Some Santa Ana residents said this week that they no longer trust City Hall, pointing to incomplete information released from the city about the resignation of former City Manager Kristine Ridge.
“Santa Ana voters are losing so much faith in the system,” said resident Ray Diaz. “Time and time again, we’re seeing this distrust with the police, and we’re seeing this distrust now with our elected officials.
“If we can’t trust the systems or the institutions that are supposed to be for and by the people, then what are we supposed to believe in?”
Diaz was referencing the city’s decision to keep information about Ridge’s departure — including a $163,000 payout — out of the public eye.
Late last year, after four years as Santa Ana’s city manager, Ridge threatened to sue the city, alleging harassment and hostile work conditions, according to letter from her attorney sent in September. When Ridge resigned, in October, the city agreed to pay her $489,000 in salary compensation and nearly $163,000 more for what was described in the severance agreement as “alleged personal/physical injuries and emotional distress.”
But the city’s press release about Ridge’s departure made no mention of her allegations, or of the taxpayer money spent by the city to settle. What’s more, language in the severance agreement stipulates that the press release would be the only public statement regarding Ridge’s departure.
In the wake of Ridge’s departure, the city has launched — and then expanded — an internal investigation into her allegations. Ridge claimed, among other things, that Mayor Valerie Amezcua made public statements that suggested Ridge was not qualified for her job because she does not speak Spanish and is not Latina.
Six months later, Santa Ana city officials still aren’t offering any details about city spending or Ridge’s allegations. This week, they declined to release an unredacted version of the September letter sent by Ridge’s attorney.
Several passages in that letter were blacked out by Santa Ana officials before it became public following an official records request from The Orange County Register. City officials on Tuesday, April 2, refused a request to fully unseal that letter, saying the redactions are exempt from public viewing to protect the privacy of personnel and confidential negotiation conversations.
City spokesperson Paul Eakins also declined to comment on questions related to the city’s incomplete press release following Ridge’s resignation.
David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes a free press, said a city can make valid claims about redacting a document. He also said he doesn’t have enough information to say if Santa Ana is legally bound to tell taxpayers about money spent on their behalf, or about allegations against city employees.
But he added that personnel matters aren’t a blank check for a city to be less than forthcoming about issues that are germane to taxpayers and voters. Political inconvenience, or potential financial exposure because of illegal actions, aren’t valid reasons to withhold information from the public.
“It’s only those personnel matters which would constitute an unwanted invasion of privacy,” he said. “That’s a bit of a sliding scale. Depends on who is the person at issue. Is it a high-ranking employee or is it just a staff-level clerk or somebody on the front line?”
Loy said an argument can be made that the higher up you are in the chain of command, the less expectation of privacy you can have.
“Cases that talk about people like school superintendents or allegations of misconduct against chief executives, the public has a right to know how those are resolved, even if it turns out they’re completely baseless,” he added. “The public has an interest in knowing how that investigation was conducted, and was that result appropriate?”
Legally, Loy said the city of Santa Ana isn’t obligated to announce to the public when it settles allegations of misconduct with taxpayer money.
But legal obligations, he added, are a bare minimum.
“I think they should, as a matter of best practice, be more transparent.”
Some residents, like Diaz, suggested it is frustrating to pay city officials who then fail to come clean with them about how their tax money is spent.
“What is the city trying to hide? These are (more than) $100,000, taxpayer dollars that could have otherwise gone to any other service that is much needed,” Diaz said.
Complaints about spending could become louder as the city budget shrinks.
Measure X, a 1.5% sales tax for Santa Ana shoppers approved in 2018, is expected to take a dip to 1% in 2029. Money from that tax accounts for 22% of the city’s general fund, set aside for, among other services, police officer retention, helping the homeless and removing graffiti. The city is preparing to lose as much as $30 million in revenue in a few years.
“There are conversations happening at City Hall around the looming, financial issues that the city will have once Measure X sunsets. It is very disappointing to know that the money that we do have right now is being spent on these claims,” said Santa Ana resident Carlos Perea, a former commissioner on the Measure X committee.
“Now, we have to pay money that could be going towards other things, like parks or other services that are essential. We don’t know if there will be more claims. I think the public should be concerned about any future exposure to litigation.”
Perea added that the city’s failure to disclose the spending and other details related to Ridge’s resignation is a disservice to the public.
“Since Mayor (Miguel) Pulido, our city has come a long way to ensure that City Hall is more transparent, more accessible to the public — and that residents can trust in the word of its government officials,” Perea said.
“The lack of transparency from the city on this issue, we are taking two steps back from where we were before. This is not about politics. This is not about an election. This is about what’s at stake here in the city when we can’t trust in the leadership.”
Leave a Reply