Council deliberations, small and large

How can the La Conner community, residents, businesses and town staff, support the town’s council so they act more effectively?

They have met three times in the last week, having special meetings Sept. 16 and 19 after their regular Sept. 13 session. Their meeting this Tuesday was to reverse a poor decision they made Friday.

On a small issue – opening to the public a legal memo they paid for on researching the validity of a 1986 contact refund agreement – they made the wrong decision: they voted no. Council members Rick Dole, Mary Wohleb and Annie Taylor apparently did not understand the issue before them. That in itself is troubling.

The Weekly News and several residents filed public records requests after the Sept. 13 council meeting where Town Administrator Scott Thomas paraphrased the conclusions of the law firm Kenyon Disend. The Seattle firm was hired – and paid – by the Town to analyze the consequences of the 1986 document never being filed in the county auditor’s office.

The Weekly News sought the memo to accurately quote what Thomas reported to council. That is a simple thing and the newspaper doing its job: accurately reporting critical issues the community faces. The media and citizens routinely file public records requests.

In Washington state, citizens are fortunate that the legislature has insisted on open government. Legislation requires government at all levels, from the state house to school and library boards, to make most documents available upon request.

The law is very clear. Little is restricted and only for very specific issues. Council did not understand this Friday. They were not helped by Thomas. In his role of town attorney, he did not explain their obligations but merely said they could agree to disclose the documents or vote not to.

Councilmember Dole worried about the attorney part of attorney-client privilege, concerned that attorneys would not work with the town in the future. That is the wrong concern. Council, for the community, is the client. Council owns the information. The question before council was to open the document they paid for so the public can learn the information on which Town of La Conner decisions will be made. That is all.

That is not what Council debated before they decided against making the memo available.

But the bigger mistake council has made this year is in not separating a small legal question – is an agreement valid? – from the larger ethical issue: will this government honor the actions taken in 1986 with the clear intent to change both the zoning definition and offer historic preservation status to the property?

Honoring the decision of the 1986 town council and maintaining the consistency and integrity across 36 years is the issue.

Town staff made a mistake in failing to file the agreement at the end of 1986. That small failing had turned into an epic failure of governmental leadership.

The hearing examiner, a lawyer, remanded the issue back to the Town. Council makes decisions for the Town. It can be an administrative decision to inform council a hired law firm deems the agreement valid. Upholding the integrity and honor of its predecessor’s past action is for the town’s elected representatives to determine, not staff.

Now at least 35 citizens are organizing against a three story 20 unit building facing a residential neighborhood.

A town council’s purpose is to represent its citizens and lead the community into the future they hope to achieve. This council is stuck in the minutiae of legal terms and not interpreting then well for themselves or the community.