The Winlock City Council is seen at a special meeting in February.
The Winlock City Council has yet to appoint a new councilor for position 1 after a resignation, and its attorney is maintaining that another position, which the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office believes was appointed incorrectly, is not vacant after all.
Winlock City Attorney Erin Hillier sent a letter to Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney Jonathan Meyer dated March 8, in which she argues the appointment for Council Position 3 — currently held by Jodie Curtis — is “defensible in court.”
“Thank you for the time you have taken out of your regular schedule to attend to a question concerning the validity of Winlock Council Position #3,” wrote Hillier in the letter. “Through our combined research as to the facts and legal authority available, I am sure we can provide a joint recommendation for our respective clients and bring this matter to a close.”
Curtis was appointed to Council Position 3 in February 2018. At the time, she and fellow councilor Barbara Pedersen were appointed and sworn in at the same time. A strict reading of the statute, argues Meyer, dictates that Pedersen should have been sworn in first, then participated in the appointment of Council Position 3.
In December 2018, the prosecutor’s office began conducting an investigation in the city of Winlock. Documents obtained by The Chronicle later found a whistleblower from the city of Winlock brought 15 different allegations against the city. One of the 15 allegations was that the council position was improperly appointed.
Since Meyer believes the council seat has technically been vacant for more than 90 days, the appointment would now fall to the county. Hillier said at Winlock’s regular city council meeting on Monday that she has not yet received a response from Meyer’s office.
According to Hillier’s letter, a citizen inquired about the validity of the appointment for Council Position 3 in February 2018. Sam Satterfield — with the same law firm as Hillier — was the city attorney at the time. According to the letter, he responded to the citizen’s inquiry.
“He concluded that the appointment of the new council members could be done one at a time under strict reading of the statute, but that according to MRSC and AWC when you have a majority of council members (i.e. 3) who are unanimous in their choices for the remaining two spots, then it is standard procedure to simply vote both in and appoint them at the same time, for economy of time and function, and that such appointment is valid and defensible in court,” Hillier wrote.
The letter states that three attorneys at the law firm Hillier, Scheibmeir & Kelly have reviewed the matter and maintain City Council Position 3 is not vacant. The letter does not state who the third attorney is, besides Hillier and Satterfield.
The letter also cites “feedback” from MRSC, but does not attribute the feedback to a specific person.
“There is no real interest or benefit in a County or State government policing or affirming the action of a city, where by charter or code, the city operates independently under its own liability, regulations, and resources,” Hillier wrote. “This is always subject to the constitutional Supremacy Clause, but certainly does not involve the everyday business and governing responsibilities of an independent City government.”
Hillier argues in her letter that even had the city council sworn Pedersen in before the council appointed Curtis, the result wouldn’t have changed.
“Though we feel strongly that there is no need for involvement by another governmental entity in this matter, if it avoids further hypothetical or legal challenge from an interested third party, we can certainly employ the ‘belt and suspenders’ method of having all groups affirm/confirm the original appointment,” Hillier wrote. “Though arguably unnecessary, it may be the formality that satisfies any remaining concern.”
While it is unclear at this point whether or not the Lewis County commissioners will appoint someone to Council Position 3, Council Position 1 is still vacant after Andrew Maloney resigned from the position in early February.
While Winlock City Council was previously slated to hold interviews Monday for the seat it acknowledges is vacant, interviews were not on the agenda Monday.
“Before we made anymore missteps, we wanted to make sure we were on solid ground,” said Winlock Mayor Don Bradshaw Monday.
Bradshaw told The Chronicle after a Winlock City Council meeting Feb. 25 that the city council postponed interviews for the position, because all qualified applicants had withdrawn.
Two people have since told The Chronicle that they applied for the vacant Winlock City councilor position prior to the Feb. 25 meeting. Bradshaw said Monday, there were two qualified applicants before the Feb. 25 meeting, contrary to what he previously told The Chronicle. The next Winlock City Council meeting is scheduled to take place Monday, March 25.
