Council divided over disclosure, special meeting after former public works director alleges misconduct and NDA

A string of public comments and several council members’ remarks this week pushed the Cypress City Council into a dispute over whether to disclose records and to open an investigation into allegations tied to a confidential separation agreement with former Public Works Director Douglas Danks.

The dispute began to surface in public comment when Linda Stock and other residents referred to news reports naming a $183,000 separation payment and questioned whether the full council had been informed. ‘‘I want to know if the rest of the Council knew about that or did they vote on this big expenditure?’’ resident Linda Stock told the council. (Linda Stock, public commenter.)

Supporters of public disclosure said the council needs the full investigative record to act. Councilmember Pete said he had asked the city attorney for ‘‘the full report of any investigation’’ and that the council should review that information collectively. ‘‘If accusations of serious misconduct are made . . . those accusations should be taken seriously and fully investigated,’’ Pete said during council reports.

Several other speakers urged an independent outside investigation and temporary administrative leave for any staff who might be the subject of the inquiry. Paul Coquinos, who addressed the council during public comment, said the city had spent both the $183,000 separation payment and additional legal fees and urged a truly independent investigation ‘‘not currently associated with this city or familiar with the city manager.’’ (Paul Coquinos, public commenter.)

Mayor David Burke said he intended to convene a special meeting ‘‘to consider directing the city attorney to provide the city council with access to any complaint or allegations made by Doug Danks, the full report of any investigation, and any other related materials.’’ He set the special meeting for Monday, May 19 at 6 p.m., a move some council members opposed as premature and potentially exposing the city to legal risk. (David Burke, Mayor.)

City Attorney Fred Galante advised the council that he ‘‘does not have the authority to release a report’’ and that public discussion could implicate closed-session matters. He said he would not speak further in open session because doing so could ‘‘entail closed session information.’’ (Fred Galante, City Attorney.)

Some council members said the mayor’s plan was appropriate to get facts to the public. Others urged pause, citing legal risk and the need to coordinate with the city attorney on what can be discussed in open session. Councilmember Chang said he wanted to ‘‘get up to speed’’ and believed the council needed access to the materials; Mayor Pro Tem Medrano urged restraint and asked for time to understand the legal ramifications before scheduling additional sessions. (Kyle Chang, Councilmember; Mayor Pro Tem Medrano.)

No independent investigative firm was selected at the meeting. The city attorney said any decision about releasing investigative reports must come from the council. The mayor’s special meeting call stands on the record; several council members indicated they would not be available for the date the mayor proposed. The council did not take a formal vote at the meeting on investigative scope or personnel.

Why it matters: residents and multiple council members have asked for more information about the separation agreement and any investigation that followed; how the council responds will affect public trust and whether the city pursues an outside review or handles the matter internally. The city attorney cautioned the council about discussing closed-session matters in open session.

What’s next: the mayor set a special meeting for May 19 to consider directing the city attorney to provide materials to the council, though several council members objected to scheduling that session immediately. The city attorney said he would advise the council on procedure but cannot unilaterally release closed-session materials.