Council Says It Avoided Potential $3 Million Lawsuit by Settling with Dupuis
Laguna Beach City Council voted unanimously to waive the confidentiality and attorney-client privilege of certain closed sessions held July and August regarding former city manager Shohreh Dupuis’ claims of alleged harassment by council member George Weiss and the resulting settlement during its Nov. 7 meeting.
However, city council voted against the release of attorney Barbara Raileanu’s entire investigative report due to concerns it would expose the names of city employees who contributed to the investigation – potentially putting them in jeopardy.
Mark Orgill and Weiss voted in favor of its release, citing public transparency as paramount.
Out of seven claims Dupuis made toward Weiss, city-hired attorney Barbara Raileanu, who led the investigation, found “no discrimination on the basis of sex or national origin,” according to a public abbreviated memo released on Oct. 30. However, there was significant exposure to litigation, a possible retaliation claim, among other claims that would subject the city to more than $400,00 in legal fees, Mayor Bob Whalen explained.
In Raileanu’s memo, Dupuis alleged that Weiss became “aggressive, agitated and intimidating” during a meeting in July or August of 2021. The report also stated that Weiss became angry, raised his voice and pounded his fist on Dupuis’s desk in a separate Oct. 22 meeting. Finally, it states Weiss criticized Dupuis “openly, repeatedly and relentlessly” in his personal newsletter and in open city council meetings.
Raileanu’s findings reported these allegations to be sustained.
The investigation did not find that Weiss’ behavior towards the former city manager during the summer 2021 meeting to be based on Dupuis’ protected class. It also denied the allegation that, during that same meeting, Weiss had a “wet stain on the groin area of (his) pants due to inappropriate conduct.”
The memo also found Dupuis’s claim that Weiss said the Feb. 9 vandalism of her home was an “inside job” to distract from the release of records regarding Dupuis receiving a traffic citation to be unsubstantiated.
Finally, the investigation rejected Dupuis’s allegation that Weiss encouraged the public to make demeaning, hostile or unprofessional remarks about Dupuis in public forums, including social media.
“On July 18, Dupuis’s attorney Craig Scott sent a letter to Phil Kohn, the city attorney at the time, saying, ‘I’m requesting a settlement of 33 months of salary, plus attorney’s fees and a retirement from the city. And if not, I’m going to file a $3 million claim against the city,'” Whalen said during his summary of the related closed sessions.
During the July 24 closed session meeting, the city made Dupuis a counteroffer of 18 months of severance pay instead of the 33 she proposed. A week later, council members were updated on the investigation during another closed session meeting.
“Paying (Dupuis) roughly $450,000 was the least expensive way for us to get out of a situation that we found ourselves in, which was the threat of litigation, a $3 million claim, and I’m still convinced that it was the right decision from a purely financial standpoint,” Whalen said. “Reaching a settlement, putting it behind us, moving forward to select a new city manager and getting back to conducting the business of the city,” Whalen said. “If we had a lawsuit going on for two years with depositions from council members and city officials, it would have been a huge distraction. I didn’t think it was worth that. I think it would have been a negative for the city and the community.”
Weiss denied all of Dupuis’ allegations and thanked residents for their support throughout the investigation, adding that council members are not city figureheads but instead exist to serve residents.
“Asking meaningful questions that test the presumptions of the city manager and staff is not harassment,” Weiss said. “It’s called functional representative local government. Pointing out misrepresentations or omissions of information by the city manager is not bullying. It is accountability that supports informed decision-making by the council.”
At the Nov. 7 meeting, Weiss and members of the public remained dissatisfied with the partial release outcome, calling for full transparency and the entire investigative report to be made public.
Retired First Amendment and freedom of information attorney Jim Grossberg said Weiss wants the entire record of the matter made public so residents can evaluate the facts.
“California law requires complete release of the information if the public interest and disclosure outweigh any privacy interests served by secrecy,” he told council before the votes were cast. “As a consistent line of court decisions establish, this is just such a case. No blanket grant of anonymity to witnesses, or anyone else, is permitted, giving the compelling public interest in disclosure.”
“Alternatively, council can delegate the decision whether to release the records by appointing a well-qualified neutral attorney acceptable to all council members,” Grossberg went on to say. “No other alternative will dispel the cloud over council.”
Shohreh Dupuis officially left her position as city manager on Sept. 1. The now-retired city attorney Phil Kohn announced the decision after the city council met in a closed session on Thursday morning, Aug. 24.
