Jane Miller JANE KINGSLEY MILLER v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (M99513) 2009.pdf

7/28/2019 Jane Miller JANE KINGSLEY MILLER v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (M99513) 2009.pdf

1/130159

0

ConfidentialMayor and City CouncilCity of Carmel-by-the-SeaCity HallCarmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921

0

Jane Miller

October 23,2008

Re: My Employment with the City ofCarmel-by-the-SeaDear Mayor and City Council:

For years, I watched City Administrator Richard Guillen make professionaldecisions based upon favoritism, gender, age and inappropriate relationships. Guillen is amanipulative boss who needs attention from and cultivates relationships with women atwork into something which can turn them into "work spouses." When those womenrespond to his behavior, Guillen rewards them financially and professionally. On theother hand, Guillen gets rid of women employees if they don't respond to his needs. Overthe years, I've tried to maintain a friendly, professional working relationship with Guillen,respected him as the "boss" and have not challenged him for his inappropriate actions. Inow believe that was a mistake.

. In Apri12008, Guillen told me that he wanted to eliminate my position ofHumanResources Manager. He gave me no legitimate justifiable budgetary or organizationalreason. Guillen said that he wanted to fund three additional firefighters, and that he hadto find the money "somewhere," (Guillen ended up not including the additionalfrrefighters as a cost in the budget submitted to the Council on May 201h, but did includethe elimination of my position, among others.) I was shocked by his decision to get rid ofme. Although he had made comments in the past about my age and his views ofretirement, I knew that there was no legitimate basis for eliminating my position. Istarted to seriously reflect on his history of favoritism-based management and questionhis motives even more than I had before.

I provide the following information to illustrate my complaints against Guillen. Ihave personal notes, personal emails, copies of instant messages ar1d other infonnation tosupport the allegations in this document. A City employee told me that City staffers1


2/130160

0 0

know a lot about Guillen's behavior, but are afraid that if they say anything they will losetheir jobs.I have always been professional with Guillen. I have had no personal or inappropriaterelationships with him, and have not been involved with him in any capacity except work.I wish to be very clear about that. Over the years, throughout numerous personal emails andInstant Messages, Guillen peppered me with inappropriate comments of affection,appropriate for a girlfriend, but not a subordinate. He did so while maintaining his positionas my "boss," a position that he explicitly reminded me of- that he was my "boss." In a verypoisonous way, Guillen combined work and his version of sexual attraction - frequently

calling himself"the boss" as he referred to me as a "hottie" or his "blonde worker bee" andrepeatedly saying things like, "I completely adore you." He would announce that he knewthat I didn't like his compliments about my looks, and then say something like "I know itembarasses [sic] you to know this, but I liked you from the day I met you, always have andalways will."He told me to get used to his compliments and affectionate comments "because youwill always get them from rne whether I'm your boss or your pal (especially your pal afterwe retire)." He would talk about his retirement, envisioning some shared future where hewould be my friend, talk about how I had become "that age," and tell me "I want to enjoy

your company for many years to come." He liked to repcathisidea1haL''lve.:Uhe.palsway.__ _past our experiences in CBTS." He described himselfas "your boss and fi:iendforlife,"projected simultaneous retirements for the tw(}.{)f...us,..aad commooted-about..flow I do notlook like a grandmother. He frequently referred to me as "grandma." He said that his talkingto me all the time is a burden I will carry for the rest ofmy life.It became common for Guillen to try to give me "hugs" when I was on the phone atwork or when I was leaving the work place, but oii.ly if others weren't around. He once triedto give me what he called a "virtual hug" because he said he had wanted to give me a hug atwork, but another co-worker was present. Once, in the parking lot after work, when no oneelse was around, he gave me a hug anda kiss on the cheek. I did not know what to say anddecided to ignore it. I tried to think of the "hugging" behavior as just a "thanks for being afriend" thing, although it made me very uncomfortable. Guillen would often come into thecopy room when I was trying to work and mess up my hair, in a flirtatious manner.Guillen had a habit of coming into my office when I was on the phone in a seriouswork-related conversation, and he tried to distract me by putting his arm around me,indicating that he wanted me to end my phone call and talk to him instead. I ignored his

