

Conroy-Weist-665It was just last year that the city of Davis released a less-redacted version of Bob Aaronson’s investigative report into the fire department, that followed a 2008 Grand Jury report with findings that included a hostile work environment and retaliation against dissenters within the department.

Following the Grand Jury’s report, the city commissioned then-police ombudsman (now Police Auditor) Bob Aaronson to conduct an investigation.  In December of 2008, the city council majority of Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza voted 3-2 not only to keep the report from the public, but not to read it themselves.

The Vanguard filed a series of requests over the last four and a half years, and slowly more of the report has been released to the public.  This spring, when the Woodland Record followed up by filing a request, the city of Davis agreed to release the report in full, unredacted.

Barring intervention from a third party, the city would have released the full report today (Thursday May 23, 2013).  However, former Fire Chief Rose Conroy and attorney Steven Kaiser from Kaiser and Chew Law Firm in Sacramento filed a last minute complaint for a temporary restraining order that was heard by Judge Dan Maguire in court on Wednesday.

Judge Maguire granted the TRO, noting that it was the action that would preserve the status quo until there could be a hearing on the facts.  Mr. Kaiser had originally requested the judge put out the next hearing for three months.

“That ain’t happening,” Judge Maguire told Mr. Kaiser, noting that while the matter might not be considered urgent, there are statutory considerations contained within the California Public Records Act that necessitate a more timely disposition of this matter.  He set the next hearing for June 12.

At issue are the extent to which former Chief Conroy was promised confidentiality as a condition of her speaking.

Mr. Kaiser writes in his motion, “In the course of the investigation Aaronson reviewed, among other things, the confidential personnel records of many of the employees in the Fire Department and conducted interviews with them, among them the Plaintiff, and the Report states that the content of the interviews were privileged from disclosure because they revealed confidential personnel matters.”

“A promise that the proceedings would remain confidential was expressly made to the Plaintiff,” Mr. Kaiser wrote.  “The City Manager reiterated that promise of confidentiality to the Plaintiff, who participated openly in the interview and spoke freely with Mr. Aaronson relying on those promises of confidentiality.”

Paul Boylan, the attorney acting on behalf of the Woodland Record in this case, argued that the city has agreed to release the unredacted version at this time because the public interest warrants the release.

He said even if the plaintiff were promised confidentiality, that does not provide a waiver for the city from their obligations to release matters of public record.

In his filing, Mr. Kaiser argues, “The City Manager prepared a summary of the report for the Davis City Council and the public that fully discussed most of the Grand Jury’s allegations, but did not disclose confidential personnel information.”

However, Mr. Kaiser fails to note that at the same public meeting, Mr. Aaronson acknowledged to the council that the summary of the report by the city manager at that time, Bill Emlen, was inconsistent with the tone and findings of Mr. Aaronson.

Mr. Kaiser adds, “Plaintiff has never been given an actual or meaningful opportunity by the City to respond to the allegations, assertions and conc1usions made in Aaronson’s confidential report.”

According to Mr. Kaiser’s filing, in April of 2013, a PRA request was made to the city by the Woodland Record for an un-redacted report.

Mr. Kaiser writes about former Chief Conroy that “Plaintiff was told that the City had decided to disclose the entire report, un-redacted, on May 9, 2013.”  Mr. Kaiser alleges, “Once again, neither the retired Fire Chief nor, based on information and belief, the employees referred to in the Report were notified or consulted prior to that decision being made.”

Mr. Kaiser requested an additional two-week extension in order to review the case, and Mr. Boylan and the city both agreed.

Mr. Kaiser notes that Rose Conroy had never seen the un-redacted report and requested a copy.  She received that from the City Attorney on April 26, 2013.  “This was the first time she had seen the un-redacted report,” he writes.

During the court hearing, this issue actually became of crucial importance.

Paul Boylan told the court, upon learning of the release, “This simplifies the issue in the long run.”

Judge Maguire noted that this would indeed be a complicating factor, to which Mr. Kaiser responded, “This puts my client in a difficult position.”

Under provisions of the Public Records Act, the act of releasing the report could very well waive any future claims of privilege.

Rose Conroy contends her interest here is that the “disclosure of the report to the public will inevitably have a powerful negative effect on Plaintiff’s reputation in the community and on future opportunities for her employment.”

