Early budget talks held this week indicated some employees on Hollister’s layoff list may not lose their jobs after all, including Councilwoman Pauline Valdivia’s daughter, a clerical worker at City Hall.
Valdivia doesn’t believe she has a conflict of interest because her daughter is on the layoff list. And she plans to vote on who, if anyone, gets laid off.
Valdivia on Wednesday repeated a sentiment she expressed in January when the Council approved 36 layoffs effective June 30: She’s objective and her daughter’s standing won’t affect her decisions.
Valdivia said she won’t recuse herself from the reduction in force vote. There’s no conflict, she said, because she doesn’t oversee her daughter on the job.
“It’s not my fault her name got on the list,” Valdivia said. “It’s not my fault.”
But an official with the statewide government watchdog called the situation “clearly a conflict of interest.”
“Prudence would certainly suggest that this council person should abstain from this vote,” said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition. “It’s ridiculous to think that she can possibly be objective in this interest when it comes to the question of whether (her daughter’s) going to have a job.”
Scheer said Valdivia’s involvement probably wouldn’t make the vote illegal. But the apparent conflict does fall under guidelines of the Political Reform Act regulated by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), he said. And therefore, she shouldn’t take part.
If an immediate family member has a financial interest in a government decision, the situation falls under a “personal financial effect” of the law, according to FPPC guidelines.
At the a meeting Tuesday, Valdivia’s view on the layoffs was in stark contrast to the other three council members – Mayor Tony Bruscia, Robert Scattini and Tony LoBue. Councilman Brian Conroy was absent during both the Tuesday and Wednesday meetings. She argued adamantly against her peers to save the endangered positions.
Though Scattini declined to comment on whether Valdivia has a conflict, he did show frustration at Tuesday’s meeting that Valdivia supported keeping all the jobs.
At one point he was uncharacteristically quiet, and other council members asked his opinion.
“Sooner or later we’re going to have to cut,” Scattini said. “If you don’t think so, then show me the magic. Let’s play Houdini here. How are we going to get the money to save them.”
Of the positions on the layoff list, only 13 people remain with the city; the others left for jobs or early retirement. And officials already have decided one of the 13, Fire Chief Bill Garringer, will keep his post.
For the remaining employees, interim City Manager Clint Quilter proposed two plans. Lay off all 12, or lay off none. The Council’s choice determines whether Valdivia’s daughter keeps her job.
Quilter said he’ll recommend the plan that saves the 12 jobs. And Valdivia expressed support for that option.
She’s confident the city’s financial outlook will improve, she said.
“I call it low risk,” Valdivia said of saving the jobs, “because I think the economy’s going to get better.”
But Mayor Tony Bruscia supported the 12 layoffs Tuesday because after this year’s budget, $4 million to $5 million projected deficits remain for several years to come. Scattini and LoBue agreed with Bruscia that the city can’t afford to keep all 12 employees.
Bruscia said Valdivia is “very conscientious” about such decisions. But whether she should recuse herself, Bruscia said: “I can say if I was in her shoes, I would step aside. The reality is people are going to perceive there is a bias.”
If the city chooses to lay off all the employees, Quilter projected a deficit of $379,000. If they lay off none, it would be $913,000. But those figures include one-time property sales revenues of $3.2 million that won’t be available next year.
Valdivia, however, said she wouldn’t “support reducing any more services to the community.”
She also mentioned a recent independent study that said Hollister’s financial outlook isn’t quite as bad as previous estimates. She took a shot at former City Manager Dale Shaddox by calling his projections “all screwed up.”
“We need to have a plan if we’re going to do anything, not do it in one swoop,” Valdivia said. “You’re going to devastate the city. We’re going to end up getting sued by the community.”
When Valdivia finished commenting, LoBue chimed in, saying the city should take an aggressive approach and still consider eliminating the positions.
“We need to make sure we’re taking a business approach to this, and not taking it too personal,” said LoBue, a comment that provoked laughter from Valdivia.
LoBue declined to elaborate on his comment and he declined to comment on whether Valdivia has a conflict. And City Attorney Elaine Cass was on vacation and unavailable for comment.
Valdivia also supported allowing unions more time to meet with city management to discuss alternative cost-cutting measures. That likely would prolong approval of the budget, which is slated for early July.
The other three Council members, however, made it clear they don’t support additional meetings with the unions.
“They had four months,” Scattini said.
