Oakdale City Council members authorized up to $40,000 Monday, Oct. 19 for an outside investigation into complaints that city employees faced intimidation and interference in their work, raising the proposed spending limit by $10,000 before approving it 4-0. Councilman Richard Murdoch was not in attendance at the meeting.
The vote on agenda item 11.7 ratified an agreement with employment-law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. Oakdale City Manager Jerry Ramar had already engaged the firm under an agreement effective Oct. 2.
The decision authorizes an investigation and funding. It does not establish that misconduct occurred or impose discipline on anyone.
According to the staff report, the city received written complaints from employees and a related complaint from a member of the public. They allege interference in administrative and operational matters, attempts to direct or influence employees outside established channels, and statements or contacts employees described as intimidating.
The written report does not identify the person whose conduct is being investigated. It says the complaints involve more than one city department.
The investigation will examine whether the alleged conduct occurred, whether it violated city policies or the municipal code, and whether it created or contributed to a hostile or intimidating workplace. Investigators will interview complainants and witnesses, review relevant rules and prepare written findings.
Ramar told the council the investigator would “substantiate or dismiss each claim.”
The staff report cites Oakdale Municipal Code Section 2-14, which requires council members to deal with administrative services through the city manager, and then only for inquiries. That rule is part of the city’s council-manager structure, which separates the council’s governing role from the administration of city operations.
Staff recommended an outside investigator because the complaints involve city employees. Having those employees’ departments investigate the matter would not provide an impartial review, the report says.
The proposed spending cap was $30,000. In urging an increase, council member Jeff Kettering said the goal was to ensure “nothing from either side is cut short due to finances.” Ramar said the witness list was growing and costs could exceed the original estimate.
The money will come from Risk Management Fund 515, which covers claims, liability exposure and related legal expenses. The staff report lists $50,000 in projected expenditures for the fund’s current budget.
The firm’s agreement charges $310 to $510 an hour for attorneys and $185 to $220 an hour for paraprofessional staff, plus necessary expenses. The contract itself has no spending ceiling; the council’s action sets the amount authorized for this investigation.
Public comment reflected differing views about the review. One speaker questioned the expense and the focus on a single council member, calling for equal standards across the council.
“Public money should serve the public interest,” the speaker said.
A second speaker argued that the investigation’s focus was justified by complaints about conduct attributed to one council member.
The staff report says any further council action would depend on the findings. The city attorney will advise how the results may be presented under California’s open-meeting law, the Brown Act. Employee personnel matters may qualify for closed-session review, while matters involving a council member generally must be considered publicly unless a specific exception applies.
