Retelling herstory

It’s unclear who started this whole “Ann Marie Gallant as valiant whistleblower” meme, but what is clearing up–  for me at least — is that Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the whole business appears to be completely overblown.    I know I’ve looked into the background into her role in the City of Carson previously but turned up very little.   Probably because I had bought into the story that Ann Marie Gallant was a significant part of the Carson corruption whistleblowing deal.   And because when you google “Ann Marie Gallant” AND “Carson” you don’t get a whole lot either.

So the other day I came across this article and decided to expand my search to look for articles about the subject of the corruption charges, and that resulted in a much clearer picture of the timeline and how Ann Marie Gallant was more of a minor actor in a major scandal as opposed to a major actor in a minor scandal.

First, it’s important to detail out Ann Marie Gallant’s role in Carson.   The best accounting I can find is actually in the dissenting opinion in the appeal to case that Ann Marie Gallant filed against the City of Carson.   To make a long story short, AMG filed a case against the City of Carson for wrongful termination and defamation of character.   The lower court struck the defamation of character portion and on appeal the majority of appellate judges felt as though it should not be dismissed because AMG may have been able to prove that she had been defamed.  Not an outright win, but definitely not a loss.   One judge disagreed and offered this background in the way of context, it’s longish but gives a clear picture:

From August 2000 to November 2003, Ann Marie Gallant worked as the City of Carson’s General Manager of Development Services, with a multi-million dollar budget and a staff of about 100 employees (almost one-fourth of the City’s workforce). Throughout that time, Gallant reported to Jerome Groomes, the City Manager. In January 2002, Gallant saw a fax from Robert Pryce (a contract attorney for the City) to James Ambroso (an executive at Browning-Ferris Industries, which was then bidding for a Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with the City) in which Pryce told Ambroso about a competitor’s bid. Gallant reported the disclosure to Groomes. In October, Gallant was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating the bid disclosure. After Gallant testified, the City’s mayor and mayor pro tem were arrested, and both later pleaded guilty to unspecified crimes.

In the fall of 2003, Groomes (with the City Council’s approval) terminated Gallant’s employment. Gallant, in turn, filed a Government Tort Claim with the City (Gov. Code, ? 900 et seq.), which was later rejected.

On November 1, the Daily Breeze (a local newspaper) published an article, “Terminated City Official Files Claim For Damages,” identifying Gallant as a “former top Carson official” and describing her Government Tort Claim — in which (according to the Daily Breeze) she related the facts about the bid disclosure, claimed that Groomes had instructed her “to not tell” the City Council about the bid disclosure and agreed to do so himself after she refused to be put off, reported that she had testified before the grand jury, claimed that Groomes (with the help of George Penn, the Assistant City Manager) had tried to force her to resign, and alleged that she had been fired in retaliation for her grand jury testimony.

According to the Daily Breeze: “Gallant was hired by Carson three years ago. She had previously worked as deputy administrator of the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency, but agreed to step down, according to several Los Angeles Times articles in 1999 and 2000. [?] Gallant was accused of misleading board members on a property appraisal and suspended over a disputed expense account, according to one Times report, which also quotes an attorney for two employees who were fired by the agency and later awarded $580,000 for wrongful termination. . . .”

In January 2004, Gallant sued the City, Groomes, and Penn for damages, alleging two causes of action, one for wrongful termination (against the City [128 Cal.App.4th 720] only), the other for defamation. Gallant alleges the discovery of the fax and the events described above, and claims she was, as a result, “subjected to a continuing pattern of retaliatory, malicious, and harassing treatment” from Groomes and Penn. She claims her phones were tapped, her mail screened, her e-mails surreptitiously intercepted and, ultimately, her employment terminated.

With regard to her defamation cause of action, she alleges that the City, Groomes and Penn maliciously “published false, unprivileged statements” to Gallant’s “co-workers and other members of the public that she was incompetent, a statement known at the time to be false.” She alleges that Groomes and Penn told “various” City employees and the general public that Gallant’s “‘termination was in the best interest of the City,’” thereby (according to Gallant) imputing to her “a general disqualification in those respects which her profession peculiarly requires.” She does not say when these statements were made, or whether they were oral or written, or who heard or read them. The only actual statement alleged is the one quoted, that her termination was “in the best interest of the City.”

…

In opposition to the motion, Gallant offered her own declaration and one from Debbie Torres (an Administrative Specialist in Development Services employed by the City), both to the effect that Groomes had told various City employees that Gallant was terminated because she was “incompetent.” Torres also said she had heard Groomes say that Gallant “was a liar and did not tell the truth.”

In reply, the City offered a “clarify[ing]” declaration from Torres, explaining that she had never really heard Groomes say that Gallant was a “liar” or even that she was “incompetent.” Rather, Groomes had told her that Gallant was terminated because she “did not meet . . . Groomes’ expectations regarding keeping him informed and involved as to her activities on behalf of the City,” and that they “did not ‘get along,’” statements Torres understood to mean that Gallant’s performance did not meet Groomes’s expectations. And Groomes never said Gallant was a “liar” — he simply said that Gallant’s Government Tort Claim, as described by the Daily Breeze article, was “false.”…

If this is your only exposure to the entire business then it would appear, based on the phrasing of  this part:

“In October, Gallant was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating the bid disclosure. After Gallant testified, the City’s mayor and mayor pro tem were arrested, and both later pleaded guilty to unspecified crimes”

That AMG’s testimony led to the arrest of Carson’s mayor and mayor pro tem.   However, news reports from the LA Times show that this issue of the investigation of the charge of corruption started well before AMG ever received that fateful fax.   As the timeline notes AMG started working at the City in August of 2000 but in September 2000, according to the LA Times:

…Unbeknown to his colleagues, [former City Councilman Manny] Ontal was working as an undercover operative for federal investigators.

He had walked into the U.S. attorney’s office in Santa Ana with a lawyer in September 2000 and proclaimed that he was tired of the corruption, said the lead prosecutor in the case, Assistant U.S. Atty. John Hueston. Ontal confessed his own corrupt acts, Hueston said, and agreed to expose others. Ontal then secretly taped conversations relating to the award of a lucrative waste-hauling contract…

In fact not one word of that article detailing the arrests of the Carson officials and the corruption scheme mentioned AMG’s role in the case that the federal prosecutors had on those charged.   And in a follow up article detailing the guilty plea of the former Mayor of Carson, not a mention of AMG’s whistleblowing role either, simply:

Federal prosecutors said they had been looking into tips about possible Carson corruption in 2000 when Ontal walked into their offices unbidden, confessed wrongdoing and agreed to cooperate in nabbing others. Ontal subsequently wore a secret recording device for meetings with Sweeney and others who were set to award the long-term, exclusive waste-hauling contract for the city of 90,000.

So while the fax document discovered by AMG in January 2002 may have been the icing on the cake for federal prosecutors it by no means was the meat of their case.   Additionally, given that AMG reported to Jerome Groomes, the City Manager, who walked away from the whole corruption scandal completely unscathed and quit his long term job only fairly recently the idea that she was terminated because she was a whistleblower strains credibility.   In the end the settlement she received from the City of Carson appears to be because a risk-adverse City with serious PR issues decided that settling with Ann Marie Gallant would be cheaper than attempting to fight her in court for a moral or principled victory.   Probably something that our City Council will also need to weigh.

Totally unrelated, except for the Carson connection is this video from 2008 of a former Carson Mayor whapping someone on the back of the head after her public comment, she eventually reached a settlement agreement to keep her out of jail after being charged with misdemeanor battery.  Watch as the victim flails to the floor at least three beats after the whack:

Advertisement