2


3/130161

0 0

behavior and rationalized it as best I could. I regret not directly confronting him abouthis inappropriate behavior, but I did not because I was intimidated, afraid to Jose my job,and well aware of his absolute power in the work place and in City government.In addition to touching me, he would frequently compliment me, at work, on myhairstyle, or what I was wearing. He told me that "I always think you look beautifuL"

He even called himself"your secret admirer," as if we were in grade school and he had acrush on me. He knew it made me uncomfortable, he acknowledged that I did not wanthis attention, but he said he was going to do it anyway.In electronic messages and in person, Guillen used words that no professionalmanager should use with a co-worker. He often addressed me as "Hottie," "Beautiful,""Beauty," "Good Looking," "Missy," "Girlfriend," "Sweetie," "Attractive," or "Pretty."Guillen also exhibited inappropriate behavior towards other women in the office, such asgiving his favorite women nicknames. Christie Miller was "Queenie," Karen Crouch was"Czarina," and Heidi Burch is affectionately known as "H." For a period of time, hecalled me "Bam-Bam."In addition to his activity during work hours, Guillen sent me instant messages andpersonal e m a i l ~ at all hours of the day and night. The emails started early (such as 5:46

a.m.) and picked up again at night, going late into the night (including as late as 2:30a.m.). The emails were sent to me from Guillen's personal email account. They weresent on weekends, holidays, during my personal vacations, and late at night on worknights. The vast majority of his communications were not about work-related matters.When he did allude to work-related matters in emails, it was sometimes in an offhand,frequently gossipy tone, instead of a professional discussion. The work issues he broughtup were not urgent, and did not merit off-hours, off-line communications. I received hisemails, and sent my own, usually'in response to his. It was a fonn of conversation wherehe continually solicited infonnation about my personal life.

The after-hours messages and emails include: Disrespectful comments about the Mayor and City Council ("I have stupid agendapacket review/with sue and ken oh brother/have pity on me" (sent Wednesday, 10:15p.m.); 'This Council like many others that I have worked for usually have no conceptwhat it takes to run city hall" (sent Sunday, 8:04 a.m.); " . . . unethical behavior (likethe Mayor wanting us to hire her stupid acquiantance [sic] as a Librarian)" (sentThursday, 6:58a.m.)).

3


4/130162

0 0

Demonstrations of the complete security Guillen felt in his City position, and hispower over me (repeatedly acknowledging that he was making me uncomfortable, butinsisting that he, as "boss," would continue to do as he wished; making certain H.R.decisions without my input; trying to blame me for his own lack of attention to hisduties).

Incessant personal comments about me, in addition to the inappropriate terms ofendearment and attraction, and the suggestive comments such as "You know Icompletely adore you and nothing and I mean nothing will ever interfere with that..."(sent Saturday, 8:59 a.m.); "What's up with work interferring [sic) with ourfriendship?!" (sent Saturday, 7:23 a.m.); "it' s back to work .. bummer! Well, with theexception of getting to see you" (sent Monday, 7:48a.m.). He told me how he likedmy hair ("up"), and he remarked upon the way I dressed.

He acted like my buddy, and claimed that "we've grown to be good buddies" eventhough he was my "boss"; he solicited and enjoyed hearing details ofmy personal lifeand would share details with me about how he spent his personal time.Some of the instant messages were sent during the workday when Guillen was onthe phone on official City business. He even sent me messages when he was talking on

the phone with the Mayor (e.g., "on the phone with sue/but almost done/would love tosee you! . . . /rather be talking to jane" (sent Friday, II :41 a.m.)).Off and on over the past several years, Guillen had a habit of calling me from hiscell phone to "chit chat" while he was driving to work in the morning although he couldhave talked to me at work only a few minutes later. He also would call me on mypersonal cell phone when I was on vacation or on my way home from work, againprimarily to chit chat, without any serious work related issues to discuss. He told me Icould call or email him during his vacation, telling me "you know I love talking to you."Guillen has told me that if anything ever happened to my husband, Guillen wouldbe there for me. Once, knowing that my husband had returned from our family vacation

early and that I was in Tahoe on vacation alone, Guillen told me that he wanted to bewith me there. He said that ifhe were my husband, he would never have left me alone inTahoe. ("What?! Scott left for a PG Council meeting! Wide [sic] horses wouldn't dragme away from being in Tahoe with you!!! No siree, I wouldn't leave you under anycircumstances.") I did not solicit or appreciate these comments, and I resented hisintrusions into my personal time, but I felt that I needed to get along with him in order tokeep my position.4


