< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
People have asked about the lawsuit I filed on April 28 against the City of Salida, charging the city council with violating the Colorado Open Meetings Law, so an answer seems in order. As best I know, it's settled.
It apparently started at a meeting last spring when
Councilwoman Monika Griesenbeck asked for some accounting
of water meters. The city public works supervisor, Tom
Schilling, took offense at her questions, and filed a
formal grievance
under the city personnel manual
with the city administrator, Scott Hahn.
The city personnel manual doesn't mention city council members in the list of positions it covers, so Hahn should have told Schilling that he couldn't accept the grievance, and that Schilling could go complain in public at a council meeting, just like any other citizen with a beef.
But instead, Hahn used that as an excuse to persuade the
mayor, Ralph Taylor, to schedule a special meeting in
executive session
so that the council could consider
a personnel matter
-- the complaint against
Griesenbeck.
Elected officials are not personnel,
and when I
learned of this conspiracy to violate the Open Meetings
Law, I started calling attorneys.
Ernest Marquez said I needed to file suit and get an
injunction to prevent a secret meeting. As he read the law
concerning personnel matters
in executive
sessions,
the meeting had to be open if the subject of
the hearing -- Griesenbeck -- wanted it to be open, and she
did. And besides, she wasn't even a personnel
under
that provision.
We got an injunction that prohibited a secret hearing about the conduct of an elected official.
An overflow crowd appeared that evening, where naturally
the council went into executive session
to discuss
litigation
-- my lawsuit. They came out and
immediately voted to oppose the injunction. Somebody has
to stand up for the right to conduct public business away
from public view, I suppose.
The next morning, I had one of those morning
after
sensations: I had a lot of fun last night, but
just what did I just get into?
Perhaps some
substantial legal fees. I figured I should call the local
newspaper and radio station to see if they'd join the
suit.
Before I could make the call, Merle Baranczyk at the
Mountain Mail called me. Ed, I'm not sure what you're
up to here, but if it's what I think it is, I want to be
part of it.
I called Bill Murphy at KVRH Radio, and he
also joined the suit.
It went to court on May 4, and District Judge Julie Marshall sustained the injunction. Further litigation loomed, but I wasn't too worried about getting bankrupted -- the Sunshine Law provides that the prevailing party be awarded attorney fees, and we were prevailing.
Sulzenfuss, the city attorney, came up with a curious argument. Because our injunction had prevented the city from holding an illegal meeting, then the city hadn't violated the Sunshine Law, and therefore, the city shouldn't have to pay our legal fees.
He later argued, during negotiations about settlement, that the meeting about Griesenbeck wouldn't have been illegal anyway. And he told the council that settling this suit would just encourage more people to sue the city.
Now, it might be argued that attorney-client confidentiality protects the advice the city attorney gave the council. But he's being paid by public funds, and if I understand special prosecutor Ken Starr's actions correctly, such confidentiality does not protect lawyers on the public payroll who advise President Bill Clinton.
So I don't see how the Salida City Council could enjoy
more protection than the president of the United States.
These federal rulings, once they trickle down to state
courts, should do wonders for open government -- no more
executive sessions for legal advice,
which can cover
just about everything that a body and its attorney want to
hide.
We settled a couple of weeks ago. The city would pay the bulk of our attorney fees, and Marquez would be forgiving about the rest. The city agreed to require future executive-session motions to detail just how such a session would fit into the exceptions under the Sunshine Law.
So, it's over. It might have been fun to litigate -- there were a lot of interesting questions I wanted to ask in depositions. But all a plaintiff can recover is attorney fees, not recompense for time lost from paying work. So a settlement made sense, if I wanted to do anything else.
There's one thing I want to point out. The Sunshine Law
(CRS 24-6-402) is not for the media. It says any
citizen
may file for an injunction to get it enforced.
Given all the secrecy stories I've heard about public
bodies ranging from school boards to water conservancy
districts, I hope more Coloradans exercise their rights as
citizens.
These bodies act in our name and with our money. We have every right to know what they're doing.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >