Kathleen M. Houts is suing the city and specifically Councilwoman Jeannine Roe for comments Roe made the night of Jan. 4, including that the council had made a decision for a “fresh start” before the group voted in open session to pick Hankins, a political newcomer. Roe said later that night that she had misspoken, and that no decision was made in closed session.
Houts’ suit asks, among other things, that a Thurston Superior Court judge find that the city violated the open-meetings act, and that Roe be fined $100 for each knowing violation of the act.
“This is not about me,” Houts said in an interview Thursday. “This is about the public and what we have a right to know. I want the determination to be made, and I want the council to know that they must adhere to that.”
Roe did not return calls seeking comment Thursday.
City Attorney Tom Morrill declined to comment in a brief interview Thursday.
“Once we’re in litigation, we don’t comment on matters that are in litigation,” he said. But he had told a reporter earlier that no decision had been made in closed session.
Houts’ suit, filed Monday, stems from a special council meeting Jan. 4 to interview candidates to fill Stephen Buxbaum’s former council position, which he vacated two years early after being elected mayor. Council members held two closed sessions ostensibly to discuss the qualifications of people who applied for the council appointment, which Morrill said was allowed under state law.
Before the second closed session, the council was deadlocked 3-3 on whether to appoint Hankins or former Councilwoman Karen Messmer. Councilman Nathaniel Jones moved for the council to go into closed session, and it did so for 20 minutes.
When the council returned to open session but before the official vote for Hankins, Roe said that “as a group we kind of decided we needed a fresh start on the council.”
Hankins had no experience on the council; Messmer was a councilwoman from 2006-09.
Roe told a reporter later that night that she had misspoken and that there was no decision made in executive session, the suit cites. “It was just a discussion of qualifications and some of us expressed views of a fresh start,” she said.
Morrill also told a reporter that night that Roe had misspoken, the suit says.
But Houts’ suit claims that Roe’s later statement also is evidence of a discussion that shouldn’t have occurred in closed session.
“A discussion of whether the Olympia City Council ‘needs’ a ‘fresh start’ is a matter of interest to the public and the public is entitled to hear a discussion by council members of what ‘fresh start’ means and how a ‘fresh start’ would be brought about by the Council as well as what ‘fresh start’ would mean for citizens,” the suit says.
Houts’ suit notes that state law says an action may not be taken in closed session, and a discussion could qualify as an action. It also says an action doesn’t have to be a vote but could also be a “collective positive or negative decision.”
Councilman Jones changed his vote, and the council eventually voted 4-2 to appoint Hankins.
Houts said that she has no connection to Hankins or Messmer and had no preference about who was picked.
She said the council was very good but young. (Roe has the most experience on the council, with just a little more than two years.)
“I think that this council is an excellent council,” she said.
“My interest is finding out just how far a public agency can go with an executive session, what they can do with that.”
Matt Batcheldor: 360-704-6869
mbatcheldor@theolympian.com