Mr. Kaiser adds, “Because of the report’s age and the fact that she has been retired from service with the City for three years, she has no effective way of addressing the fallacies and inaccuracies of the Report, in any of its versions.”

While Ms. Conroy cites future employment opportunities, it should be noted that according to the Pension Database, she is receiving $122,000 in post-employment wages in addition to whatever other income she is receiving.

Neither Paul Boylan nor the City of Davis provided additional comment to the Vanguard.

In the previous release in May 2012, the Vanguard learned that Bobby Weist, the long-time union president and arguably one of the most powerful public figures in city government, received preferential treatment in his 2007 promotion to fire captain.

In April of 2007, then-Chief Rose Conroy of the Davis Fire Department promoted Mr. Weist, over “at least one of the candidates [who] was demonstrably and significantly more qualified for and deserving of the promotion than [Bobby Weist] promoted by Chief Conroy.”

Investigator and City of Davis Ombudsman Robert Aaronson wrote that, while no one questions Mr. Weist’s skills or abilities, “a significant number of firefighters, including some who were not otherwise disgruntled, believed that one particular candidate was far more deserving than Bobby Weist – the individual who finished fourth and first and in the second tier (in the assessment center, the division chiefs’ interviews and the chiefs’ final ranking, respectively).”

In November, Judge Stephen Mock, in an unprecedented move, ordered the firefighters union, who briefly intervened in last year’s action, to pay the Vanguard’s attorney $23,000.

Judge Mock in his ruling wrote, “Petitioner succeeded in obtaining the relief he sued to obtain – the release of a less redacted copy of the Aaronson report. DPFA [Davis Professional Firefighters Association] cites no authority to support its contention that its success against petitioner, as opposed to respondent’s success, is the relevant inquiry for an award of fees against it under section 1021.5.”

He added, “DPFA asserted that all information that was redacted from the Aaronson report should be exempt from disclosure.”  He added, “Other than its objections to petitioner’s declarations, DPFA does not otherwise argue that the relief sought by petitioner fails to satisfy the three requirements in Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5.”

“This is an important result,” said Paul Nicholas Boylan, the Vanguard‘s attorney at the time.  “I am unaware of any other case that resulted in a fee award against a union that intervened in an action to obtain public information.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Boylan argued that Judge Mock’s ruling helps establish the rest of the Aaronson report as a crucial public document that the city had improperly been withholding from public scrutiny, for four and a half years now.

Ms. Conroy’s action has temporarily postponed the release of this vital information, but she cannot use the guise of confidentiality to prevent public disclosure from her own misdeeds.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Open Government

12 comments

  1. so now the city wants to release the whole report after 3 councilmembers had blocked themselves from reading it? my how things have changed.

  2. It isn’t difficult to understand why Chief Conroy would like to keep the rest of this report from the public that paid for it, as well as her salary, health plans and retirement benefits. What’s already been released (thanks to [i]Democrat[/i]’s and the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s dedicated efforts) has exposed a truly embarrassing record during her tenure.

    Before we give her lawsuit any serious consideration, it needs certification that Bob Aaronson provided her any assurance and a finding on whether he had any ability to issue such a binding agreement.

  3. David wrote:

    > While Ms. Conroy cites future employment opportunities,
    > it should be noted that according to the Pension Database,
    > she is receiving $122,000 in post-employment wages in
    > addition to whatever other income she is receiving.

    I know I would get bored sitting at home talking with my spouse about what we were going to spend our pension money on (her husband also gets a Davis Fire pension check, see the link below where she recommends the city commend him for his work) and would want to go back to work (at a department in a different pension system so I could get two pension checks when I “retire” again)…

    http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20050111/Packet/03L-RES-of-Appreciation-HernandezandMuller.pdf

    P.S. Let me know if anyone has a link to all CalPers pensions (I just found a link to the $100K+ pensions with a Google search)…

  4. SoD, I think David was just dropping in his anti-rich-folks bias again rather than whether she might be bored. I’m with you in thinking these young people might seek out other employment to keep productive and to double dip.

    The link you provided doesn’t link directly or cut-and-paste, but it sounds interesting. Wonder if the supervision conflict issue is noted in Aaronson’s report since favoritism was mentioned.

    I’m not sure that her opportunities for future employment can be impacted much more unless there’s some unimaginable scandal in the redacted areas. Of course, it’s also odd that she thinks it’s good for her reputation to again bring up history in a most public way with this suit.