5/130163

0 0

Guillen repeatedly tried to insinuate himself into my personal life by proposingways to involve himself with my life away from work. In a particularly difficult series ofcommunications, Guillen has even told me that he'd like to be one of my grandkids. Oneweekend when he knew I was taking care ofmy grandkids, he asked me if he could comeover and join my family for pancakes. Another time he wrote that he had the house tohimself all day and would have called and invited himself to dinner with me and my dad.When I told Guillen that my oldest grandson had taken up golf, Guillen volunteered togive him golf lessons. There are many other examples. Looking back on his behavior, Ireali7..e he received some voyeuristic type of pleasure from engaging me in conversationsabout my personal life. He relished talking about personal issues, more than work-relatedissues. One of his favorite phrases at work was "Jane, you're boring me" if I wereengaging him in a complex analysis of a persOimel matter.

Over the years, Guillen's behavior towards me has ranged from being veryfriendly to cold, indifferent and non-communicative. He's either been overly affectionate,inappropriate, fawning or totally oblivious to me, depending on which approach worksfor him. His subtle and sometimes not so subtle invitations to me to take our professionalrelationship to another level were inappropriate and frequent. He placed me in a positionwhere I felt I had to tolerate his behavior. I found it unprofessional and sad. There have. been many times when I have reflected upon whether or not it was better for me to be inhis "favor" or ignored, where at least he didn't constantly pester me with his attention.

For the past few years, Guillen has had many long meetings with Christie Millerbehind closed doors. Many City employees believe that Guillen has been having anaffair with Christie Miller for years. I believe that the Mayor knew about the affair, asdid other top officials of the City. The affair was a frequent topic of discussion amongCity staff. An employee witnessed Guillen and Christie embracing and kissing when heopened the door to Guillen's office and walked in. Others saw them together in nonwork-related settings and compromising positions. Employees saw Christie Miller'sinfluence over Guillen, and watched with anxiety as Guillen gave her special favors,power, and money.

Prior to her service with Cam1el, Christie Miller had only limited job experienceworking as a clerk in a medical office and minimal college education. In March 1998,Christie was hired by the City as a part time Office Assistant for Sunset Center. WhenGuillen started working for the City in late 2000, Christie was a Program Supervisor andher salary was approximately $17.00 per hour. Within less than two years after Guillenwas hired, Christie began to tell Guillen that it was terrible to work for Brian Donoghue.5


6/130164

0 0

Consequently, about five or six years ago, Guillen transferred Christie from SunsetCenter under Donoghue's supervision to Vista Lobos, without following standard Cityprocedures. After her transfer; Christie reported directly to Guillen. This reportingarrangement was unusual. It was not in the City organizational chart, and wasinconsistent with City policy, and no other staffer with a job title equivalent to ProgramSupervisor reported directly to Guillen. Under the City organizational chart, the directreports to the City Administrator are directors or department or managerial heads. ln July2003, Guillen reclassified Christie from Program Supervisor to Community ServicesManager. TI1is position was an at-will, new classification approved by CouncilResolution which provided that Guillen could "establish the salary and benefits" forChristie, with Christie receiving a 12.32% salary increase. The salary was generous forthe job duties.

Soon thereafter, several female employees including myself expressed concernthat Guillen was obsessing over Christie Miller and spending a lot of time witll her.There were rumors tllat Christie and Guillen were having an affair. Guillen was treatingsome staffers poorly or was ignoring tllem, and the workplace was affected. We didn'tJr.now who to talk to and we went to see our EAP counselor, because tile City had noeffective way for us to dal witll Guillen's actions and their impact on the workplace.The EAP session did not resolve tile issue.

