Investigators hired by the city of Anaheim will deliver on Monday a highly anticipated report concerning any potential pay-to-play schemes in the city or possible violations of the state’s open meetings law, but it will likely be several weeks before the public gets a chance to see the findings.

The report, which is expected to outline any possible misconduct discovered related to city business and make policy recommendations, will be turned over by the investigators to the City Attorney’s Office, which will then send it to an outside lawyer the Anaheim City Council hired to make any necessary redactions before it is released publicly.

A previous City Council ordered the investigation by the JL Group in August. It was after revelations of FBI investigations alleging a self-described “cabal” of business and political leaders may have been exerting “significant influence” in City Hall and alleging that former Mayor Harry Sidhu may have tried to slip confidential information on to a representative of Angels owner Arte Moreno and his business group in negotiations to purchase the city-owned stadium with the intention of soliciting a large campaign donation later.

The $320 million deal was scuttled by the City Council after news broke of the allegations and Sidhu resigned. No criminal charges have been filed against Sidhu and his attorney has maintained that a thorough investigation would find no wrongdoing. FBI investigators said it was unclear if the Angels representative knew of Sidhu’s intentions.

The city-funded investigation was tasked with examining questions of corruption, past campaign contributions, contracts, city dealings, council decisions and potential Brown Act violations, among other raised concerns.

Outside attorney Scott Tiedemann has marching orders from the City Council to black out anything that could violate employee privacy rights or lead to a lawsuit against the city. The goal is to release the redacted report within 30 days, but it could be longer until it comes out, according to an updated city news release.

The City Council has given its approval for the investigators to also share any relevant results with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Local prosecutors did not provide comment on how they might be preparing for the report’s release.

The investigation team got more money and time in February to finish the job after saying the probe had grown more complex than initial expectations. At the time they said they had identified more than 200 people they wanted to interview and collected more than 700,000 emails to look through.

The city has spent $1.5 million on the investigation.

Investigators have said they plan to make policy recommendations to the City Council that will be centered on transparency, ethical conduct and the interaction between Anaheim officials and business interests. Councilmember Natalie Rubalcava, who was elected in November, said she’s heard that one possible recommendation could be how the city handles ticket transparency for events.

“If there are good policies for us, I would definitely want us to take them into consideration,” Rubalcava said.

Some residents are angry the public will be receiving “the Cliff Notes” version of the report instead of the raw, unedited version they say the previous City Council promised. They also are angry about the unspecified delay while the report is being redacted by the city-hired attorney.

“It’s all being handled with a lot of secrecy,” said resident and activist Jeanine Robbins. “The public paid for the report. The public pushed for the report to begin with.”

The raw report will be viewed by the investigators from the JL Group, the city attorney, a retired judge recruited to monitor the probe, the city’s human resources department and Tiedemann.

Anaheim spokesperson Mike Lyster said if the report raises any concerns regarding employees, the city’s human resources department would address the issues with department heads. City Manager James Vanderpool could eventually see portions that were redacted if he needed to provide any help to the HR department.

City Council members have argued the full report cannot be released for fear it will violate the privacy rights of employees and subject Anaheim to litigation.

Anaheim resident and activist Wes Jones doesn’t buy it.

“(The report) should be released whole, no redactions. After what we’ve been through, Harry Sidhu and the whole cabal thing, you would think everyone would be anxious to clean it up,” Jones said.

Despite a new mayor and council members who campaigned on a platform of transparency, Jones said, “It kind of looks like business as usual.”

Councilmember Natalie Meeks, who was also elected in November, was among the council members concerned about releasing an unredacted report, which she pointed out she won’t even see, because of potential liability issues.

“I think the fair thing to do is wait until we have the report. Read the report and understand it and then have a discussion on any action that would be appropriate,” she said. “That’s why we are doing an investigation, to find out the facts. Until we know the facts, it seems premature to make any thoughts about what our actions might be.”

Related Articles