Oh Boy, here we go.
I told you so!
As I wrote several times in comment sections back when, there WAS more to the picture than met the eye, than was disclosed publicly regarding shenanigan dynamics AND a settlement figure: More $$$ being attempted to be lifted from our coffers, more backdoor dealing too.
I likened it to an iceberg: 85% sub rosa.
The threat (purchase price for “just make it go away $$$”) was for $3 million, about 7 times what was settled upon.
Inflate the “asking price,” sue and settle, case closed? I don’t think so……this was and will remain a stain upon local governance and leave a distasteful aroma in CC Chambers. To believe otherwise is magical thinking for naive snowflakes.
Ironically, it’s actually about par for the course, the usual in these and many many civil litigation cases across the spectrum of similar instances (like personal injury litigation), not just employer/employee disputes but the environment, etc..
Shoot for the moon, knowing you might only hit a tree, but regardless a counter-offer like she received will suffice.
Put me in the corner of Mark (The Middle Path) Orgill’s statements, personnel’s names being redacted. I don’t see how that could solve or provide salve to any of the inflicted wounds—real or intuited. It wouldn’t progress anything of discernible value IMO.
Punish lower echelon people to what end, isn’t that a bit theatrical, over-reach?
These employees are already working in crazy town, if you catch them in a private, off-the-record confidential side bar.
Having been cajoled by another long time local to watch the hearing (hey, there wasn’t anything else on TV that night anyway), I was fascinated by the “depends on whose ox is gored” mindset of the 3 prevailing CC members.
Hence the party line: Let’s just put this all behind us, k? Ez-pz for them to say.
One must wonder as an intellectual exercise if it had been one of them, what would their form of reckoning and justice look like, what would they want, placate them, regarding their name and public image in the community?
If Mo’s successor’s depositions cough up any CC, CA or CM hairballs (skullduggery), maybe eventually the entire curtain will be drawn back and they’ll get a chance to see what the hot seat feels like?
That’s probably years down the road and settlements often have gag/disclosure clauses decreed by the court, all parties agree to these orders, sealed with harsh sanctions if divulged.
I also used the Humpty-Dumpty metaphor back when: Personally, after living here for 52+ years, I don’t see how healing or return to any normalcy can occur.
Scar tissue might form, but for those who claimed racism or chauvinism, or that pesky crime-of-the-century vandalism which was never “solved,” what now?
Limiting CC members to 2 terms and then they’re gone for good is one way to avoid politicians monopolizing and pursuing long term tactics that not only control year-by-year but undermine community core values.
A framer tills the soil, turns it over to avoid stagnant or under-performing crops, so should governance.
8 years is long enough, those that have or will hold on past that duration are not just fooling themselves but us.
Be an interesting question to ask CC candidates: Will you lobby and vow under penalty of seat removal to vote for term limits as a plank in your campaign?
Otherwise, here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
The song remains the same: Retreads, which are never really safe to drive upon….although, as we’re seeing, they can be un-necessarily exciting and experimentally adventurous, filled with capricious capers!
Unfortunately, unlike AAA, there’ll be no road side assistance, just more calamity.
Frankly I am baffled that after overwhelming public input and the transparency positions taken by CC members Weiss the subject of the report and Orgill a participant in approving the CM separation agreement that Council Member Rounaghi made a motion to DENY any release – even a redacted report version which would have protected employees.
This from the newest elected who ran on improving our government transparency? It ok to ignore those accused and constituents who want answers and some resolve? Not my idea of practicing transparency folks.
Roger Butow
Thanks for chiming in on this latest embarrassing city leadership and governing mess. Don’t see this going away until this Council clears up the yet unresolved aspects of how this matter was handled and the damage done to Council member Weiss.
I am 100% in support of your statement:
“Limiting CC members to 2 terms and then they’re gone for good is one way to avoid politicians monopolizing and pursuing long term tactics that not only control year-by-year but undermine community core values.”
This really resonates after the controversies we have witnessed with two of our multi-term elected’s. Lessons learned about what happens when officials gain too much control and power. They stop listening. Time to move on in 2024 and get Term Limits adopted. Thanks.
I don’t share the tag-team logic that $450,000 plus expenses as settlement is somehow preferable to a $3M lawsuit plus litigation costs paid for with city treasure (other people’s money). Some consultation prize. When city government resorts to litigation the resident mission is forgotten and resident’s pay the bill. Too often LB city disputes are resolved by city litigation, engaged residents are conditioned to believe litigation is the established norm for due process. Residents should ask themselves why does our city goverment arrive at these circumstances in the first place?
