Before he won a seat on the Pacific Grove City Council in 2020, Luke Coletti was a close observer of city government and an exacting critic. His campaign platform was largely this critical perspective. He gave Ben Harvey, the city manager at the time, a grade of F – for his performance in an interview with the Weekly. When it came time in 2021 to renew Harvey’s contract, Coletti was the lone vote against it.
Coletti’s outward criticism of Harvey culminated in July when Harvey resigned in exchange for a $440,000 payout and a provision that he would drop all claims against the city, as staff writer Pam Marino has reported.
Harvey filed a claim of workplace mistreatment against Coletti in 2022, and a third-party investigator sustained Harvey’s complaints.
That Coletti and Harvey were pitted against each other was unsurprising to anyone observing Pacific Grove city government. But there’s a pattern: At least three other similar claims of workplace harassment have been filed by city staff members against Coletti. Two remain under active investigation.
Beyond that, multiple staff members have departed from City Hall. Former housing manager Anastacia Wyatt left for the City of Monterey; former community development director Alyson Hunter left for Marina. In a resignation letter in 2022, Hunter cited “aggressive questioning” as a reason for her departure.
Tough questioning is one thing. Workplace bullying is another. And Coletti seems intent on continuing to cross that line.
On Dec. 6, he introduced an ordinance codifying councilmembers’ inquiry authority, or their ability to seek information directly from city staff, as expressed in the P.G. city charter. In Coletti’s telling, “We are simply codifying existing law.”
But the proposed ordinance has raised eyebrows from the labor relations representative for the Pacific Grove General Employees Association, which has demanded a meet-and-confer with city officials.
“This has impacts on working conditions,” says Ryan Heron of UPEC 792. “It strikes me as highly unusual that rank-and-file city employees would report directly to city council members.”
But for Coletti, this is the normal course of business. On Dec. 18, he complained to the Weekly and asked us to retract six articles. Our attorney, Roger Myers, wrote back on Dec. 20 notifying Coletti we would do no such thing. Myers added: “Correcting an actual mistake is clearly not your intent, as the Weekly was clearly not mistaken. Rather, your apparent intent is to attempt to do to the Weekly what the city’s investigation found you had done to the former city manager and other city staff: ‘bullying.’ The Weekly will not be intimidated.”
We will not, but P.G. staff who are simply trying to run a city surely might be.
There can be a fine line between elected officials holding city staff accountable – certainly part of their job expectation – and being meddlesome bullies. In Coletti’s telling, he is doing an excellent job, “probably the best city councilmember there has been in years. The reason is, I ask questions.”
How many questions – and how respectfully they are delivered, and how nitpicky or hostile they are – is another matter. (Coletti declined to speak about the complaints against him, because they are confidential personnel matters, but suggests: “Maybe the problem isn’t with the councilmember, maybe the problem is with staff.”)
Asking questions is good. Interrogating staff to the point they are disempowered from doing the work the public expects them to do is not. And yet Coletti persists, righteously.
There is a real cost to this conduct. With at least four complaints filed against him, there are the third-party investigations, not to mention potential liability for the city. There’s the exodus of capable staff, and Harvey’s $440,000 package.
In analyzing the 2022 investigation, a partner with the Renne Public Law Group wrote that P.G. “does not tolerate or condone Mr. Coletti’s behavior.”
You might expect Coletti’s fellow council members to take action against this disruptive behavior. Not only have they failed publicly issue a censure or reprimand, but an amended code of conduct remains stalled.
If Coletti wants to run City Hall, perhaps he should seek a job there; there are openings.
