Opinion: Taking issue with council colleague’s accusations
By Wendy David
The last few months have been some of the most difficult for our City Council, for our city and for our community. Similar to the national conversation, with immediate access to social media in many forms, controversial opinion pieces go immediately out to the public, even before the accused have an opportunity to hear the allegations. Soon after, public comment and “opinion” on the opinion begins with little interest in whether there is truth.
Wendy David
I have very seldom felt the need to respond publicly, but Ms. [Brooke] Laine invites and demands this public response by making her concerns and opinion very public, while stating that she is providing information. I would like to respond to a few of her opinions, accusations and allegations.
I would like to address the truth in reference to the minutes that were approved at the April 3 meeting. Ms. Laine was absent. Very often the minutes of a meeting have corrections made to them after review by council, the city manager or department heads, before they are formally adopted by the council. In this case, Ms. Laine noticed a transcription error in a motion that had been made which added additional language that was not part of the motion. She contacted our city clerk the day before our meeting, who then took action and publicly amended the minutes during the public meeting before they were adopted. She gave credit to Ms. Laine for advising her of the error. It is common to have the minutes corrected, often in public. I have done it myself on a few occasions.
I take great exception to the comment of secrecy taking place in local government. Ms. Laine states, “If one councilmember is not privy to the same information as other councilmembers the question is why?” All information is equally available to every councilmember. Calls to the acting city manager, interim city attorney, city clerk, and city staff do not go unanswered. The mayor and the mayor pro tem do meet and confer on the proposed agenda one week before the meeting, but these meetings in no way preclude any councilmember from being provided the same information.
Surprisingly, although Ms. Laine alleges that transparency is lacking, in a stunningly secretive display, she let no one know in advance of her decision to publicly accuse her fellow council members, her acting city manager, city clerk and interim city attorney of breaking the law.
Her accusation of decision-making taking place outside of the public’s view could not be further from the truth. As a council, we very publicly discuss, deliberate and reach decisions at our meetings in front of the public. For anyone that has attended a meeting, this should be obvious as you watch the council debate, sometimes vigorously and with passion our most controversial topics. We have tough decisions that take many meetings of discussion to thoroughly and thoughtfully vet through all of the options. This can be frustrating for the public and for the council, but is an integral part of public government. I am offended and devastated to learn that this is Ms. Laine’s belief.
Ms. Laine further accuses the council of engaging in a power struggle, one that is for personal gain and is selfish, creates hostility and purposely keeps many in the dark. I do not know who she is referring to, but her statement is false and unfounded. She speaks against our city’s public servants that step up and out to serve the public in today’s polarized culture. For me, this elected position certainly is not one that has provided any personal gain. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The sleepless nights, the huge weight of knowing that I must always act in the best interests of the entire city’s community, not just one person or one opinion, before supporting any action, the lack of being at liberty legally to comment on any item that is confidential and restricted to closed session all take a considerable toll for any responsible and professional person.
Because of the gravity of Ms. Laine’s false accusations, as mayor, I have made a recommendation to our chief of police to initiate conversation with the El Dorado County district attorney to investigate Ms. Laine’s numerous allegations that “multiple violations of the law have occurred.”
I am saddened and disappointed that Ms. Laine has taken this path and holds these damaging opinions. I hope that we can find a path back and provide the community, the City Council, city staff and other elected and appointed officials facts and truth as opposed to opinion and biased conjecture. I believe a thorough and independent investigation will provide this.
Wendy David is mayor of South Lake Tahoe.
The Mayor comes across as defensive & oblivious to the shambles that is SLT city government. She seems to be saying: Nothing to see here folks, move on.
I might suggest a different approach outside of a pillbox mentality, recognizing that the city is in trouble; institutions contained within it have been compromised and the city must move out of chaos and conflict. I would suggest a “receivership approach”, which is non defensive to the criticism, acknowledging that what has been occuring is not working and that there is a duty to exercise extreme care to bring the city back to doing things right and above board.