Instead of litigating over tabloid drama, what-if Laguna’s leadership respected the guiding policy written in ten volumes of our General Plan? Honor and respect our city constitution the General Plan, it matters less who agendizes actions when GP policy guidelines are followed. https://lagunastreets.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-vision-2030-plan-impact-on-lb.html If our city leaders cannot honor guidelines in the General Plan, remember that a software algorithm can, Artificial Intelligence is not required.
MJ:
Coming from someone who IMHO has always maintained a sense of community civility and decorum, both in word and deed, that’s quite a compliment!
I know that there’s been several times you’ve taken umbrage and finally counter-punched, but if memory serves only when incessantly provoked by sniper-like trolls?
I wish I had that kind of patience, your first response seems more inclined to “educate NOT eviscerate.”
And maybe my typo (I meant “farmers” not “framers”) actually applies, was a Freudian slip and not that petty autofill “ghost in the machine?”
Laguna needs to re-frame governance structure itself, founded like our Constitution’s framers: Too much power concentrated in too few people for epochs, for eras, i.e., too long.
DRB and the Planning Commission are all too often a function of political patronage, regimes, nepotism. Once insinuated, anointed not so much as appointed, these seatings can become part of internal governance pillaging, spoilage.
Thus, by having no term limits, possibly an extension of inculcated special interests. That radiating or cascading effect delivers agendas that are progressed not just laterally but vertically.
Once a CM is put in place to guarantee a systemic staff toe-the-line (I think Sweetwater Car Wash has been a prime time example of an MJ Abraham “teaching moment”), it’s game over.
Keep in mind that staff are the liaisons, the connecting dots to committees and commissions, wield certain sublime powers and if they want to keep their jobs they too can easily be made tools.
Instead of humble service, we get what Baltimore cynic H. L. Mencken uttered in despair, ofttimes manipulative mediocrity in leadership having “only a talent for getting and holding office.”
I doubt we’re ready to move to a “Mayoral Strong” (MS) structure, but imagine a Laguna world where the mayor IS elected at large and a paid CEO, where CC is elected by district, where the CM is paid far less and only administrates (not dictates), where DRB are by district as well as PC?
Of course there’d have to be simplified recall procedures, and then all elected officials would be held accountable by their constituents, their neighbors asap. Out of touch? Off the island!
MS is usually adopted by larger, more urbanized municipalities but Laguna is becoming more complex in character as it has many of the same densely populated problems due to visitations and issues.
We’re not in Kansas anymore, haven’t been since around 2000.
Many who post here declare that those of us who’ve lived here a long time are Luddites, afraid of change.
One must wonder how they’d handle or like that kind of change, responsive, flexible, adaptable governance instead of these prolonged, unchanged melodies, “oldies but moldies?”
Roger and MJ, wonderful and truthful comments, let’s be frank, we never win when there are no term limits, the alliances are made, the agendas are contrived and set..That is what has happened in our beautiful town. Lets talk about development the other side of the coin, there is no question you have organizations in town that have certain political people on the CC and spend a lot of $$$ to keep them reelected, then you have the other side, that wants to do it responsibly, build but keep the character of the town, tame down the tourists, ect..then walks in the CM who says, you put me in office and I will give you anything you want, DONE! We have had nothing but chaos, a bit of fraud, neighborhoods basically destroyed, as one of the parties a one term CC member said, no one needs view equity, I am going to change some of the things in our planning debt and let’s let anything goes who wants to build, you know, just like the Hotel Laguna not needing permits..you know, PROPERTY RIGHTS! I am wondering, is this a power thing or what, how many really want us to look like the inland malls or Las Vegas?..This is not my perspective this is the truth..Let’s get term Limits on the ballot now, let’s get our town back, unfortunately I think we have to go to council to have that freedom to vote for term limits, how many people in town will email each CC member and tell them you want term limits? Just do it, we have the opportunity to have a experienced and ethical city manager, let’s have the opportunity for term limits and stop what does not work for us as a community! Let’s exonerate George Weiss for any blame he has had to endure and make things right while we are at it!!! Thanks
Staingate.
