Is it in the best interest of public safety — and municipal liability — for cities to allow police officers to transport family members in official police vehicles?

It a legitimate point to raise given the claim for damages former Police Chief Jodie Estarziau’s attorneys filed with the city on her behalf Aug. 20 two months after City Manager Miranda Lutzow sent Estarziau a “notice of intent to terminate.”

Estarziau is seeking general and special damages that include emotional duress and attorney fees. Estarziau is not only seeking damages for not being able to end her law enforcement career with the city until sometime after she turned 50 years or age but also for the city’s actions in terminating her as they did that could result “in additional significant future damages in potentially precluding (her) from obtaining future employment.”

The Southern California attorneys retained by Estarziau made reference to the issue of official Manteca Police vehicles being used for family transportation in their claim noting it was part of the laundry list of items about the former police chief contained in an anonymous letter the city received Nov. 13, 2019. With hours of the city receiving the letter, City Manager Miranda Lutzow placed Estarziau on paid administrative leave via a text message.

The claim asserts the letter was “apparently drafted by a disgruntled gender-biased employee”.

An outside investigator hired by the city spent six months researching claims in the letter.  The investigator, according to the claim, described the anonymous letter as “primarily contain(ing) opinions, perceptions, general assertions, characterizations, subjective matters, rhetorical questions, and/or predictions.” The claim asserts the investigation “failed to substantiate any misconduct or policy violations” on the part of Estarziau.

The attorneys offer a snapshot of what was contained in the “notice of intent to terminate” Estarziau by referencing the issue of family members — specifically her children — riding in official police vehicles by noting it was “the first item of the three equally-meritless purported items of cause’.”

Even though the claim makes the argument that Estarziau was being treated differently than predecessors such as Nick Oglicacion, Dave Bricker, Charlie Halford, Willie Weatherford and former police chiefs such as Leonard Taylor whose dismal sparked the successful 1982 recall of then Mayor Trena Kelly and City Council members Bobby Davis and Rick Wentworth, it would seem such a policy is a lapse in judgment as well as conferring special privileges on some city employees and not others.

This is 2020. The days of Andy Griffith where Opie and Aunt Bea being ferried around Mayberry in a police vehicle would not be at great risk are long gone. Police officers are being shot execution style in their patrol vehicles. Marked and unmarked official police vehicles are being shot at.

One also needs to ask whether anyone — Estarziau or her predecessors — signed an agreement to hold the city harmless if their child was injured or killed while riding in a police vehicle. If it is required of anyone who goes on a ride along, one certainly hopes the city’s Human Resources and risk management folks over the years insisted of the same hold harmless agreements from any one transporting a family member in an official police vehicle.

The claim asserts city police department policy allows passengers in police vehicles that are not part of official police business “as authorized by (Estarziau).”

The claim noted Estarziau had received permission from prior city management to transport her children in an official city police vehicle. It also notes prior city management also had ridden with Estarziau in her city issued police vehicle and observed car seats and raised no concern whatsoever.

It further noted prior male police chiefs routinely transported family members in their police vehicle. In addition the claim asserts “current high ranking male police personnel transport either a spouse and/or children in their police vehicle.”

Liability issues aside it is reasonable to ask whether the privilege of transporting family members in official city vehicles is extended to other department heads as well as rank and file that use city issued vehicles.

Assuming it is a negotiated perk what measures, if any, does the city have in place to prevent it from being abused.

It’s a small detail in the overall scheme of things but it speaks volumes about how city policies are either not routinely reviewed and updated, often exist as “spoken’ but not in written form, and can confer privileged status on department heads earning salaries in the high  $100,000s.

It could be worse as there is no evidence that department heads directed administrative assistants or other underlings to play taxi cab driver on city time using — or not using — a city issued vehicle to transport the children of department heads.

The claims filed against the city by Estarziau and current Fire Chief Kyle Shipherd could end up opening cans of worms beyond those intended by their lawyers to secure money for their clients and themselves.

Some argue Manteca has been sleepwalking through the past three decades while growing toward genuine city status as they go from one city manager to another.

Whether Ludlow is trying to have the city move forward with its eyes wide open doesn’t matter as much compared to whether the city crossed its “t”s and dotted its “i”s when it dismisses any employee.

In this case there is a question whether top management are “at-will” employees or have a vested property right in their City of Manteca job.

This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road.

There are essentially three general areas where a public  employee has what are essentially “property rights to a job.”

*It can be granted in a written contract of an implied contract whether the employee has property interest in a job.

*Past practices involving due process such as notices  being issued and a hearing held prior to being terminated.

*There is a statue or regulation that gives employees a vested interest such as teacher tenure.

Everything else asserted in the claim filed on behalf of Estarziau and whatever rumblings are on social media are background noise.

It is clear how Estarziau’s lawyers would answer whether she is an at-will employee or has a property right to her job.

The city appears to hold the opposite view.

The smoking gun, if one exists, is how the city views the municipal executive management team the last time salaries and benefits were negotiated with them.

This is where things will get interesting. Fire Chief Shipherd, who used the same lawyers as Estarziau to file his own claim last week, has served as lead negotiator for the city’s executive management team.

Regardless of the eventual bottom line for the outcome of the two claims by Manteca’s former and current public safety department heads, the city needs crystal clear written policies and to enforce the rules.

That is on top of the mess in the Finance Department.

The question this council — and the next — needs to answer is whether there is adequate staffing and protocols in place to oversee and enforce rules and regulations that govern the city to avoid Manteca becoming the promised land for high priced attorneys.