Published: Thursday, Jul. 16, 2009
‘Relationship’ that led to Gail Wilcox's termination stays a mystery for now
Supervisors' report on the investigation of the former assistant county administrator won’t be released to the public for at least 9 days
Comments (0) | 
E-Mail
Print
tool name
closeCounty residents will have to wait at least nine more days before they find out the identity of the mystery person with whom she had a “personal relationship” cited in the Board of Supervisors’ decision Tuesday to fire Assistant County Administrator Gail Wilcox.
In an e-mail to local media, County Counsel Warren Jensen wrote that the individual will be named when the county releases its investigative report about Wilcox, compiled by Oakland attorney Sarah Robertson.
The report’s release is scheduled for July 24.
-
Poll:Should the investigative report about Gail Wilcox be released to the public?
Wilcox’s attorney, David Warren, said Wednesday that the supervisors’ firing of Wilcox was retaliation for her filing a lawsuit against the county.
Warren said that both the retaliation and the harassment Wilcox alleged in her lawsuit will be explored in court.
He declined to elaborate further because this is a legal matter.
When supervisors fired Wilcox on Tuesday, they said she had “participat(ed) in a personal relationship that conflicted with her official duties.”
The rumor mill has been grinding overtime about who that could have been with, but those who actually know have remained mum. However, “assuming that the investigative report is released, that should answer your questions,” Jensen wrote. One of the questions — the one on everyone’s mind — is who the individual is.
Supervisors also have said they will redact some information in the report.
Meanwhile, Wilcox is out in the cold.
A clause in Wilcox’s contract that would have allowed her to take her old job as administrative analyst was voided because her firing was for cause, Supervisor Chairman Bruce Gibson said.
In his e-mail, Jensen also revealed that:
• Wilcox was present for part of the three-hour closed-door session that led to her dismissal.
• She is receiving no severance package. She made $180,000 a year, plus benefits.
• She will receive accrued vacation but not accrued sick leave. Those figures were not available.
When supervisors announced that they would ultimately release the report, they did so unanimously but reluctantly.
Jensen alluded to a court case, BRV v. Superior Court, which proclaimed that “a personnel document may be subject to disclosure if it concerns a ‘public figure’ and a matter of legitimate public interest.”
“In our opinion, those criteria are met here,” Jensen wrote. “The purpose of the 10-day hold is to allow anyone who disagrees with our interpretation to go to court and seek an order blocking or restricting our disclosure.”
However, Jensen made clear in his e-mail that Wilcox or someone else could seek an injunction against its release.
Gibson agreed that the report “should be released.” However, he added, “I wish we didn’t have to do it, because it contains a fair amount of … sensitive personal information.”
The Tribune had filed a Public Records Act request seeking Robertson’s report.
Gibson said the county is working up a job description for a permanent county administrative officer. He said that job will be filled before Wilcox’s.
What you should know about comments on SanLuisObispo.com
SanLuisObispo.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. See our full terms of service here.
Here are some rules of the road:
- Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "report abuse" button. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.
- Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.
- Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.
- Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand. If you want to discuss an issue with a specific user, click on his profile name and leave him a public message.
- Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.
- Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.
- Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.
- Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.
You should also know that The Tribune does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at webmaster@sanluisobispo.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.
If you submit a comment, the username of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to webmaster@sanluisobispo.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.
About comments
Reader comments on SanLuisObispo.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Tribune. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.