Wow Roger and MJ – there’s little more to add. You hit it bang on. While I’m satisfied that Whalen brought the subject to City Council imo partially to get ahead of my public record act request (sad that a resident had to do that to get them to even ADMIT that they behaved badly in blaming George), I’m not happy with the outcome. George wanted total transparency – something his detractors say he was hiding from. So to those of you against George – what do you say to this now??? Your “friends” on the council are not releasing the information. I think there’s damaging information in that report about those very same people which is why they made a show of being transparent, but wait, not really. This is a very sad episode in our city’s history – the worst City Manager in city history, how to get rid of her? Let’s let her get away with creating a bogus claim against the ONLY City Councilmember who questioned her bad decisions, we’ll let her use that to claim stress and she “had to retire”. Then let’s not tell residents that it was a hollow claim, we’ll pay her to go away. Problem solved. Except George is still blamed by those sycophants of the former City Manager. So we’ll hide it all. Bah.
I agree – term limits are needed to get the institutional councilmembers out. No one should make this a career. You should be able to advance your agenda in 8 years. Transparency seems to be just something candidates mouth to get elected.
Mr. Fried,
Why did your one word comment not mention that what you are referring to was not substantiated? Curious you chose to highlight that…
Haters are gonna hate, but council member Weiss is fully exonerated.
I notice that those constantly complaining about locals being opposed to change never suggest anything like the progressive changes/revamp of our local governing system as offered here by Mr. Butow:
“I doubt we’re ready to move to a “Mayoral Strong” (MS) structure, but imagine a Laguna world where the mayor IS elected at large and a paid CEO, where CC is elected by district, where the CM is paid far less and only administrates (not dictates), where DRB are by district as well as PC? Of course there’d have to be simplified recall procedures, and then all elected officials would be held accountable by their constituents, their neighbors asap. Out of touch? Off the island!”
Makes me wonder if the complainers really want solutions to move Laguna forward as they profess they do. Or, only as long as their individual business fiefdom’s don’t change?
I personally like the MS governing model with Term Limits. Re-electing the same City Council Members to more than two terms (8 years) will never move Laguna Beach forward.
WOW! Fact Free Billy Speechless!!! One word retort!!! Priceless!!!!
The problem with Laguna is trite politics. In a world where the City managed essentials like sewer, water, security and streets, and let the businessmen who invest in them manage design, arts, seniors, LGBTQ, and tourism the locals who we elect could monitor real functions and not the pet projects deemed for “the people”. That means free market education, not public ‘servants’.
After months of wailing for “Transparency” by Indy Columnists Billy Fried and Michael Ray who have pronounced in their columns printed in the Laguna Beach Independent, that George Weiss was responsible for the departure of former CM Dupuis. The “truth” is finally coming to light regarding the CM’s “retirement package”, and separation from her position of CM here in Laguna Beach.
After release of portions of these findings it has ultimately unveiled as to “Who” is a proponent of transparency and Who is opposed to transparency.
What a revelation! George Weiss and Mark Orgill voted for complete release of this information. Council Members, Kemph, Rounaghi, and Mayor Whalen opposed the release of this information. Is this not curious? Anyone who is inquisitive might ask the obvious, why do Whalen, Kemph and Rounaghi wish to conceal the results of this investigation.
After reading the “condensed” findings the one thing that can be ascertained is that the former City Manager attempted to extort the City of Laguna Beach for a “non filed” grievance. In fact, nothing more than a written “threat” from her attorney to sue the City of Laguna Beach for $ 3,000,000.00 if her demands were not met. What a revelation! IMO the former CM, although not a competent CM turns out to be a very accomplished extortioner. The City of Laguna Beach City Council (George Weiss being excluded) decided to cave in to the incredible, unreasonable, preposterous demand and counter CM Dupuis with an undeserved settlement to forgo litigation.
Then in an act of self preservation Mayor Whalen proclaimed that the reason for the “settlement” was to preclude an inevitable law suit against the city due to George Weiss’s alleged actions, nonsense! I appeal to all of the Indy Readers to review the portions closed session revelations that CC saw fit to release and decide for themselves who is unethical, and who is for transparency. The findings were not even complete when CC offered CM Dupuis her Platinum Parachute!
It is truly sad that CC person Alex Rounaghi who campaigned on “transparency” has shown that he is just Peter Blake without the bad language. Regrettably, CC Member Roughani is nothing more than a disciple of CC Person Kemph, willing to do her bidding at the expense of transparency and what is principled and conscientious.
