The Firing of El Segundo City Manager Doug Willmore – Part 2

By Michael D. Robbins
Former El Segundo City Councilman
Founder and Director, Public Safety Project

March 18, 2012

This is Part 2 of a three-part series. This first part covers the controversy Doug Willmore created and the facts and circumstances surrounding his firing. The second part covers the old 1994 legal settlement agreement to the MRC-Chevron-City of El Segundo tax dispute. The third part covers revelations from newly released documents and Doug Willmore emails in response to a public records request, and the exploitation of the KCET propaganda video for political campaign purposes, as it was intended by the KCET producers.

This three-part series could have just as well been called “BIG MEDIA SMALL INTEGRITY”, in response to KCET SoCal Connected producer Karen Foshay’s “SMALL TOWN BIG OIL” propaganda hatchet-job attack against Chevron, City Councilman Carl Jacobson, and the entire city of El Segundo. This series exposes Foshay’s TV show for the propaganda that it is, in addition to explaining the facts and circumstances surrounding the firing of Doug Willmore.

There has been much controversy surrounding the firing of El Segundo City Manager Doug Willmore at the special meeting of the El Segundo City Council on February 9, 2012. This controversy has been created by Doug Willmore himself, and by anti-business news organizations he enlisted to smear Chevron, Councilman Carl Jacobson, and the entire city of El Segundo. Carl Jacobson is the only City Council member who voted to fire Doug Willmore and who is running for reelection. Councilman Don Brann is not running for reelection, and Councilwoman Suzanne Fuentes is not up for reelection for another two years.

Regarding the MRC-Chevron-City Legal Settlement

I was on the City Council during the 1994 MRC-Chevron-El Segundo tax dispute legal settlement, and I know first-hand that the decision to approve that settlement agreement with MRC and Chevron was unanimous, legal, legitimate, and reasonable. And the decision was made in a public meeting.

City Attorney Leland Dolley advised and guided the City Council to ensure everything was legal and legitimate. And Carl Jacobson, as mayor, was required to sign the settlement agreement even if he had voted against it. Jacobson has never received any money from special interests, including Chevron and city employee unions, including the politically active firefighter and police unions. He always runs low-budget grass roots campaigns to get elected.

Chevron has donated little if any money to El Segundo City Council candidates for at least the last twenty years. In contrast, the El Segundo Firefighters’ Association and the El Segundo Police Officers’ Association (both unions) have donated thousands of dollars in campaign support to City Council candidates, including Mayor Bush and Councilman Fisher, who gave them millions of dollars per year in excess compensation and pensions.

In contrast, the El Segundo Firefighters’ Association and the El Segundo Police Officers’ Association (both unions) have donated thousands of dollars in campaign support to City Council candidates, including Mayor Bush and Councilman Fisher, who gave them millions of dollars per year in excess compensation and pensions.

The City Council decision to approve the legal settlement agreement with MRC, the City’s tax auditor, and Chevron was unanimous, legal, legitimate, and reasonable, for the following reasons:

1. City Attorney Leland Dolley advised and guided the City Council to ensure everything was legal and legitimate.
2. Carl Jacobson, as mayor, was required to sign the legal settlement agreement even if he had voted against it.
3. Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) claimed Chevron owed a second Utility User Tax (UUT) on electricity it co-generated by burning natural gas for which it had already paid the UUT tax.
4. Chevron reasonably claimed this was an unfair and illegal double-taxation on the same energy it merely converted from one form to another.
5. MRC also claimed that natural gas used as a chemical ingredient in the oil refining process, and that was not burned as fuel, was subject to the UUT tax.
6. Chevron reasonably claimed this was unfair and illegal taxation.
7. MRC claimed the City owed it a 25 percent commission for the “unpaid” UUT tax it had “found”, whether or not the City collected that tax from Chevron, and threatened to sue the City.
8. Chevron threatened to sue the City if it collected the unfair and illegal taxes.
9. The city reached a legal settlement that paid MRC a reduced commission, had Chevron pay the City an amount that effectively paid the cost for the City to settle with MRC, and that more clearly defined Chevron’s future tax liability.

Furthermore, the City has not paid to provide and maintain all or any of the city infrastructure and services on the massive 951-acre Chevron refinery property that it provides and maintains in the other business and residential areas of the city.

The City does not pay to provide and maintain the many miles of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, alleys, storm drains, water pipes, sewer pipes, parks, recreational facilities, trees, landscaping, street sweeping, residential trash collection, and police patrols that it pays to provide for the other business and residential areas in the city.

If the Chevron refinery never existed, that massive property would most likely be developed as mostly residential and some commercial, as in the north-west quadrant of the city. This has been the historical development pattern in the South Bay and the beach cities.

Why should Chevron be forced to pay for massive amounts of city infrastructure and services that it does not receive? If the answer is because they have the money and someone else wants to take it from them, then that is plain thievery and should be rejected. Otherwise, nobody is safe from such thievery.