0

LAW OFFICES OF

0
MICHAEL W. STAMP
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1 Monterey, California 93940

Facsimile
(831) 373-0242

Telephone
(831) 373-1214

January 12, 2009 ',l'ia Fax and U.S. Mail Richard C. Bolanos Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 153 Town send Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Jane Miller and City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Dear Mr. Bolanos: I have received your letter dated January 12, regarding the "investigation" that is underway. At the same time, my client. Jane Miller, has received two direct communications from Heidi Burch, where Ms. Burch makes certain demands and representations on behalf of the City, some of which are retaliatory. In your letter, you advise that your law firm's investigator has interviewed (to one extent or another) eleven current City employees and one former employee. You do . not disclose any of the contents of those interviews, nor do you explain why the investigation has not included other persons that one would expect to see interviewed. You do not disclose whether any documentary evidence has been reviewed, such as the emails and other records identified in Ms. Miller's detailed letter to the City. Most tellingly, you do not indicate that any earlier allegations of Mr. Guillen's inappropriate behavior, favoritism, or inappropriate personnel actions have been investigated, including any allegations made by female employees or male employees about the favoritism displayed to Christie Miller. You also do not indicate that any non-Cityemployees (past or present) have been interviewed, either about the Guillen-Christie Miller or Guillen-Heidi Burch situations. You also do not show any interview of the City Attorney or the City Council Members. Your letter asks Ms. Miller to be interviewed. You made this request earlier, and in my letters to you dated August 28, September 10, September 30, and October 17, 2008, I requested information about the "investigation" referenced in your most recent letter. Copies are included for your reference. In each case, your law firm failed to provide the information that we requested about the interview. I again urge you to reconsider your position on working with Ms. Miller in good faith. As for the direct contact with Ms. Miller by Ms. Burch, I do not understand what the City hopes to accomplish with it. The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Burch has been the beneficiary of Mr. Guillen's actions, and that Ms. Miller has made claims about that favoritism and about the role of Ms. Burch. Nevertheless, Ms. Burch has been authorized by the City to act on behalf of the City in regard to Ms. Miller, to bypass Ms. Miller's legal counsel, and to communicate directly with a represented party. It is

0187

0
Richard C. Bolanos January 12, 2009 Page Two

hard to imagine a more inappropriate person to be designated to give orders and impose deadlines on Ms. Miller. Once more, as I did with Mr. Guillen's attempt to intimidate Ms. Miller back in May, I ask that the City not contact Ms. Miller directly. also ask that Ms. Burch stop communicating directly with Ms. Miller. Where does this leave us? The situation is deteriorating. Ms. Miller's options have been limited by the long delays, including the months that passed before the City even began an investigation, the City's refusal to accommodate Ms. Miller's leave request, the absence of prompt and effective remedies, and the leaking of the situation to the press. In order to move this matter to its conclusion, Ms. Miller is willing to make a new proposal: she is willing to authorize me to discuss matters with Ms. Kramer to see if we can reach an accommodation on any of the issues that may be outstanding. The discussion would be at my Offices in Monterey, and would be considered part of a confidential, limited mediation of these issues. I would be willing to exchange some information with Ms. Kramer on an appropriate basis, and she and I could discuss ways of moving forward in a mutually satisfactory way. The details of such a meeting and discussion would be arranged directly with Ms. Kramer. I am authorized to give the City until January 20 to consider this proposal. If the City needs more time to do so, please contact me this week. Please make sure to provide this information to your clients.

Enclosures as noted

0188