Skip to main content

Deborah Edgerly's Unused Vacation Pay Not A Benefit; Edgerly's Character Defamation Continues

Look, I'm not writing this to defend fired Oakland City Administrator Deborah Edgerly' entire performance, but to act as a reasoned corrective. Phil Mattier and Andy Ross' column today listed what Edgerly was entitled to in the way of monetary compensation:

The bennies include:
-- Nine weeks of vacation.
-- Two weeks of management leave.
-- Three weeks of executive leave.
-- Ten weeks of sick leave (paid out at 33 cents on the dollar).
It's a grand total payment of $90,024, city officials confirmed.



Right. But what "city officials" forgot to tell Matier and Ross is that because Edgerly worked so many hours, she didn't take sick leave or management leave, or vacation pay. I like Phil and Andy, but I have to not only disagree with the way they present this information, but point an accusatory finger at the "city officials" who confirmed this information, because they could have took effort to tell Matier and Ross of the nature of the compensation and said nice things about Edgerly -- if only to protect the City from a lawsuit.

This City of Oakland's public relations behavior in this episode has been nothing short of stupid. The City of Oakland has served as the source for information leading to Chip Johnson's columns and in general was the instrument for painting Deborah Edgerly has being a bit worse in her job performance than the hot light of review would reveal.

Look, she's certainly made a rash of errors -- no question about it -- but the way she's portrayed in print and in the media has pushed reasoned analysis to the sidelines and smeared her in the process.

The City should have instituted a "talk nice" policy on this matter, so that it does not come away looking like the bad person in this matter. But it's too late for that. Miss E has an enemies list a mile long, many of them in different part of the City of Oakland. But to let emotions run away from common sense in how one presents information on someone else is grounds for punishment in my view.

But it may be more than "my view." The City of Oakland could be setting itself up for a "defamation of character" lawsuit. Here's the criteria for such a legal approach:

Defamation is a "tort," not a crime. This means that it is a civil wrong as opposed to a criminal wrong.

Defamation of character can relate to spoken derogatory statements (slander) or written derogatory statements (libel).

Insults are not considered to be defamation of character.

Courts of Law tend to believe that an opinion is not the same as a stated fact, regardless of the content.

For defamation of character, there has to be an identifiable victim.

For a good defamation case, the slander/libel must be false. It also must expose the victim to hatred, contempt or other harsh situations.

If the defamation affects you in your occupation, you may have a good case.

The protection of Free Speech (First Ammendment) is the main obstacle in winning a defamation of character case.

Actual damage must be proven as a result of the defamation. Just being upset about something that was said or written is not enough to constitute a defamation of character lawsuit.

Many defamation of character lawsuits are settled privately before they reach an actual court trial. This is usually in order to avoid any further damage from publicity of the incident.

If it is proven that you gave permission for the statement in question to be made, you have no case.

If you do decide that you want to pursue a defamation of character lawsuit, consult an attorney experienced in this type of law.

Your attorney can answer questions, tell you if you have a good case and give you the next step to take.

If you are planning on filing a lawsuit, gather all documents and evidence that has anything to do with your incident.

In your lawsuit, be sure to ask for punitive damages, as well as actual damages incurred.

Public officials and figures have a harder time winning cases of character defamation. For public officials and figures, it must be proven that the defendant acted with actual malice.

Private individuals have more protection from being defamed than public officials and figures.


The bottom line is that Edgerly would have a hard time winning such a lawsuit. But there's a possible window: First, her occupation was impacted. Second, it seems on many occasions that the "defendant" which is the City of Oakland, did act with "actual malice" and that could go back to statements by any number of City officials over this episode.

Look, there's one thing that the City of Oakland could learn from the "way" of the National Football League and that's to "nice you to death." The NFL has a policy of never issuing publicly damaging or attacking statements on individuals. Thus, while people from any one of the 32 member organizations may do this as they're separately ran, the NFL itself remains an oasis of "nice speak" that started with that PR genius, the late Commissioner Pete Rozelle.

Take note Oakland, before more mistakes are made.

Comments

Ernie said…
I completely agree the Matier/Ross column was pointless and prejudicial. Those bennies are part of her job, of course she will be paid.

On the other hand, I doubt any lawsuit is going to be a winner, given that she is an at will employee and can be dismissed "at will", as it were.
ShopGirl said…
I also agree that the M&R article was missing some facts and overly sensationalized the situation (11 sentences!)... and some of the comments (if you can stand weeding through them) actually had some good questions that should have been answered.

Questions such as:

Did she take any vacation or sick time?

Will there be an audit of her timesheets?

Why is there no cap like the average companies have?

What exactly are management & executive leave?

Most companies do not pay you for sick pay, even at $0.33/$1.00 and has she ever taken a sick day? Maybe she hasn't. People should be told the whole story and not half truths.

Mostly, the above questions are rule issues that should be addressed for the future. If paying her makes her go away quietly (which I would doubt), then indeed the City should pay her and everyone should move on. It was the issue of "negotiating her severence package" that had me up in arms a few weeks ago. Why should someone retiring have a severence package?

Joanna

Popular posts from this blog

Alex Castro, Electronic Arts VP, Is Oakland’s “Fake Joe Tuman”, “Crocker Mom”

Alex Castro, is currently Vice President Of Product Management At Electronic Arts, and a fairly-well-known and legendary tech executive, regularly quoted in a number of industry publications. But Alex Castro’s also an Oakland resident who has the terrible habit of going online, making traceble email accounts from his Electronic Arts office, and posing as someone […] from WordPress http://ift.tt/1fVkWP9 via IFTTT

Event: Jog For Jill San Francisco Run September 12th Golden Gate Park

Cal Women's Rowing Team member Jill Costello passed away from complications due to lung cancer on June 24th 2010 and at the age of 21. A San Francisco event and run called Jog For Jill has been established and will be held this Sunday, September 12th at 5 PM. Two members of the Cal Women's Crew team were at the Cal vs. Davis football game wearing Jog For Jill shirts, and were kind enough to provide the video interview above. Below are the other details from the event website, where you're encouraged to pre-register here CLICK FOR SITE : Pre-Registration: Online/$25 Day of Registration: 4:00 p.m./$30 Shotgun Start: 5:00 p.m. After run/walk celebration: 6:00 p.m.- 8:30 p.m. Event Location: Golden Gate Park Music Concourse Bandshell S Tea Garden Drive San Francisco, California 94118 Participants are encouraged to pre-register. Only pre-registered participants will be guaranteed a walk/run T-shirt. T-shirts will be limited to the first 2500 day of regis

Oakland Mayor's Race: LWV Forum Draws Oakland's Older Folks

Oakland Mayor's Race Forum first take. (Which means, there's going to be more of these posts on last night, because a lot was happening.) This just in: The Oakland Tribune's out of touch with Oakland. A number of attendees of the 450 estimated said they learned of the Oakland League Of Women Voters via "the newspaper." All of the people who made that statement were over 50 years old. Still, the forum, which attracted every candidate except Dr. Terrance Candell, was a success. The auditorium at 300 Lakeside Drive seats 380 people, so if you do the math, it was about 70 over capacity. The crowd was a happy mix of supporters of candidates and long-time observers of the Oakland political scene. The one complaint they had was there wasn't enough time to hear what the candidates were about. That wasn't because there were too many candidates, but due to the format. Either Oakland Tribune Editor Martin Reynolds or the League of Women Voter