(22) comments
I appreciate the opinions and commentary regarding the proposed ordinance to Codify Council’s Inquiry Authority. Mr De Boor mentions: “ To say that requests for information are different from orders is to be deliberately disingenuous, bordering on dishonesty.” This is really amazing because the agenda report and proposed ordinance cite published case law (Levy v. City of Santa Monica) that clearly refute this very point. This is fully described in the agenda report and the published opinion is provided as an attachment (see link below).
https://tinyurl.com/Inquiry-AgendaReport
The agenda report cites two governmental code section both of which refer to public record requests. If council members were to file public record requests as part of their inquiry authority, I expect no one would object, because (1) there would be a record of it, (2) the city manager would be aware of the added workload, and (3) it would be more likely conducted in a respectful manner.
Levy vs Santa Monica initially deals with inquiries on behalf of constituents -- petitions for redress of grievance submitted through the council member are protected activity under the first amendment for both the constituent and the council member.
It does go on to point out that council members can say whatever they like, and the council member is not responsible for how the recipient construes what the council member said. But of course like all speech, they are not immune from the consequences of that speech. If the inquiries are made respectfully, there should be none.
At this point the consequences of Luke Coletti's speech, borne by taxpayers, not by him, have been around 500k in settlement costs, 60k in investigation costs, unknown (so far) fees (rumored to themselves be more than 500k and counting) to firms like Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss, and Renne Public Law Group to strategize on how to handle the impacts of his speech on Ben Harvey and 3 other public employees, and the departure of multiple city employees.
Think of what that money could have been spent on! Revitalizing Chautauqua Hall as a venue to draw people to the city and enhance the economic activity here. Recreation programs to enhance the quality of life for residents of all ages. Just two I can think of off the top of my head.
Thank you again for sharing your opinions and commentary. However, it’s always important to distinguish between fact and speculation. Rumors and assumptions are not facts. Again, the best way to understand the proposed ordinance is to read the agenda report and watch the video of Council discussion (see links below). I invite everyone to do so.
https://www.tinyurl.com/Inquiry-AgendaReport
https://www.tinyurl.com/Inquiry-Video
Yes, it's speculation in the same way that Evolution is speculation, or the way in which Councilmember Beck emailing a citizen's employer to get them in trouble for a public comment was speculation.
Thank you for your reporting. I appreciate that the Weekly is standing firm in the facts of this matter. There are a couple of elected officials within Pacific Grove who act as if they are beyond reproach, though their actions deserve public scrutiny. The others are complicit in the overreach through their silence. Please continue to hold our council accountable.
It is true that Mayor Peake stopped Luke not during the presentation of Luke's proposed ordinance, but because he was off-topic from the agenda item, digging into the recycled water project revenues / costs with Tori Hannah during a presentation about the economics of the PG Golf Links. I found it quite telling to witness the tone of voice with which Luke was questioning her versus the tone of voice that he used when presenting his suggested ordinance.
I, for one, would like to understand just what Luke has been finding out using his power of Inquiry and how he's been using the information he's obtained. If it's as important to his role on the council as he says it is, I would expect him to be informing his constituents of all the Good Work he's been doing for them through Inquiring of the city staff. Perhaps he could publish a newsletter monthly or quarterly and call it Inquiry Report or PG Inquirer.
What is clear, however, is that through his method of inquiry he has cost the city/public nearly half a million dollars in settlement costs, and driven two senior staffers (Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Hunter) to equivalent positions in other peninsula cities (i.e. they couldn't have been doing such a bad job).
Characterising this piece as a "personal attack" is ridiculous. This is holding a person, who is a public official, accountable for their actions.
And let's be clear: city staff are not "public servants" they are public employees: they are the people we hire for their skills in doing the work the public needs done. "Public servant" is the term we used to use for elected officials, but it seems like Luke would like that to be "Public master" instead.
