City Hall sources said the angry missive carried several charges.

Asserting that there were no grounds for his firing, Mr. Lavery blamed Mr. Fulwood’s alleged “unprofessional behavior” for his abrupt departure at the end of his probationary period. He said he was falsely accused of shortcomings that were not his fault.

“That is not true,” according to an insider. “Jerry had told Lavery he would not make probation.”

 

“Sour grapes,” snapped one City Hall officer of Mr. Lavery’s message. “I did not take it seriously,” another said.

At the time the City Controller was canned, City Hall sources said that Mr. Lavery failed to adjust to the “work culture in Culver City.” He was made to sound like a clock-watcher. It was reported that the other three persons on the budget preparation staff worked six and seven days  a week.

By contrast, Mr. Lavery “kept to his regular schedule, five days one week, four days the next.”

In his scorching email, Mr. Lavery claimed he was wrongly accused of failings by Mr. Fulwood. He called himself a victim of mixed signals. Just after being rewarded with a four-day merit leave upon completion of the city’s budget for the new fiscal year, he said he was summoned by Mr. Fulwood and told he would not survive his half-year probationary period.

The former Inglewood official said he was shocked.

To show that he was still training a close eye on City Hall, Mr. Lavery made several critical references in his email to the contents of a State of the City financial report that Mr. Fulwood was to present to the Council on the night of Jan. 17.

 Insiders told thefrontpageonline.com that Mr. Lavery was correct in one instance, wrong in another about the budget.

 

 

What had been expected to be a routine approval of Mr. Fulwood’s new contract turned into a treacherous road that threatened to delay, or possibly derail, renewal.

City Councilwoman Carol Gross, frequently a rival of Mr. Fulwood’s during his first term, announced in the opening minutes of the discussion that information affecting Mr. Fulwood’s rehiring had come to her. She said it needed to be aired only in a closed session, and asked for a postponement.

Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger quickly seconded her request for a delay. City Councilman Alan Corlin suggested they immediately, and briefly, adjourn to a back room to hear what was so urgent.

At this shaky juncture, Mayor Albert Vera, who has had his own disagreements with the CAO, forcefully stepped into the debate that swiftly was veering off its original track.

Resolutely, the mayor said he was embarrassed for Mr. Fulwood. He said the suggestion something was amiss was insulting. He said he wouldn’t blame the CAO if he stood up and walked out of Council Chambers.

Wielding the power of his office like a club, Mr. Vera said the City Council was not retiring to the back room. He demanded an immediate vote. It came out three to two in favor of rehiring, with Ms. Gross and Mr. Silbiger objecting.

After the meeting, one fed-up Council member said that “going into the back room would not have changed anything except, maybe, to make the vote four to one instead of three to two.”

Ms. Gross denied today that her provocative reason for pursuing postponement was linked to the Lavery email.