Prosecutor: Winlock Needs Public Records Class, Council Seat Filled Illegally

While Winlock City Councilor Jodie Curtis has served as a council member for more than a year, the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office doesn’t believe she was appointed legally and that it now falls to the county to fill the “vacant” seat.

“On February 12, 2018, the Winlock City Council took action (to) fill two (2) vacant positions,” reads a letter from Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney Jonathan Meyer to Winlock City Attorney Erin Hillier, dated Feb. 25. “The Council first made a motion to seat Barabara Pedersen to Position 2. That motion was seconded and carried by the members of the council. Then, the Council made a motion to seat Jody (sic) Curtis for Position 3. After reviewing the audio of the meeting, it appears RCW 42.12.070(2) was violated.”

Because of that, according to Meyer, Winlock City Council Position 3 is not a “properly appointed position.” According to the state statute, Pedersen should have been sworn in before Curtis was appointed. However, the two were sworn in simultaneously.

“... (B)ecause the city of Winlock failed to appoint a qualified person within 90 days of the vacancy occurring, as required under RCW 42.12.070(4), the obligation falls to the county legislative authority,” the letter reads. “The Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office believes the city of Winlock does not have the authority to appoint a qualified person to Position 3. Rather, the authority currently sits with the Lewis County Commissioners per statute.”

While Curtis was appointed to the position more than a year ago, the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office began investigating the city of Winlock for a number of allegations in December 2018. The prosecutor’s office completed the investigation last week, and documents reveal there were 15 separate allegations. 

The office received the allegations from a whistleblower, but found “no further investigation is needed or warranted.” 

Under city of Winlock Ordinance 706, Winlock’s Whistleblower policy serves to “... protect employees who make good-faith reports to appropriate governmental officials and to provide remedies for such individuals who are subjected to retaliation for having made such reports.”

The allegations against the city ranged from the removal of a sign to the improper city council appointment. Only city of Winlock employees may file whistleblower complaints. 

Although the letter was dated Monday, Feb. 25 — the same day as the regular Winlock City Council meeting — the council did not address Meyer’s letter. After the meeting, Hillier said the city is in discussions with the county, and that the two entities are “combining legal research.” She said that she does not anticipate the county will appoint someone to the seat, and expects to know more later this week.

Meanwhile, Winlock City Council Position 1 is still vacant, after former councilor Andrew Maloney resigned earlier this month. Bradshaw said after the meeting that there were previously two applicants for the position, and that he had anticipated the council to hold interviews that evening. However, both applicants withdrew from consideration. 

Winlock City Councilor Anne Randt spoke during the meeting about various issues that have surfaced, or have been rumored, in Winlock over the past year. She also accused other Winlock City Councilors, without naming them, of “pre-screening” applicants, before the city council interviewed them.

“Mayor Bradshaw, I will no longer be a pawn,” Randt said. 

Hillier said she had not previously heard anything from Randt about checking on the legality of any of the issues she discussed during the city council meeting. She asked Randt to get in touch with the mayor, other councilors or herself instead of bringing up issues of potentially illegal activity in a public meeting.

“Really what this does is it could present a situation where your public doesn’t have all the facts,” said Hillier during the meeting. “In order to have all the facts, the proper forum is City Hall. Come to City Hall and find out what the true information is. Not everything that is presented on social media or in other places has the complete picture.”

After the meeting adjourned, Winlock City Councilor Connie Sneed yelled at Randt inside the entrance of City Hall. Sneed also yelled at Randt outside the building from the street, “You’re out of line.” Randt said the same back to Sneed.

Meyer said the allegation that the council positions were appointed improperly does not fall under the whistleblower ordinance.

“This letter does not address the legality of any actions taken by the board subsequent to the apparently invalid appointment,” the letter reads. “This issue is left for the city, with the guidance of its attorney, to review and address.”

According to the letter, the prosecutor’s office will address the issue with the Lewis County Commissioners at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5 in a public meeting.

Among the other allegations that the prosecutor’s office investigated in the city of Winlock, Meyer said there were two more his office found most concerning — that public records were not provided as requested and that the mayor and city councilors conducted serial meetings.

“There seems to be some confusion by the mayor that just because you’re an employee (it) may somehow get you out of the public records arena,” Meyer said. “… Just because someone is an employee, they don’t get treated differently if a public records request is made. So I think there was some confusion there — but there was no evidence that the conduct was repeated, and there is no evidence that there was any retaliation for bringing it to the attention of anybody, and there is no indication that it continues to occur.”

Meyer said that while his office recognizes this was an issue, the allegation doesn’t officially fall under a whistleblower complaint.

Additionally, Meyer wrote that there is “insufficient evidence to support a conclusion of a violation” regarding serial meetings.

“There does appear to potentially be a valid issue as to serial meetings,” the investigation reads. “It is alleged Mayor Bradshaw meets individually with council members to help ensure agreement on issues. This appears to be a classic issue of a serial meeting. However, this is not necessarily backed up by the investigation conducted.”

Meyer said it appears Bradshaw was handing council members a packet and saying “Hey, here is what we are talking about tonight.”

“That’s not really a serial meeting,” Meyer said. “That’s just providing people with paperwork. However, that is very dangerous ground to be on.” 

Meyer’s office recommended that the Winlock city attorney provide a “refresher” with city officials on the Open Public Meetings Act, in regards to the potential public records law violation and serial meetings allegations. Hillier brought up the training during the city council meeting, and the Winlock City Council plans to hold two one-hour special meetings with the OPMA training that will be open to the public.

“While it would be odd if an employee sued the employer for violation of (the open) public records act, it’s not out of the question,” Meyer said.

After receiving complaints regarding issues in the city of Winlock, the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office responded to the whistleblower on Dec. 13, 2018. The letter informed the whistleblower that the office would treat the complaint as a whistleblower complaint, under Winlock Municipal Ordinance 706.

The letter states that the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office was obligated to conduct the investigation under the ordinance, and that the office would charge the city for the cost of the investigation.

A letter to the city of Winlock the same day notified the city of the investigation.

“This office did not agree to undertake this obligation,” Meyer wrote. “Rather, the obligation was placed on this office by city ordinance and state law. As such, this investigation will be provided at a cost. The cost bill will be submitted on a regular basis to the city and prompt payment will be expected.”