    Furthermore, our UCD police chief was successful in getting rehired with worldwide publicity about her questionable leadership and unfavorable investigations. Time to move on, Chief Conway.

  5. I was wondering if the Union was going to pay her legal fees, but I guess she can afford this. The statement, [quote]”Rose Conroy contends her interest here is that the “disclosure of the report to the public will inevitably have a powerful negative effect on Plaintiff’s reputation in the community and on future opportunities for her employment.” [/quote] Boy, This makes me want to read the full report.

    I agree that she should be given a chance to respond, but that shouldn’t hold up the release of the full report. She knows what happened, what she said, and most likely what others said and felt. The report won’t have any impact on her pension income. She can live very comfortably on what her and her husband are receiving monthly. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her situation…maybe slightly embarrassed for her, but she’ll get through it.

  6. JustSaying wrote:

    > SoD, I think David was just dropping in his
    > anti-rich-folks bias again

    I don’t have a “anti-rich-folks bias” and I’m not sure about any bias David has, but I think that he is doing good work to let people know that there is no way we will ever have enough money to pay what is promised when every cop and fireman can retire at 50 with a multi MILLION dollar pension (and health care) for life. It is amazing that most people don’t think of cops and firemen as “rich”, but the average cop and fireman in a big California city can retire ~20 years earlier and with more money than the average American doctor or business owner (that most people think of as “rich”)…

    > The link you provided doesn’t link directly
    > or cut-and-paste, but it sounds interesting.

    It worked when I cut and pasted it in to IE, but try the tiny URL below.

    http://tinyurl.com/q3j42uc

    > Wonder if the supervision conflict issue is
    > noted in Aaronson’s report since favoritism
    > was mentioned.

    I also wonder if she asked the Davis city manager to honor every firefighter that retired (or just the ones she was married to or friends with)…

  7. SoD, the tiny link worked, thanks. Jess and Bill certainly deserved the recognition. I presume it would pro forma for all retiring firefighters. Maybe it’s the only reward she ever recommended for him while she supervised the department. It’s odd that there wasn’t some less formal means of forwarding a recommendation for one’s own husband, though.

  8. Which City Manager hired Conroy? Why did that person allow Conroy’s misconduct? Why did multiple city councils turn a blind eye?

  9. To Anon. Pun: Think the one who promoted (not hired) Conroy was John Meyer [not positive, who promoted, but Rose was a City FF for years before she was chosen as ‘chief’. As to “allowing” misconduct… until the full report is out there, not sure if a) misconduct occurred, and/or b) was it apparent to HR and/or CM. As to CC, if it was known to the CC (why do you think that it was?), you have a good question.

  10. Interesting point, hpierce, about whether there’s misconduct involved here. The council at the time oddly refused to read their Aaronson report, apparently trusting the city manager to be forthcoming if any misconduct was involved.

    In getting to the agreement to release as much as it has, I presume the current council members read everything. I trust that they would have made sure that any serious misconduct or illegality would have been disclosed as part of the document release (or have been referred to authorities at the time).

    So, the most serious misconduct revealed so far (thanks to the Vanguard’s digging) has been the actions of Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza leading up to and including that fateful night in December, 2008.

    As Ryan Kelly observes, Chief Conway likely knows better than anyone what’s about to be revealed regarding the redacted sections. Why she wants to dramatically increase the public’s interest with an attention-drawing lawsuit is most curious.

    It seems like an oddly lose-lose legal move. What would be worse for her reputation, reading the the rest of the report and knowing that she fought release? Or, if her suit is successful, not seeing the facts and speculating on what horrible stuff she was successful at covering up?

  11. “So, the most serious misconduct revealed so far (thanks to the Vanguard’s digging) has been the actions of Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza leading up to and including that fateful night in December, 2008. “

    I think that’s probably close to right. Had they simply released it immediately, we would have dealt with the consequences of whatever happened and moved on. By trying to hide it, they have turned this into something bigger than it should have been.

  12. Chief Conroy, by her legal actions this week, seems to be clearly casting her vote regarding the actions of Saylor, Souza, and Asmundson. It remains to be seen whether the Chief’s vote is 1) simply one that is about friendly compassion for a fellow public servant or 2) one that is about something more sinister. Regardless, our focus should be forward looking rather than backward looking. The current Council still has important budget cutting negotiations with all the city employee groups and neither Chief Conroy nor SS&A will be a party to those negotiations.

Leave a Comment