Former Lincoln police Chief Brian Vizzusi received a severance pay of $103,590.15 but it is still not known why he left.

The amount given is three months worth of salary, benefits, vacation, sick leave and medical benefits, according to City Manger Jim Estep.

On Feb. 26, The News Messenger sent Estep a request for information under the California Public Records Act, on what Vizzusi’s severance pay was and the reason why he is no longer Lincoln’s police chief.

“The city cannot withhold the settlement agreement if the reasons are not part of the agreement,” said Jim Ewert, the California Newspaper Publishers Association legal counsel.

Estep gave a copy of the Separation and Release Agreement between the city of Lincoln and Vizzusi to The News Messenger on Friday. The separation agreement had the severance-pay amount but did not include why Vizzusi is no longer employed by the city of Lincoln.

“Everything that you can have is in the agreement,” Estep said Wednesday. “The reason I can’t talk about it is because we’ve signed a confidentiality agreement that says neither of us can talk about it.”

There is a clause in the agreement that said the “employee agrees that the terms, financial conditions and negotiations leading to this agreement are strictly confidential,” but that the city and Vizzusi “acknowledge that a proper public records act request would require that this agreement be disclosed.”

The News Messenger asked Ewert if the phrase, “public-acts request would require that this agreement be disclosed,” voids the city manager’s claim of confidentiality. Ewert responded, “yes.”

“The confidentiality clause is unenforceable because the city is prohibited by law from entering into a confidentiality agreement,” Ewert said Tuesday. “The sentence from the agreement is evidence that the city acknowledges it knows the agreement must be disclosed upon request.”

When presented with this information, Estep said Ewert was correct.

“Our attorney drafted this agreement and he’s (Ewert) correct that there are certain things we can’t talk about but have to disclose, other than leading up to why he was terminated,” Estep said.

In response to that, Ewert said, “they are prohibited from entering into an agreement that doesn’t permit them to disclose information.”

“You can force them to tell you why (Vizzusi was separated) legally, but if the info as to why he left the city is in the agreement or any documents in the personnel file, they have to provide that to you,” Ewert said. “There is no law that prohibits them from discussing (the reason for termination) but why they would choose not to is an interesting story.”

Ewert said public employees “don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy for information about salary, job skills or performance, including terminations in some instances.”

“It depends on the behavior of the employee that leads up to that (termination,) like if they engaged in behavior that puts the city at risk, engaged in criminal behavior, is incompetent or malfeasant, then the information in the personnel file of that employee pertaining to that behavior is subject to disclosure,” Ewert said.

Ewert said the city would have to provide documents showing that the former police chief engaged in “bad behavior,” which he said The News Messenger can request.

The city’s signing of a confidentiality agreement regarding Vizzusi’s separation means the city is “unable now to talk to any taxpayer or anyone in the city about why they terminated this guy,” Ewert said.

“Why they would agree to that is beyond me, because if the constituents have questions, why would they place a gag on themselves?” Ewert added

“The city cannot explain the reason why they made those decision,” Ewert said. “It is patronizing to the citizens of Lincoln and certainly not how a democratic government is supposed to work.”