A couple of things here. First, right before I spoke, Councilmember Poduri also asked several questions about the cost of water and our Local Water Project, which has been operating at a $300,000 / year deficit. I followed up on that subject and others related to the Golf Course ProForma Report, which I originally brought to Council as a proposed study (a great example of Council's Inquiry Authority for you). Second, much like the Weekly, I only see opinion here and no actual evidence to substantiate the claim(s). So, in order to allow others to judge for themselves, I have provided a link (below) to my questions/comments regarding agenda item 12A - Market and Economic Evaluation Report for the Pacific Grove Golf Links (video at 1h23m54ss):
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bo_MEGgukVE?si=Yj_3Ey8SCBrzLRQ-&t=5034
There are facts, though you seem to overlook them: 1) the agenda item was the economic condition of the golf course, 2) you were asking multiple questions about the water project and its projected revenue, 3) you were stopped by the mayor because you were off topic, 4) both Ms Hunter and Ms Wyatt cited the work environment brought about by you as reasons for leaving, and 5) both of them have equivalent positions in nearby cities now. I'm not clear what evidence you think is lacking. https://cityofmarina.org/Directory/Home/SingleStaff?EID=188 is Alyson Hunter's record at the City of Marina. https://monterey.org/city_hall/departments/housing_programs/index.php shows Anastacia Wyatt as a Planning Manager in Monterey. Are you expecting me to transcribe where Mayor Peake said "We need to move off this line of inquiry, just for the local audience to realize we're talking about the local water project and that's not on the agenda" after roughly 8 minutes of your questions to Ms. Hannah?
I'm all in favor of the council requesting reports from staff in open meetings. When I reminded you all about Article 21 in November, I explicitly mentioned that. The Council should be making decisions based on information from the staff. It's the incessant badgering of individual staff members without even looping the city manager into the conversation that I have a problem with. The amount the charter has to say about interference with the city manager is dramatically greater than the reference to the council's inquiry authority. "Except for the purpose of inquiry the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately." 6 words vs 40 words. To say that requests for information are different from orders is to be deliberately disingenuous, bordering on dishonesty.
I value the Monterey Coast Weekly and yet its coverage of Luke Coletti is troubling. There seems to be a bias against him in the execution of his duties as Pacific Grove councilman. Why doesn’t the Monterey Coast Weekky offer a balanced account of the reasons Coletti has found it hecessary to examine those conditions in the city that warrant investigation ? This would be a fair and balanced approach rather than offering such a one sided account of personnel matters that obviously can’t be discussed or commented on fairly. We are getting a skewed point of view.
Why is the Weekly reporting on the repercussions of one councilmember's aggressive behavior? Because it is costing the city LOTS of money and staff. Outside consultants and labor representatives agree. Colett was recused from Ben Harvey's job performance reviews due to his behavior, but was given a spot on the subcommittee to find a new city manager. He was complaints against him for his behavior with staff but is allowed to bring forward an ordinance that would allow him to continue his behavior. Even in the council meeting to present this ordinance, the Mayor had to interrupt Coletti's persistent questioning/interrogating of staff. What the Weekly is doing is sounding the alarm. This head scratcher is a mirror to what is going on in our national politics today. I just hope that enough residents are listening and will speak up.
Please allow me to correct the record here. First, I was not forced to recuse myself from Ben Harvey's performance review, quite the opposite. As a Council member I supervise the City Manager and City Attorney and decided entirely on my own to not review his performance. I did this to remove any possible suggestion of bias. I would expect others to do the same thing. Second, I was not "given" a spot on the City Manager selection subcommittee, the City Council voted 5-2 to appoint me. I was previously appointed to serve on the City Attorney selection subcommittee. Third, any Council member can bring forward an ordinance, which is exactly what I've done. The ordinance to Codify Council's Inquiry Authority is extremely well researched legislation. I have provided links to the legislation below. You also misstate what the Mayor said and why at our December 6 meeting. Lastly, residents are speaking up, and I truly appreciate all of their support. Thank you!
https://www.tinyurl.com/Inquiry-AgendaReport
https://www.tinyurl.com/Inquiry-Video
I am confused by this journalism. Why is the editor of the weekly taking such a personal and slanted stance on one of pacific grove's city council members? It's very odd. This article also lacks substance. As a PG resident, and a witness to the complexities of that city's issues, I appreciate Luke Coletti's tenacity in asking questions, his adherence to established procedures, his focus on the environment, preservation of residential neighborhoods, and affordable housing.