Let me first point, how an institution or govt function within the city government has been compromised in what seemingly might be a minor issue. The police chiefs letter to the DA is unprofessional. It appears riddled with his personal bias and opinion in conflict with a sitting councilmember which just happens to be in alignment with the mayor’s expressed opinion. The letter, if authorized properly should have been a straight forward referral without editorial comment. No professional city manager would have allowed that letter to leave city hall without editing it to be professional. That might have hurt the chief’s feelings, but he would have come out looking professional. A city manager would have seen that the entire action of referring the matter to the DA was properly authorized.
The Police Chief professionalism would be further compromised if he has acted on the direction of a single council member or an acting CM without proper authorization from the city council. The Office of the police chief comes out looking compromised and unprofessional. I would worry how his personal bias affects his other duties. I would worry that he is taking individual direction from other council members on other issues. I would worry that he doesn’t seem to recognize the consequences of his actions.
It seems there is no one present to provide discipline for such actions and monitor professionalism overall. Taking directive from a single council member can be a fireable offense as any professional dept head knows better than to do that.
The authority of the entire city council is also compromised when individual council members try to direct staff on issues not noticed and discussed per the law. You have the potential to have five different council members calling and directing staff in all levels of the city.
Also, another example,on the Mayors watch, as handed off by the prior mayor- the City Attorney took direction in a closed session noticed for City Atty appointment to hire an organizational consultant, apparently selected by a single councilmember outside of normal procurement procedures which was a disguised investigation or city manager evaluation mechanism.
For the Mayor to say, nothing to see here on this issue, vs saying, maybe that could have been done differently at the very least is concerning, and insulting to the citizenry. You need not be a lawyer or Brown Act expert to smell a Brown Act violation.
Would the Mayor again hire a consultant that she directly picks on her own to evaluate the city manager and direct that be executed under a closed session posted as being for the City Atty’s appointment and also call that consultant contract something different that what it was?
Further, would the Mayor allow that contract, which required a written report to NOT produce a written report?
Still further would the Mayor again allow that non existent report to be used to instigate evaluation/termination proceedings against a city manager whose contract specifically states they are subject to one evaluation per annum and they are entitled to receive an actual written summary ( not invisible report)prior to any evaluation for review?
Or would she do things differently?
Here it looks like the Office of the City Atty was compromised. It appears that the Brown Act was trampled upon. It appears that no one read the city managers contract in the context of instigating evaluation and termination proceedings against her while she had specific clauses in her contract addressing these issues.
When people talk about personal gain, I dont think they are talking about financial gain. They are talking about compromising city government to get what they want to happen outside of normal systems like the Brown Act & open meetings, to satisfy their own desires and egos. Their leadership skills are lacking to get what they want within the system. So they might hide something like the MRG/Egan report call it something other than what it was intended for and sucker in others to let that happen to get what they want.
I think the Mayor hooked her wagon to the Austin Sass train. He got the ball rolling on the Egan contract per reporting. Coincidentally, somebody then immediately leaked that the CM was being investigated, vs it being an organizational assessment as sold. Things unravelled from there and the city is without City Manager and Attorney. Institutions are under threat.
What the DA does doesnt really matter. They have bigger worries than the sh#tshow that is SLT, and issues like Brown Act violations or fake minutes that will just be called typos.
What matters is that the City is in shambles under the Mayors watch. She need not be defensive vs being concerned that her colleague felt compelled to write what she did. She need not contribute to the chaos.
Maybe the Mayor can consider that things could have been done differently? That institutions, like the credibility and professionalism of key offices have been compromised. Maybe she can decide that following Austin’s lead was problematic. That Austin is the toxin. That Austin might like this chaos that surrounds her as the current Mayor.
The Mayor might want to consider being a true leader and not a Sass lackey. Sometimes we double down on the wrong path but it is never too late to pull back.