HomeMy WebLinkAbout02252019 City Council Laydown from Seward Journal190225 Laydown – CC Meeting
Michael Paschall
Publisher
Seward Journal
February 24, 2019
Mayor David Squires
City Council
City of Seward
Mayor Squires and Members of Council,
It is clear the City of Seward continues to move forward in resolving the frustration and
difficulties seen recently with the relationship between the City Council and the administration,
and we support both Council and the administration in this effort. Each of you, as well as the
current leadership in the administration should be applauded for helping with this process.
Before you now is an issue that jeopardizes that process by reducing the transparency with the
public.
Tonight’s agenda includes an executive session “to consider applications for the permanent City
Manager position.”
The Alaska Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1982 in its decision in the combined opinion
of the City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers and Municipality of Anchorage v.
Anchorage Daily News. The Supreme Court held that the Alaska Open Meetings Act prohibits
executive sessions to discuss candidates for high public office except when discussing the
personal, as opposed to professional, characteristics of the candidates. The proposed executive
session conflicts with that ruling, city ordinance, and state law, unless the discussion is limited to
particular named candidates and the discussion is limited to personal characteristic “that tend to
prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public
discussion.” (SCC 2.10.030(b)(2), AS 44.62.310(c)(2)). The Court also held that the applications
are public records open for public inspection.
The facts in both cases mirror those in Seward almost exactly. The City of Kenai sought
applications for city manager, the City of Anchorage a police chief. In Kenai the Council
discussed those applications in executive session. The local newspaper requested copies of the
applications, were denied, and the papers subsequently sued. The newspapers asked the court to
order the city to release the applications and to enjoin the City Council from further secret
meetings, and to not take any action on the hiring of a new city manager or police chief.
The newspaper won in the trial court and in both subsequent appeals.
The court specifically addressed the concerns of the City of Kenai that the applicant pool would
shrink if applications could not be submitted in a confidential manner: “The [appellant’s] claim
that revealing the names and applications of office seekers will narrow the field of applicants and
ultimately prejudice the interests of good government is not sufficiently compelling to overcome
the public’s interest in disclosure,” the Court wrote in its decision.
190225 Laydown – CC Meeting
This has been the law of Alaska since 1982. As a public official, you swore to uphold the laws of
Alaska. It is your sworn duty, even if many officials, at many levels of government, increasingly
ignore it. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to take the same path.
It has also been stated in Seward and recently elsewhere in the state where the same issues are
being reveled, that the use of a third-party recruiter – in Seward’s case, GovHR – obviates a
public entity’s obligation to disclose applications, as they are in the hands of a contractor. The
Alaska Legislature specifically addressed this issue in AS 40.25.220(3), where it defines the term
“public record” expansively and includes items “developed or received … by a private contractor
for a public agency.” The Open Records Act obliges municipalities to release such documents.
We urge you, after moving to enter the executive session, to publicly debate the issue presented
here and determine what you believe to be in the best interest of the city. Do you continue to act
contrary to the law? Or do you acknowledge that the public’s right to know has been specifically
addressed by the Alaska Legislature and the Alaska Supreme Court as superior to the
government’s inclination to secrecy?
In an effort to continue the process that is currently in progress and prevent the disruption of the
process, we suggest the following as a compromise that reasonably does this, while recognizing
that it is contrary to law.
1. Enter the proposed executive session without releasing the applications to the public.
Limit the executive session to a brief review and minimal discussion or no discussion to
develop a list of candidates for further consideration.
2. As voting in the executive session is specifically prohibited in this instance, approve a list
of candidates for further consideration in public session following the executive session.
3. Make the applications of those candidates open for public inspection.
4. Conduct interviews and future deliberations in open session unless such is acceptable
under current law.
5. As was ordered in the previously cited cases, notify all remaining candidates that the
provision that their applications will be held in confidence is contrary to law, and allow
them ten days to withdraw their applications. Following that period, make all remaining
applications open for public inspection.
Why is it important that this process be open? The Alaska Supreme Court said, “Disclosing the
names and applications of applicants allows interested members of the public, such as the
newspapers here, to verify the accuracy of the representations made by the applicants, and to
seek additional information which may be relevant to the selection process.”
Thank you for your time and consideration of the matter before you.
Michael Paschall Kyle Walker
Publisher Reporter
Seward Journal Seward Journal