I trust Coletti to hold staff accountable more than I trust Rubin’s opines.
Thank you, Luke, no thank you, Sara.
Being required to not divulge personnel matters is one thing, but everyone has a right to deny claims against them if they are false, and Mr Coletti refuses to do that.
I certainly have denied these claims. However, confidential personal matters cannot be discussed. Even so, during our phone conversation the author of this opinion piece twice attempted to coach me on how I could leak confidential information while remaining anonymous. Is this something she is used to doing with other City officials and employees? I told her I wasn’t interested.
I have a great deal of respect for Luke Coletti. He is often right on so many issues the other Council members get wrong (see, for instance, the proposed development at ATC); however, I would urge caution on this issue. It seems straight forward — Council member should be able to inquire of “staff.” I truly hope the Council will consult a law firm that has deep experience on employment law before locking this ordinance into place. Many of the issues might be defined and clarified in the policy — which is the actual purview of the Council, in my opinion — but there are significant issues to be considered. Many of us have might been in the untenable position of having too many Bosses. And Bosses with different styles. And Bosses that are more or less versed in what distinguishes a hostile work environment. There is an assumption that “public servants” are somehow more beholden to their employers (the “public”) but they are also employees that are human beings who should be afforded all the considerations of fellow beings. We get it. The members of the Council want answers so they can make decisions that have far-ranging impact. But asking perhaps lower level employees to make determinations on the scope of questions that are being posed, perhaps requiring inordinate time and effort, is at root poor management of Human Resources. How is an employee to prioritize one Council member’s inquiry over another. The “lines of authority” chart presented by Councilman Coletti illustrates the problem — a line from Council to “staff.” There’s even an ambiguity between Council as being an individual member vs “Council” as a whole. There is some merit to codifying the vague sentence in the Charter, but at present this cake is still half baked. With all respect to Luke Coletti and members of the Council who take on a task few others are willing to shoulder.
Hi Tom - Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. However, the answers to nearly all of the points your raise are provided in the agenda report and video of Council’s discussion (see links below). I am happy to discuss further. Please feel free to contact me and thanks again.
So Luke Coletti single-handedly cost PG taxpayers half a million dollars? What kind of superpowers enabled him to alter a contract written for the city manager years before Luke was elected? Ben Harvey alone cost us that money and more with his long distance mismanagement of our resources. Seems like the real bully here is the one who doesn’t like to be corrected.
MJ Perryman
The agenda report and video of Council discussion for the proposed ordinance - Codifying Council's Inquiry Authority - are both available online (see links below):
Agenda Report:
https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=72243&mt=ALL&vl=true&get_month=12&get_year=2023&dsp=agm&seq=4413&rev=0&ag=1853&ln=16787
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bo_MEGgukVE?si=buqt94v7a7zzq0fW&t=5520
The Weeky criticizes the proposed ordinance but does not provide any details. The agenda report and video of Council discussion for the proposed ordinance (Codifying Council's Inquiry Authority) are both available online (see links below):
Agenda Report:
https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=72243&mt=ALL&vl=true&get_month=12&get_year=2023&dsp=agm&seq=4413&rev=0&ag=1853&ln=16787
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bo_MEGgukVE?si=buqt94v7a7zzq0fW&t=5520
Another article with next to no substance. Rather than critique what he has done, or make any mention of it, MCW takes their usual course— snide pestering. “He’s a bully.” You’re also a grown woman writing this article.
Thank you for this opinion piece. Some members of our city seem to think Coletti is untouchable when in reality he is a liability. He does not treat people with respect and is costing the taxpayers a lot of money. He should be asked to resign or, at the very least, announce he will not run for re-election in 2024.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.