Another employee overheard phone conversations between Christie and Guillen,where Christie encouraged Guillen to get rid of Assistant City Administrator GregD'Ambrosio and Sunset Center Director Brian Donoghue, because they were "losers."The employee has said that Christie was the driving force behind Guillen's actions ingetting rid of Donoghue and D'Ambrosio. An employee also told me that Christie wasthe driving force behind Guillen's eventual decision to eliminate my position.[n early 2006, after lengthy private meetings behind closed doors with Christie,Guillen wanted to give Christie a retroactive salary increase. [ analyzed the proposed

increase in accord with City policies and rules, and determined that a retroactive salarybonus was unusual and unnecessary under City policy. Guillen gave Christie a 10%salary increase, retroactive to July 16, 2003 (almost 2 Yz years worth - which wasunprecedented, to my knowledge- equaling approximately $9,000 in unbudgeted funds}.It was, in effect, a retroactive renegotiation of the 2003 agreement. There was nobusiness reason or legitimate municipal government reason for the City to take thisaction. [n face to face meetings with Guillen, [ objected to the retroactive payment. In asubsequent personal email to me, Guillen explained that I should not "concern" myself"about Christie's salary issue . . . because it was an honest mistake and Christie

6


7/130165

0 0

understands that." I had not made a mistake; Guillen was the one responsible for directlysupervising Christie and for her salary. Guillen then immediately said to me in the sameemail: "You know that I completely adore you and nothing I mean nothing will everinterfere with that." The message was clear- Guillen's relationship with Christie had adirect financial impact on the City, and Christie's pay raise was more important than Citypolicies or the City's legal obligations to its employees, or the professional judgment ofthe City's Human Resources Manager. I feel that he tried to get me to buy-in to hisdecision by reverting to personal, affectionate and inappropriate comments to me, with aclear message to me to get out of the way.

In the summer of2006, Christie was reclassified to Community Services Directorbased on a job description that she prepared and negotiated directly with Guillen. Guillengave me the description, which was not consistent with standard City job descriptions.Guillen told me to modifY the job description to represent what should actually berelevant in a Director level position. In the job description, among other changes, Iincluded education of at least a Bachelor's degree plus 5 years of supervisory experience.I told Guillen he should encourage Christie to get a Bachelor's degree because shecouldn't compete for this position in the world outside of Carmel. So, he placed her on. the I t step level of a range that I had developed which would fit in alignment with ourother classifications, and proceeded with her reclassification.

By October 2007, Christie's husband John Miller had been put on notice that hisjob with the City of Pacific Grove was being proposed for elimination for budgetaryreasons. My husband sits on the Pacific Grove City Council. That month Guillen gaveChristie a raise from Step 1 to S ~ e p 5, retroactive to July 1, 2007, along with a 3% COLA.Guillen did not discuss his decision regarding the business necessity of this pay increasewith me. I was personally appalled, but Guillen had not sought my input; the increasewas directed and processed by Guillen because that's what he wanted. Any outsiderwould construe this as a gift of public dollars, because there was no legitimate businessreason given by Guillen for the move. I felt it was an effort by him to "bump up" her lastfmal year of compensation as a factor in her impending retirement in June 2008. But,from that point forward, Guillen also appeared to continue to include Christie (althoughshe soon would be leaving the organization and had no recognized City role in suchmatters) in many of his business decisions, including finding a contract IT person toreplace an existing employee and a contract HR person to replace me. The situationmade me feel powerless because Guillen precluded me, the Human Resources Manager,from perfonning my job duties, deciding personnel matters by himself for reasons thatwere not consistent with a professional City government.

7


8/130166

0 0

In June 2008, Christie Miller retired from the City. She was permitted to stay onthe City payroll beyond her announced retirement date of June 30th by using her vacationand management leave. In doing so, she received what probably is at least an additionaltwo months of salary and benefits paid by the City, although this expenditure wasunbudgeted in the budget adopted by Council for 08/09. When Christie left the City shewas making about $50 per hour plus full benefits as Community Services Director.Recently, ostensibly to replace her, the City posted a job announcement for a part time Community Events Coordinator, at a salary of $15-$19 per hour. The entire financialarrangement with Christie was irregular and extremely generous. I don't believe therewas sufficient transparency to the Council or the public regarding the lucrative benefitsprovided to Christie compared to the actual value ofher position to the City. Her value tothe City was based upon her value to Guillen.Guillen and Heidi Burch are now involved in a relationship that is inappropriatefor the work place. For more than a year before Guillen told me that he was eliminating. my position for budgetary reasons, Guillen and Heidi Burch had almost daily meetingsbehind closed doors and went to lunch together on a daily basis. It's been observed byme and several other staff members that Guillen and Heidi often try to be secretive abouttheir time together by coming a.nd going out of separate doors at City Hall, but thenjoining up in the parking lot. They have gone together to functions outside the City,

