Winlock City Attorney Argues County Need Not Appoint Council Member; Prosecutor’s Office Bills City More Than $4,500

Posted

While the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office has closed the “Winlock Whistleblower” case, it is still working with Winlock’s city attorney to determine if the Lewis County commissioners must now appoint someone to a “vacant” city council seat.

“When I met with the city attorneys, we also discussed the concerns that I have with the Winlock City Council appointment,” said Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer, during the prosecuting attorney update to the Lewis County Commissioners on Tuesday afternoon. “Under the statute, if there are two or more vacancies, you have to basically appoint one, swear them in, then that new council member gets to participate in the discussion and appointment of the next council member. In listening to the meeting and reviewing the minutes, that did not occur.”

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. 

The prosecutor’s office spent more than 100 hours on the case and billed the city of Winlock $4,520.30. In a letter dated March 4 addressed to Winlock city attorney Erin Hillier, Meyer outlined the time that the prosecutor’s office spent on the Winlock Whistleblower case.

“Frankly, the above is an underrepresentation of time actually spent on the matters brought to this office,” Meyer wrote. “Time spent on the city council issue has not been included. This office views that as a matter outside of the Whistleblower Complaint.”

While the prosecutor’s office concluded its investigation — and found “no further investigation is needed or warranted” — one allegation did trigger action from the prosecutor’s office. In February 2018, two Winlock city councilors were sworn into office at the same time.



Meyer said during the meeting that the first councilor  sworn in, Barbara Pedersen, did not have the opportunity to vote on the second councilor that was sworn in, Jodie Curtis.

“Would it have changed?” Meyer said. “Don’t know and frankly don’t care. The statute as I see it does not have a close enough clause, so it’s either a strict compliance or not a strict compliance. The city doesn’t necessarily agree with my analysis. They are in the process of writing their own analysis to submit to me.”

Hillier responded to request for comment via email Wednesday afternoon, but did not make herself available for an interview.

“It is in our firm's legal opinion, as is supported by the research from MRSC staff attorneys, that there is currently no vacancy on council and none that would have triggered the statutory 90-day requirement to fill such a vacancy,” wrote Hillier in part. “Often unique procedural questions come up in small communities that have not yet been tested in a court of law, so we rely upon the bulk of legal authority we can find on the matter, as well as opinion from our legal peers. In this case, a vacancy may occur if the current seat resigns or if there is a court order to vacate the seat, but short of that, it is likely a non-issue. Ultimately, I suspect that the County need not be involved, but I will be providing Jonathan our research this week, so that we can put everyone's mind at ease.”