As we all await the Laguna Beach City Council’s decision on who should be our next Mayor it is the hope of many Laguna Residents that CC install George Weiss as our next Mayor. It is time to put an end to the embarrassing gavel toss that Mayor Whalen and CC Member Kemph have been exhibiting. This abuse of power must end with the selection of our next Mayor
Citizens of Laguna Beach, it is now time for release of the the full report, redact employee names if necessary, but give Us the Residents of Laguna Beach the real story. Is that too much to ask of this Council?
Dear Lagunatics: The Warren Commission Report was a ‘full investigation’ too. Why bother anymore?
Hey Mini Michelle and Claude The Dawg Morgan, you want more words? OK. I have to officially grade you a D in reading comprehension. Just what part of “there was significant exposure to litigation, a possible retaliation claim, among other claims that would subject the city to more than $400,00 in legal fees,” exonerates the deplorable harassment of Weiss?
And this:
“In Raileanu’s memo, Dupuis alleged that Weiss became “aggressive, agitated and intimidating” during a meeting in July or August of 2021. The report also stated that Weiss became angry, raised his voice and pounded his fist on Dupuis’s desk in a separate Oct. 22 meeting. Finally, it states Weiss criticized Dupuis “openly, repeatedly and relentlessly” in his personal newsletter and in open city council meetings.
Raileanu’s findings reported these allegations to be sustained.
Let me repeat: THE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUSTAINED.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!
This behavior has left a stain in our community!
Hey Fact Free Billy, let’s check the scoreboard on reading comprehension. Out of the seven claims that CM Dupuis made in her “not really a law suit shakedown”. The “City Hired” attorney found there was:
1.) “No discrimination on the basis of Sex”
2.) “No discrimination on the basis of National Origin”
3.) “The investigation Did Not Find that Weiss’s behavior towards the former CM during the
Summer of 2021 meeting to to be based on Dupuis Protected Class
4.)”The investigation also denied the allegation regarding a stain” * No idea what the heck
that is even about!
5.) “The memo also found that Dupuis claim the February 9TH vandalism of her was was an
‘inside job’ to be unsubstantiated”
6.) “Finally, the investigation rejected Dupuis claim that Weiss encouraged the public to
make demeaning, hostile, or unprofessional remarks about Dupuis in public forums,
including social media posts”
Fact Free Billy, please key on the following words. “NO DISCRIMINATION”, “DID NOT FIND”, “DENIED THE ALLEGATION”, “UNSUBSTANTIATED”, “REJECTED DUPUIS CLAIM”.
So, I guess what You are expressing is that the CM was justified in threatening the City that she was employed by with a $ 3,000,000.00 law suit because Weiss questioned her and held her accountable for the multiple missteps that Dupuis was known to have committed in her “short term” as the CM.
Now if You somehow believe that the letter from Dupuis’ attorney Craig Scott was not a “shakedown” let me repeat it here for You here.
“I’m requesting a settlement of 33 months of salary, plus attorney fees and a retirement from the city. And if not , I’m going to file a $3 million dollar claim against the city”.
Fact Free, You can not Cherry Pick the “One Sustained” item and disregard all of the others! Only in Your “FACT FREE WORLD” does this exist. You clamored for transparency, now that You have “condensed” morsels of the truth, You have chosen to grasp for the “ONE” finding that was sustained. No Judge or Jury would entertain granting a $ 3,000.000.00 settlement based on the totality of the investigations findings. You spewed so many lies and fabrications that it is You who has brought this all to light. It is You that has kept this ongoing. It could have gone away, but You would not let it go. It is because of You that CM Dupuis character continues to be questioned.
I am giving You an “F” for reading comprehension.
You obviously never witnessed CC Member Peter Blake do all of the things and much more than George Weiss has been unjustly accused of doing. All with zero repercussions for his behavior. Your letters are laughable.
Hey Claude, Here’s a free fact for you: Weiss is a bully with unresolved anger issues. He has no place in public service. His consequence will be the same as Blake – he will be voted out of office unless he wisely drops out.
I understand you haven’t been around long enough to remember it, but our community will mete out the punishment and you and your cabal of complainers will be left with no one on Council to carry out your fantasy of freezing Laguna in time.
Billy, Your comment that George “Weiss is a bully with unresolved anger issues”, and “He has no place in public service” is absurd. Billy, were You talking about Peter Blake or just trying to confuse us?
George Weiss, has been the voice of reason and the voice of the Residents of Laguna Beach since the day entered the City Council.
