Council votes late, fast on legal claims

Few people might have noticed, but Tacoma City Council members approved settlements to legal claims totaling nearly $1 million at the end of a four-hour meeting this week.

The first unanimous vote took less than 30 seconds.

The action authorized payment of $707,211 to settle a wrongful death action in the case of a man who was hit and killed by a firetruck in 2005.

Then the council split 4-3 on a vote to pay $225,000 to settle a police misconduct and brutality case from 2003.

In the space of about three minutes, the council OK’d payment of $932,211.12. The first of two votes began at about 9 p.m. Tuesday.

The items were not on the published agenda.

The motions came after the slot for unfinished business, the city manager’s report and sundry council comments about a peace rally and an international film festival. By that time, the earlier overflow crowd had withered to mostly city staffers.

“The intent is not to hide this in any sense,” Mayor Bill Baarsma said Thursday. “I think the point is perception … It could lead to the impression that we’re somehow trying to keep this out of the public eye.”

Tacking legal claim settlements on the end of council agendas is a long-established practice, said City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli and others. The votes, which followed an afternoon closed session about litigation, complied with the state’s Open Public Meetings Act, Pauli said.

But both State Auditor Brian Sonntag and Greg Overstreet, special assistant attorney general for government accountability, think advance public notice of such action would be a good idea. So would handling items earlier in a lengthy meeting, they said.

Council members promised government transparency and openness following the Brame killings four years ago.

“Clearly, this action doesn’t match those words,” Sonntag said. “The question to me is, ‘Are you doing it because you can or should you do what’s right?’ What would be wrong with notifying the public what they’re doing?”

Overstreet agreed.

“To the extent that the city knows in advance what it’s going to be talking about, it would be helpful to put it on the agenda in as much detail as possible,” he said.

Overstreet also questioned whether council members arrived at their decisions during the afternoon executive session.

They can discuss litigation in closed-door meetings, he said. But decisions can’t be made there. Public votes must be taken.

“But what if in the executive session everybody comes to the same conclusion, and there’s no need for discussion during the public session?” Overstreet asked. “Since none of us can ever sit in executive session, we have no idea what the facts are.”

Since there are still some legal knots to tie before a settlement is complete, it could be unwise for too much public discussion by council members when they authorize payment, Pauli said.

If a public council debate reveals the city’s legal strategy, that could hamstring attorneys if the plaintiff opts to go to court rather than taking the check, she said. Settlement talks often also require swift action by the council, she added.

The settlement authorizations Tuesday night, for example, stemmed from an executive session held just hours before the regular council meeting.

Could the council put settlement motions on the agenda or move them to the beginning of their meetings when more people might be watching?

“Of course they could,” Pauli said. “Whether they would want to is another question.”

Mayor Baarsma said he’ll look for a way to move such items up on the agenda.

“That’s something I hadn’t thought about,” he said. “It’s not a bad idea, actually. I certainly will talk to the city attorney about it.”

Councilman Bill Evans said although the matters seem appropriate where they fall on the agenda, “I would have no problem with putting them in another place.”

But Councilmen Jake Fey and Mike Lonergan said they worried about privacy and the possibility of public discussion on matters where the facts weren’t available.

“I’m not sure what information could be released to the public where they would have a meaningful opportunity to comment,” Fey said.

approved claims tally

The number of claims settlements approved by the Tacoma City Council in recent years. The council must OK settlements over $30,000.

2003 3

2004 6

2005 5

2006 4

2007 4*

*Through March 20 big-money votes in just minutes

At the end of a four-hour meeting Tuesday night, Tacoma City Council members OK’d spending $932,211.12 to settle two legal claims. Here’s the timing, according to TV Tacoma’s streaming video and the City Clerk’s Office.

5:04 p.m.: Mayor Bill Baarsma calls meeting to order.

9 p.m.: Councilman Mike Lonergan moves to authorize the city’s “full and final settlement of all claims against the city in the matter of the estate of Richard Churchill, upon payment by the city of $707,211.12.”

There are no council comments, and the motion carries on a unanimous voice vote.

9:00.28 p.m.: Lonergan moves to authorize the city’s “full and final settlement of all claims against the city, including attorney’s fees and costs, and without any admission of liability, in the case of Hankins, et al. v. City of Tacoma et al., … upon payment by the city in the amount of $225,000.”

There was no comment on the motion. Audible “nos” are heard on a voice vote. A roll call passes 4-3, with council members Julie Anderson, Spiro Manthou, Tom Stenger and Baarsma voting yes. Lonergan, Bill Evans and Jake Fey opposed the motion. Council members Connie Ladenburg and Rick Talbert were absent.

9:05 p.m.: Meeting adjourns after 4 hours and 1 minute.