Council Votes to Seek Buyout Settlement With Cunliffe in Move to Sidestep Firing

The Los Angeles City Council voted behind closed doors Friday to seek a buyout of embattled General Services Department General Manager Sylvia Cunliffe in a move that could sidestep firing her, City Hall sources said.

No specific settlement figure was agreed upon, the sources said. But they said that Councilman Hal Bernson suggested keeping Cunliffe on a paid leave of absence from her $90,243-a-year job until she qualifies for her full pension at age 55 next March 4. Mayor Tom Bradley, who wants her fired, ordered her last June to begin the paid leave pending an investigation into a number of allegations against her.

Bernson’s suggested settlement, if it includes about $17,000 in unused sick leave, computes to a total buyout of almost $45,000.

Though Bernson’s specific proposal was set aside for the time being, the council, on an 11-2 vote, opted to instruct the city attorney to negotiate a buyout, the sources told The Times. The council, which voted to take up the Cunliffe ouster again on Dec. 1, would be required to approve any deal made by the city attorney.

Refused Comment

Emerging from the private council meeting after three hours, Cunliffe smiled at reporters but refused any comment.

Council members Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky opposed any settlement, arguing that it would send the wrong message to other city general managers. Molina went so far as to say the council would look like “a bunch of wimps” if it followed through with a settlement, the sources said.

But other council members voiced the feeling that by settling with Cunliffe, the city could avoid both lengthy political and legal battles.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who is officially neutral on the firing issue, told his colleagues during the debate that if Cunliffe agreed to leave her post under a cloud, it would amount to a “golden noose” settlement, in contrast to the “golden handshake” types of retirement agreements that are often offered to bureaucrats, the sources said.

“What is happening really isn’t doing the city any good, and I think that’s the attitude of the members,” Councilman Nate Holden told reporters outside the council chambers. “After all, you have an employee who has been here 30 years, and whatever you can do to resolve it without any confrontation in a court matter is an ideal situation.”

Several council members spoke with Times reporters after the closed session only on condition that their names not be reported. Others refused to speak under any condition.

One thing was clear, several council members said: Hardly anyone Friday was ready to make a decision on the firing. Molina was an exception, however, and moved at one point during the closed session to force a decision, the sources said. They said she was voted down 10 to 3.

Most of the council members complained that they had not had time to go through two large notebooks full of documents on which Bradley based his move to fire her.

City Prohibitions

Bradley said the notebooks contain the proof that Cunliffe violated various city prohibitions against favoritism, nepotism and illegal use of sensitive criminal records to discredit an employee, Robert O’Neill, who had been critical of her.

Several council members said earlier Friday that they hoped that Cunliffe would appear at the deliberations on her firing and defend herself. Although she did enter the council chambers about two hours after the debate began, she did little talking.

According to various sources, Cunliffe, on the advice of her attorneys, refused numerous times to respond directly to Bradley’s allegations. Her attorneys wanted the council to delay any decision until the district attorney decides whether to prosecute Cunliffe for allegedly misusing criminal records to discredit O’Neill.

Cunliffe’s lawyers also wanted a delay until at least Nov. 24, when a Superior Court judge is expected to decide if the city attorney, who advised Cunliffe during the last several years, should be disqualified from representing the city.

Procedural Issues

The members said most of the five hours of debate was spent on procedural issues. At other times, it strayed into charges that Yaroslavsky, one of Cunliffe’s chief critics, was pushing for her ouster to embarrass Bradley. Yaroslavsky is a likely Bradley opponent in the 1989 mayoral election.

Although Bradley has filed 20 separate allegations against Cunliffe, the debate Friday touched only on the allegations involving O’Neill, the sources said.