sometimes in circumstances that bring into question their professionalism andrelationship.Guillen hired Heidi on August I, 2005. Heidi had a good education, but no publicsector or City Clerk experience. Her starting salary was $5,379/rnonth. In February2006, after six months on the job, Heidi received a step increase from step 2 to 3 whichwas equal to 5% increase in salary.By March 2007, Heidi was unofficially "reclassified" by Guillen to CityClerk/Deputy City Administrator for taking on more of Guillen's responsibilities.

However, Guillen and Heidi continued to participate in most City Administratorfunctions jointly, rather than independently. In July 2007, Heidi was officiallyreclassified via the iiudget documents as City Clerk/Deputy City Administrator at a salarythat was 19% higher. Later and prior to the new budget of 2008/09, without Councilaction, Guillen and Heidi decided that her title should be Assistant CityAdministrator/City Clerk. When I left in May 2008, Heidi had not been given a recentperfom1ance evaluation on the new job duties she had been assigned and no new jobdescription had been created to categorize her duties. Her monthly salary in March 2008was $9, 125/month.8


9/130167

0 0

Heidi Burch and Christie Mil ler were issued City-provided cell phones. NeitherJoyce Giuffre, Administrative Services Director, nor I have had a City-provided cellphone. Guillen called Christie and Heidi very often throughout the work day on his workcell phone. In comparison, he didn't communicate as much on his cell phone with otherCity employees and elected officials (like the Public Safety Director or even the Mayor).

The discussion within City Hall about Guillen's relationships was open andfrequent. At one point in May 2007, Guillen even sent an email to several City Hallemployees, including myself, with a link to an article about four employees in Hooksett,New Hampshire who had been fired for gossiping about an improper relationshipbetween the town administrator and another employee. In the email Guillen stated thatthere is "reason to be careful what we say in the workplace!" Guillen instructed me toinquire with legal counsel as to whether employees could be disciplined or fired fortalking too much at work about rumors. He stated that it was time "to put a stop to" theunfounded" rumors in the City. He made his threat clear to the women in the office whomight be questioning his "work relationships."

Guillen has made bad decisions regarding salaries and work responsibility basedon favoritism that has not only created a discriminatory working environment but alsohas drained away City funds. The unprecedented raises, benefits and higher "Job Titles"he gave to Christie and Heidi were decisions that were not supported in the budget or bytheir qualifications. Other than with Guillen's favorite female employees, Carmel-by-theSea has been trying to be fiscally conservative with employees based upon the economyof the past several years. (This fact is significantly obvious in the City's fiscal policyused in labor negotiations with LIUNA, Police and Fire Associations.) Guillen did notgive George Rawson, Public Safety Director, a comparable increase since George's hiredate, in spite of the fact that George took on significant additional responsibilities for theoversight of the Fire Department for Carmel several years ago. (When George's salarywas finally increased to reflect his additional responsibilities, it was not made retroactiveto the date he took over the Fire Department several years earlier.) The numbers areclear: Since 2003, Guillen increased Christie Miller's salary by about 83%. Since 2005, Guillen increased Heidi Burch's salary by about 70%. Since 2001, Guillen increased George Rawson's salary by about 25-30%.

9


10/130168

0 0

Since 2004, Guillen increased my salary by about 9% (5% ofwhich was for a stepincrease from 4th to 5th.)

After years of suggestive and inappropriate comments, knowing my husband wasaway from home, Guillen got more specific. He proposed that he bring over a pizza andwatch football at my house. I rrjected that proposaL This exchange took place in frontof Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell. Shortly afterward, Guillen told me that he wasthinking of eliminating my position because I was getting to be "that age" and that hethought I would probably like to spend more time with my grandchildren.

