It’s bad enough when local-government officials get caught making decisions in private that, according to state law, should be made only in open public meetings.
But it’s much worse when taxpayers have to foot hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to defend officials accused of such misconduct.
That’s the sad story in the city of Shoreline, north of Seattle, where three council members and one former member are accused of plotting in secret to fire the city manager two years ago.
The case should serve as an object lesson for Pierce County elected officials on the wisdom of honoring both the letter and the spirit of the open-meetings law.
The City of Shoreline is footing the bill – currently $340,000 – for the legal defense of the accused officials, who face a private lawsuit contending they violated the state Open Meetings Act.
But that’s just the beginning. The city recently hired another law firm for $7,500 to advise the council whether it should continue to pay the defendants’ legal costs. According to the Seattle Times, the city was recently added as a defendant in the suit, meaning the city will have to hire a third set of a lawyers to defend the city. If the city or the individual defendants lose, the city could be on the hook for the plaintiffs legal fees as well.
The plaintiffs, including a former Shoreline mayor, contend four council members conspired in a series of private conversations and e-mail exchanges to fire Steve Burkett or force him to resign in exchange for a $140,000 severance package.
The plaintiffs cite a Dec. 9 letter to an attorney signed by the four council members. The letter said they wanted to fire Burkett and sought legal advice.
The council members acknowledge having private conversations about terminating Burkett. But they say they took care never to meet in a group of four, which would have constituted a legal quorum and an illegal secret meeting.
Courts have ruled, however, that smaller meetings that arrive at a collective majority decision can amount to an illegal decision. The Shoreline officials were deliberately being devious and excluding other council members from the decision about Burkett.
At best, the defendants’ maneuvering was shabby; at worst, it was illegal. Shoreline taxpayers will pay a high price either way.
