Council seeks outside advice on city attorney (Printed March 30, 2007)
By Ward Peck
Editor
Following a combative special meeting of the city council on Monday night that was announced Sunday evening, the Mayor has been authorized to seek outside legal advice regarding the council’s “legal obligations and responsibilities and options are regarding issues that have arisen” regarding the city’s attorney Mary Kahl.
The 4-2 vote to authorize the Mayor to meet with an outside attorney fell along the same lines reported to have split the council in an executive session over the need to formally review City Manager Ted Jankowski’s six-month tenure. Mayor Claude Morgan, along with councilors Jim Hughes, Ralph Baxter and Maxine Beecher all voted in favor of seeking outside council. Those four councilors also reportedly successfully blocked a formal review of the manager in executive session on March 12. Councilors Linda Boudreau and Kay Loring voted against the outside council and have expressed support for a formal review of the city manager. Councilor James Soule, who was not present at the special meeting, also pushed for a formal review process, he has said.
That the two issues are related seems clear from developments over the last several weeks as well as comments from Boudreau, Loring and members of the public at the special meeting.
Boudreau made the connection in no uncertain terms when she said, “the hypocrisy I hear here is incredible. To hear you say there is nothing to fear [from going to outside counsel], that is exactly what we said about the performance evaluation [of the city manager].” Boudreau continued, “I think our corporation counsel, city clerk and city manager deserve performance evaluations long before you head out to an attorney to lynch the corporation counsel.”
Seven members of the public spoke out at the meeting and several described the current controversy being played out as an “embarrassment” to the city. Five of those individuals spoke about Kahl in glowing terms.
At the meeting Morgan resisted even naming the person who would be the subject of the discussions with outside council until Kahl insisted that he do so.
“If this personnel matter is me, I request that information is disclosed to the public,” Kahl said when the matter was brought up.
Even after acknowledging Kahl’s request, Morgan still did not identify Kahl as the subject being discussed until Boudreau interceded.
“I don’t think corporation council’s request was clear. Is this in fact with regard to Corporation Council?” Boudreau asked.
During public comment, resident Paul Nixon asked the council to disclose the specific “problem,” with Kahl.
“I will waive my right to privacy if council chooses to answer that,” Kahl said.
Still, the councilors in favor of an outside review of Kahl, whose formal title is Corporation Counsel, did not disclose specific reasons for their desire to go to an outside attorney.
“We can’t tell you those issues,” Hughes said. Later in the meeting Hughes said the purpose of the vote was not to discuss the issues themselves, but to get permission to seek outside legal advice.
“We are in a Catch-22,” Morgan said. “Obviously, we can’t seek Mary’s legal advice about Mary’s...” (he did not complete the sentence).
The special meeting was preceded by a series of disclosures by Kahl to the press of emails and personal notes regarding the city manager dispute. In a series of emails between Morgan and Kahl– released by Kahl– over these releases, Morgan questions Kahl’s interpretation of the “Freedom of Access” (FOAA) statutes Kahl used as her rationale for the release.
Taken together Morgan’s questions seem to point to a belief that Kahl has interpreted the FOAA requests broadly and selectively.
Morgan’s theory on Kahl’s motive for doing so is contained in an earlier email dated March 16 and released by Kahl.
Reacting to the disclosure of an email exchange between himself and City Manager Ted Jankowski regarding the performance evaluation, Morgan wrote to Kahl, “I find your decision very troubling. Therefore I’d like you to recuse yourself and refer us to outside Council. I no longer have faith in your ability to provide objective legal advice to this Council. I believe your personal opinion and continued dispute with our City Manager is clouding your ability to dispense legal opinion.”
Kahl maintains that a broad interpretation of FOAA requests is the correct one.
“Any FOAA request for public records requires compliance by providing access to the requested documents,” Kahl wrote to Morgan. “Only if a record falls within one of the very limited categories for confidentiality is a request denied; when that happens, we are required to provide a written response to the request stating why it was denied.”
In several e-mails Kahl writes that FOAA requests need not be written nor specific and can be “standing requests,” as she makes clear when she references one reporter’s request for “anything new that came in.”
In the present situation, Kahl has also forwarded the fruits of a FOAA request to others beyond the reporter who made the request, “since it was my understanding they all wanted to be receiving the same info,” she wrote. As an example, Kahl informed this reporter and at least one other about a request from a third reporter who requested “all e-mail sent to or from the City Manager since February 1.”
That information, as of press time was being reviewed by outside counsel for any confidential information, according to Kahl, and has not been received nor reviewed by this paper.
