Pierce County Council struggles with Mark Lindquist ‘crisis’

Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy’s efforts to build a legal wall between taxpayers and Prosecutor Mark Lindquist’s office ran into a different wall Monday: the County Council.

A rowdy council study session featured the unprecedented spectacle of a majority of members refusing to hear from an outside attorney retained by McCarthy’s office, despite direct pleas from McCarthy and county risk manager Mark Maenhout.

The argument revolved around McCarthy’s request for an independent outside attorney to represent the county in a long-running lawsuit involving text messages on Lindquist’s personal cellphone. McCarthy believes Lindquist has a conflict of interest in the case, and must withdraw.

“I don’t know why everybody’s afraid to put this thing in front of the public,” Maenhout told council members. “The county’s going to get stuck with the bill. It’s not going to be Mark Lindquist. It’s a no-brainer.”

Councilman Rick Talbert invited statements from McCarthy and Maenhout. For a few moments, it appeared other council members were unwilling to allow even that.

“I’d love to hear from Mr. Maenhout and the county executive,” Talbert said.

Council Chairman Dan Roach interjected.

“Are we going to turn this into a circus?”

Replied Talbert: “I don’t understand why you would refer to it that way. We need to be looking out for the taxpayers.”

Attorney William Crittenden, who represents the nonprofit Washington Coalition for Open Government, called out from the audience.

“You don’t have an independent attorney,” Crittenden said.

Replied Roach: “You’re out of order.”

Eventually, McCarthy spoke, as well as Maenhout.

“I don’t think you’ve heard from anybody but the prosecutor’s office in this matter,” Maenhout said. “You’ve only got one side of the story. I think you should get both sides of the story.”

Outcomes were unclear Monday. Council members said they wanted more information, and would get it at an upcoming meeting, though they set no date.

WILL COUNTY TAKE ITSELF TO COURT?

Aftershocks following the meeting suggest the tangled mess could lead to the county taking itself to court. In that event, the executive’s office will argue that Lindquist, his designees and his staffers are too compromised to represent taxpayers.

“It’s disappointing,” McCarthy said after the meeting. “I think it would have been good for the council to hear an outside, independent legal opinion on this issue. I believe the county’s at risk. We have to put a wall between the prosecutor’s office and the county.”

Lindquist did not appear at the meeting, though he has spoken to council members about the issue behind the scenes.

Dan Hamilton, a senior deputy prosecutor with the agency’s civil division, spoke publicly at the meeting. He told council members that “there is no conflict of interest” between Lindquist and the county in the phone-records case.

Monday’s session followed a flurry of activity last week that ended with Lindquist appointing a special deputy prosecutor, Ramsey Ramerman, to handle matters related to the phone-records case going forward. At the same time, Lindquist declared his intention to withdraw from the case personally.

Hamilton underlined those facts Monday, and said Lindquist’s office would withdraw and not advise Ramerman, who did not attend Monday’s meeting.

“The prosecuting attorney’s office will be out of this,” Hamilton said.

However, the appointment of Ramerman only heightened the controversy, due to his extensive prior involvement with the matter, and lack of any consultation beforehand by Lindquist with the executive’s office or the risk manager.

“(Lindquist) never asked me,” Maenhout told council members.

McCarthy had asked Lindquist to appoint Seattle attorney Jessie Harris to represent the county; Harris has no prior history with the phone-records case. McCarthy believes that would protect the taxpayers by removing the case from Lindquist’s control and influence.

LEGAL OPINION SAYS LINDQUIST HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

In contrast to statements from the prosecutor’s office, McCarthy has obtained an outside legal opinion that says a conflict of interest exists between Lindquist and taxpayers in the case.

“An actual or potential conflict of interest exists, due to which Lindquist and any of his subordinates at the Prosecutor’s Office should not provide representation to the County in connection with this matter,” the opinion states, in part. “We recommend that the County seek independent outside counsel.”

The phone-records case involves a sheriff’s deputy, Glenda Nissen, who sued for access to Lindquist’s text messages in 2011, believing they would prove he retaliated against her in the course of a long-running dispute.

The county has paid outside attorneys $315,945 to defend the case over the past four years. Lindquist and his staffers, as well as Ramerman, have been directly involved in writing multiple legal briefs tied to the matter.

Lindquist also intervened personally in the case. He received free representation from Seattle attorney Stewart Estes, whose law firm subsequently received more than $587,000 in taxpayer-funded legal work on other cases. Those facts are part of a recently announced ethics investigation of Lindquist’s office.

On Aug. 27, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected Lindquist’s arguments that his privacy rights protected the text messages. The court’s ruling required Lindquist to review the text messages and disclose any that pertain to public business, or file an affidavit saying none of the text messages qualify as public records.

To date, Lindquist has not done so. McCarthy and Maenhout fear that taxpayers will face possible penalties and fines for failure to disclose public records; hence their request for an outside attorney.

The issue presents a legal dilemma. Under state law, only Lindquist has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor; but McCarthy believes Lindquist is too compromised to make the appointment. Also, she does not agree with the choice of Ramerman.

At the same time, Ramerman, as Lindquist’s designated appointee, is the only attorney with legal authority to discuss the case with the County Council.

“We can only get legal advice or meet in executive session with our attorney,” Councilman Derek Young said after the meeting, and, he acknowledged, after a discussion with Lindquist. “In this case, our attorney is apparently now this Ramsey Ramerman — he was the one person that was in this discussion that wasn’t there. We need to understand essentially the strengths and weaknesses of the case before we make any kind of public decision.”

COUNCIL DIVIDED

Council members were told of Ramerman’s prior history with the case minutes before Monday’s study session began. Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg said the revelation posed new problems, and Ramerman wasn’t there to address them.

“I’m just not sure Mr. Ramerman is the right person based on his previous work on this case,” she said.

Ladenburg added that the executive’s office might have to take its argument to a judge.

“I don’t know if people out there are expecting us to play Solomon out here,” she said.

Councilman Doug Richardson said going to court might be the only remedy for the situation.

Talbert, citing “the current crisis,” also supported taking the question to court.

“This body (the council) is the body that represents the people and is the only body that can challenge the prosecutor as to whether a conflict exists,” he said. “The only way a judge is going to get a chance to rule on this is if the prosecutor‘s office is challenged.”

Other council members were less sure. Councilman Jim McCune said he didn’t want to “muddy the water” by hearing from McCarthy’s attorney.

Roach, saying the council was at “a crossroads,” also called for caution and gathering more information in an upcoming executive session.

“I know more than anybody, and I feel like I don’t know anything at all,” he said. “We are definitely very interested in this topic.”

This story was originally published November 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM with the headline "Pierce County Council struggles with Mark Lindquist ‘crisis’."