Council needs to restore reputation of city attorneys

Right from the start, the spin out of Costa Mesa City Hall was

that the council’s decision to put City Atty. Jerry Scheer and Asst.

City Atty. Tom Woods on paid administrative leave during a standard

performance review wasn’t anything to get worked up over.

Three weeks after that action, we have to wonder if Scheer and

Woods would say the same thing.

Despite the best face the city is trying to put on, removing the

men from their jobs implied very strongly that there was more than

just a little house cleaning to be done.

The action in early September was followed by the announcement of

an audit of Scheer’s office to be conducted by the city, specifically

to look into the hiring of outside legal counsel.

Then, a few days later, the city reinstated Woods. On Oct. 4,

Scheer was reinstated as well.

Unfortunately, the whole episode has left way too many questions

for the public. Why was it necessary to remove the two attorneys in

order to do a review of the office or evaluate their job

performances?

Was this a question of job performance or bad bookkeeping?

Hasn’t the city left itself open to legal retaliation by Scheer or

even Woods?

Those questions have yet to be answered satisfactorily.

Even Councilman Chris Steel didn’t seem to understand what he had

done after joining the originally unanimous vote to begin the

process.

“I was naive,” he said. “I didn’t realize the full consequences of

administrative leave.”

That’s probably little comfort to Scheer, who according to his

attorney is on medication to combat the stress and stigma of being

placed on leave. We can only imagine what legal consequences will

follow.

The truth is that being placed on administrative leave is not as

routine as city officials would like us to believe. It is an

indicator that something is wrong and that the actions of the

employee demand serious scrutiny.

To undertake such a drastic action, especially in the case of

high-profile positions like city attorney, council members and city

staffers need to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to

warrant it.

Barring that evidence, a simple in-house audit or investigation is

suffice and certainly much more routine.

Because no matter what city leaders say, stripping a person of his

or her job duties, even temporarily, leaves the public with the

impression that something is seriously wrong.

Truthfully, unless the city suspects just that, administrative

leave should be the last option as it can be so injurious to an

individual’s reputation.

Now, the council has the duty to find a way to clear this all up

and restore the reputation of its city attorney, assistant city

attorney and the office they run.