Editor
Following a combative special meeting of the city council on Monday night that was announced Sunday evening, the Mayor has been authorized to seek outside legal advice regarding the council’s “legal obligations and responsibilities and options are regarding issues that have arisen” regarding the city’s attorney Mary Kahl.
The 4-2 vote to authorize the Mayor to meet with an outside attorney fell along the same lines reported to have split the council in an executive session over the need to formally review City Manager Ted Jankowski’s six-month tenure. Mayor Claude Morgan, along with councilors Jim Hughes, Ralph Baxter and Maxine Beecher all voted in favor of seeking outside council. Those four councilors also reportedly successfully blocked a formal review of the manager in executive session on March 12. Councilors Linda Boudreau and Kay Loring voted against the outside council and have expressed support for a formal review of the city manager. Councilor James Soule, who was not present at the special meeting, also pushed for a formal review process, he has said.
That the two issues are related seems clear from developments over the last several weeks as well as comments from Boudreau, Loring and members of the public at the special meeting.
Boudreau made the connection in no uncertain terms when she said, “the hypocrisy I hear here is incredible. To hear you say there is nothing to fear [from going to outside counsel], that is exactly what we said about the performance evaluation [of the city manager].” Boudreau continued, “I think our corporation counsel, city clerk and city manager deserve performance evaluations long before you head out to an attorney to lynch the corporation counsel.”
Seven members of the public spoke out at the meeting and several described the current controversy being played out as an “embarrassment” to the city. Five of those individuals spoke about Kahl in glowing terms.
At the meeting Morgan resisted even naming the person who would be the subject of the discussions with outside council until Kahl insisted that he do so.
“If this personnel matter is me, I request that information is disclosed to the public,” Kahl said when the matter was brought up.
Even after acknowledging Kahl’s request, Morgan still did not identify Kahl as the subject being discussed until Boudreau interceded.
“I don’t think corporation council’s request was clear. Is this in fact with regard to Corporation Council?” Boudreau asked.
During public comment, resident Paul Nixon asked the council to disclose the specific “problem,” with Kahl.
“I will waive my right to privacy if council chooses to answer that,” Kahl said.
Still, the councilors in favor of an outside review of Kahl, whose formal title is Corporation Counsel, did not disclose specific reasons for their desire to go to an outside attorney.
“We can’t tell you those issues,” Hughes said. Later in the meeting Hughes said the purpose of the vote was not to discuss the issues themselves, but to get permission to seek outside legal advice.
“We are in a Catch-22,” Morgan said. “Obviously, we can’t seek Mary’s legal advice about Mary’s...” (he did not complete the sentence).
The special meeting was preceded by a series of disclosures by Kahl to the press of emails and personal notes regarding the city manager dispute. In a series of emails between Morgan and Kahl– released by Kahl– over these releases, Morgan questions Kahl’s interpretation of the “Freedom of Access” (FOAA) statutes Kahl used as her rationale for the release.
Taken together Morgan’s questions seem to point to a belief that Kahl has interpreted the FOAA requests broadly and selectively.
Morgan’s theory on Kahl’s motive for doing so is contained in an earlier email dated March 16 and released by Kahl.
Reacting to the disclosure of an email exchange between himself and City Manager Ted Jankowski regarding the performance evaluation, Morgan wrote to Kahl, “I find your decision very troubling. Therefore I’d like you to recuse yourself and refer us to outside Council. I no longer have faith in your ability to provide objective legal advice to this Council. I believe your personal opinion and continued dispute with our City Manager is clouding your ability to dispense legal opinion.”
Kahl maintains that a broad interpretation of FOAA requests is the correct one.
“Any FOAA request for public records requires compliance by providing access to the requested documents,” Kahl wrote to Morgan. “Only if a record falls within one of the very limited categories for confidentiality is a request denied; when that happens, we are required to provide a written response to the request stating why it was denied.”
In several e-mails Kahl writes that FOAA requests need not be written nor specific and can be “standing requests,” as she makes clear when she references one reporter’s request for “anything new that came in.”
In the present situation, Kahl has also forwarded the fruits of a FOAA request to others beyond the reporter who made the request, “since it was my understanding they all wanted to be receiving the same info,” she wrote. As an example, Kahl informed this reporter and at least one other about a request from a third reporter who requested “all e-mail sent to or from the City Manager since February 1.”
That information, as of press time was being reviewed by outside counsel for any confidential information, according to Kahl, and has not been received nor reviewed by this paper.
Comments