We can however be certain that the crew You represent would love for George to “drop out”, potentially turning over the reins of City Governance to the Developer/Retailer/Tourist syndicate. Yes, the one that put forth so many potentially calamitous projects in our city during their short-lived “majority”. “Reign of Error” (Think, 3RD Street Parking Structure)
F.Y.I. Billy, “Thoughtful Development” is not freezing Laguna in Time. Any resident that has been in Laguna for a while can certainly see that the Blake/Dupuis/Kemph/Whalen experiment was a massive “FAIL”. Why? Because Us the Residents with the support of CC Member George Weiss prevented so many terrible ideas from coming to realization in Laguna Beach. (Think monolithic Hotel(s) from Legion to Myrtle)
After all of your gyrations about “Transparency” when You do receive the facts You simply ignore them. You are unable, and unwilling to accept fact. I get it, You just don’t do fact, period.
So Billy, let’s call a truce, let’s just wait until the election and see what transpires.
Will the Pro Development, Pro Tourist, Pro Retail element regain traction after the loss of Blake and Dupuis? I for one certainly hope not. If so, I guess we can expect a Mayoral rotation of: Kemph, Whalen, Rounaghi, Kemph, Whalen, Rounaghi, etc., etc. for the next eight to eighteen years. This is what we can look forward to should You be correct.
Or, will Us the Residents of Laguna Beach say with our votes “enough is enough” and vote for a City Council that is Pro Resident, while embracing Thoughtful Development. The two can coexist. We will just have to wait and see.
Billy, Billy, Billy. Claude just pointed out you deal with no facts unless they are your own imagination. Yes, it’s true that 3 of her allegations were sustained. But it doesn’t make them true. First one – it was he said, she said. Only George was NEVER interviewed so how could that in actuality be sustained with only one side’s story?? Second one – imo it’s also he said, she said bc the witness, the ACM whose rear end Shohreh saved by giving the fired City Manager a job as ACM AND who worked for her as a subordinate, is not a credible witness. He owes her – of course he’s on her side. See also the reasoning above for point one. In any case, really? Really? Even if George did it is this really a reason to file a complaint over? This woman was tough as nails when it suited her. I think it suited her to play victim here on such flimsy, even laughable, accusations. And that’s point three. Read point three here:
That in newsletters that you prepared, during open session City Council meetings, and in emails to Dupuis, you criticized Dupuis openly, repeatedly, and relentlessly, and accused her of dishonesty and lack of integrity with regards to the traffic citation she received and in relation to issues surrounding Hotel Laguna; that these comments were demeaning and unprofessional because you dealt with personnel matters in open session rather than discussing personnel matters in closed session; and that you took an adversarial approach to Dupuis and her staff during City Council meetings.
Come on former City Manager. So your boss (George) can’t point out your mistakes and ask questions?? That you are so thin skinned that you are so stressed when questioned about your actions? Heaven forbid you have to justify your actions bc up til George you have been treated like a queen by the Council majority and have gotten away with everything (see the list of her misdeeds which is extensive). But boy oh boy weren’t you just so happy and lapping up all the accolades (personnel matter) in Open Session? So you can accept praise but it’s illegal for George to point out your failings?
Sorry Billy. This is a total mountain out of an ant hill – not big enough for a mole hill. Again, those charges, which George has categorically denied but was never given the opportunity to respond to, are just laughable and pathetic. Just like our former City Manager who is now laughing all the way to the bank thanks to the cabal of Kempf/Whalen and joined by newbies Orgill and Rounaghi giving away the goodies to Shohreh. That you don’t see that it was the council majority who is causing this disaster is even more alarming. She should have been fired for cause and we’d be done with this kabuki theater.
And one more point amigo – YOU called for transparency. So now you are saying you’re not and that it’s OK to NOT be transparent. Bah – you’re hopeless.
Well then, Michelle, by your outrage over Ms. Dupuis’ departure, it looks like she outsmarted you again, and you are left to just rage, rage, rage over the unfairness of life. Even when you win, you lose. What happened to make you so chronically angry and dissatisfied?
Oh Billy. Once again you just can’t read. I’m delighted she left. Delighted that George Weiss helped facilitate the public exposure of her incredibly bad decisions that the other Council members thought were just fine. Please read my post again Billy. I don’t have outrage over her departure – I’m still dancing at the win that we were able to get rid of the worst City Manager in Laguna history. Amazing that you interpret facts so badly. Oh wait – you’re allergic to facts I forgot.