Several other incidents made it apparent that I had lost favor with Guillen. Guillenstarted checking up on me in odd ways, such as having another staffperson call our laborattorneys Liebert Cassidy to a ~ k if it was appropriate for me to take FMLA time to takecare ofmy ailing father. Guillen never questioned me directly about it. I thought it wasweird that he would ask another employee this question about me, but not even bring itup to me. It appears that Guillen took this action after Heidi had tried to field somequestion that came in for me when I was gone for the last hour of the day (to leave workand visit my father in Salinas) and she didn't have the answers. In the final analysis, I.didn't use more than approximately 40 hours of sick leave (FMLA) in order to attend tomy ailing father. He died on December 16, 2007.

Another situation where I felt I was being singled out for some weird reason waswhen I put in for a reimbursement for my annual physical exam costs not otherwisecovered by insurance. This is a benefit of management. Heidi went to another employeeand stated that Guillen wasn't sure that I was eligible for this benefit, in spite of the factthat it had always been in our Confidential MOU and was an ongoing practice.

Longtime Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell, recently forced from her job byGuillen, has observed Guillen's actions, including his obvious favoritism toward Christieand Heidi. Earlier this year, Guillen hired a new administrative staffperson named MollyLaughlin. Molly Laughlin, an assistant to John Miller, Recreation Director for the CityofPacific Grove (and Christie Miller's husband), had recently been laid off from the CityofPacific Grove. Although I was the City's Human Resources Manager, Guillen did notinvolve me in Molly's hiring process, except to do the usual pre-employmentrequirements of a fingerprint background and pre-employment exam, after he and Heidihad interviewed her and made the decision to hire her. There were no specific funds inthe 2007-08 budget to support the expense of hiring Molly.

10


11/130169

0 0

Although her experience did not merit it, Guillen directed that Molly's salary be atthe 4th step level of the Executive Assistant salary (the same range as Sandy Farrell).Shortly after Molly started work, Guillen stated to me and Joyce Giuffre: "Well, not toleave this room, but Molly is here to replace Sandy." Shortly after that, Sandy Farrell leftCity employment, feeling totally stressed at the office, no longer willing to tolerateGuillen's inappropriate behavior, and feeling that Guillen was trying to force her outanyway, based upon his hiring of Molly to pretty much take over her job. Guillen thennegotiated a buy-out with Sandy, promising benefits to her that he had no authority togive without council authorization. I don't recall that he ever discussed this potential''buy-out settlement agreement" with Council in a closed session. He also neverdiscussed with me his intent to enter into his agreement with Sandy, and the actionsnecessary to implement it. It just happened. Subsequently, I had to write a Resolutionauthorizing an additional "2 Years Service Agreement" with CalPERS (a goldenparachute) for Sandy, after S a ~ d y left. Contrary to one of the legal requirements ofCa!PERS for the golden parachute, Guillen didn't intend to leave Sandy's position vacantas he had already lined up Molly to take over Sandy's responsibilities with a new title inthe 08/09 budget: "Administrative Manager/Deputy City Clerk." To my knowledge, no

official job description was created for this position, which ostensibly replaced theExecutive Assistant.

. On April 16, 2008, the day after Sandy's last day, Guillen called me to his officeabout 10 a.m. and said he was outsourcing Human Resources as part of a re-organizationfor the new budget. Mine wasn't the only position, he said, and that he wanted me to hearit from him before it came from anyone else. I told him that he caught me off guard andthat on a personal and financial level I wanted to work longer. I was too stunned todiscuss his decision further that day.

Guillen's behavior towards me changed drastically. He avoided me, did notacknowledge my emails at work' and went through Joyce Giuffre to get information to meor from me, and generally made me feel ostracized from the organization. TI1is was instark contrast to his previous behavior of frequently conversing with me via email, instantmessages and phone, and his frequent praise that I was a good worker.

I can't think of anyone in the organization of Carmel-by-the-Sea or outside of the. organization who wouldn't give me the highest praise for being fuir, ethical, professional,efficient, and dedicated. I have been professional and up front and have not entered intoan intimate relationship with Guillen. Guillen himself has told me, in emails and inperson, that I'm the "best," that he wanted to take me with him when he leaves the City,and that I'm "painfully honest" while other managers are not.

I I


12/130170

0 0

From the information available to me now, I ean see that Guillen's decision toeliminate my position is the result of a number of factors relating to gender and age.They include my not having acquiesced to his implicit suggestions to get together; myage itself; Guillen's own reaction to his years of favoritism and his relationships at work;and Guillen's unease with my professionally questioning his efforts to rewardChristie/Heidi in ways that showed loyalty to these two women and not to the taxpayers,the public, or the City. I observed how Guillen pushed other women out of theorganization who were getting older and were not on Guillen's "favorites" list. I alsohave reason to believe that Christie Miller may have used her relationship with andinfluence on Guillen to wreak her personal vengeance against me, because Christie'shusband was re-organized out of the City of Pacific Grove where my husband was on theCity Council.

Guillen's conduct towards City employees over the years made it clear that hewould force out of the organization anyone who complained about his behavior. I andothers have endured Guillen's conduct in silence for years out of fear of losing our jobs,while witnessing older female employees not favored by Guillen forced into earlyretirement. Guillen bestowed job benefits, unprecedented promotions, and raises oncertain younger female employees who did not refuse his inappropriate friendships. Inaddition to being subjected to inappropriate comments, touching, emails and instantmessages, I was frequently mady to feel that I too had to acquiesce to Guillen's advancesin order to receive favorable treatment or at least to keep my job. A demeaning messagewas conveyed to women in the workplace that the only way for them to advance wasthrough engaging in a relationship with the City Administrator on his terms. I did notreceive the same increases in pay and benefits as "participating" female employees.

Guillen has acted inappropriately in many other aspects of his employment. Hisbehavior toward female employees demonstrates his disregard for and flaunting of Citypolicies. Guillen disregards and demonstrates indifference to the procedures laid down inthe City ordinances, including the personnel policy. He gets rid of City employees forpersonal reasons. Guillen exercises unchecked control over the City budget, byunjustifiably increasing the salaries of and giving lavish benefits to favorite youngerfemale employees, and by negotiating generous severance packages. As records show,Guillen spends an inordinate amount of time during the workday engaged in non-workrelated activities, such as chatting on the phone or instant messaging on the computerwith his female favorites. Guillen flaunts his omnipotence and independence from theCity Council's authority. Guillen's own disregard of the City harassment policy is justone example of a pattern of inappropriate behavior he has established in the workplace.

12


13/13

0 0

Ironically, as of May of 2008, Guillen was one of only two out of 40-plus Citysupervisors who had not completed the mandatory harassment training, which was easilyaccessible on-line and established by the City in November 2007.

In retrospect, there were many warning signs that I wish l would have heededregarding Guillen: his childish office antics, his fawning over me personally, hisdisrespectful attitude toward his own "bosses" (the Council), his unending need forattention from subordinates (especially women), his frequent focus upon my retirementand his flawed managerial skills. Frequent phrases which Guillen used in front of mewere statements like: "I'll just 'Skelly' him!her out of here" (when he didn't like anemployee); or 'this is my super-secret plan"; or, "ifyou ever say I said this, 'I'll deny it,'"or "pinky-swear," regarding not disclosing the contents of a conversation with me. Hehas cost the City a lot ofmoney with severance packages which weren' t necessary, if hehad only proceeded judiciously, rationally, and respectably regarding the needs of theorganization. His managerial style has been troubling, discriminating and disruptive. Ifnothing is done, he will eventua.lly bring extreme discredit to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

I suggest the City start by interviewing the following persons regardinginformation about Guillen and the work place, and ask them direct questions aboutGuillen's actions, what they were told, what they knew, and when: Richard Guillen Heidi Burch Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council members

In addition, you can search Guillen's email and phone records, and check the harddrive on Iris computer. You can review the records of the women who have left Cityservice in the past few years under Guillen, and you can interview those women. Youcan contact Christie Miller if you choose to do so. What you cannot do is ignore theconditions that allowed Guillen to do what he has been doing. My career, my health, andthe City's well-being are at stake.

Miller

Documents

Jane Miller JANE KINGSLEY MILLER v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (M99513) 2009.pdf