Local News

<< Previous   of   Next >>   ADVERTISEMENT   CONTACT THE HERALD Robert Frank, City Editor frank@heraldnet.com   Published: Friday, November 13, 2009 Cost of dispute falls on Monroe The city, already facing a deficit, has been ordered to pay the legal fees of an open-government activist. By Andy Rathbun Herald Writer MONROE — The meter has been running for more than three years. The city has spent at least $76,295 on attorneys who have withheld information from Meredith Mechling, a local open government activist. Now a state appeals court has ruled in Mechling’s favor, and the city will have to pay her legal fees, about $110,000 so far. The expense comes at a bad time for Monroe. The city’s projected 2010 budget deficit grew to $290,000 on Tuesday, when the City Council noticed revenue estimates included money tied to a big-box store yet to be built. Mechling offered to settle the case against the city for $192,950 — the cost of her attorney fees plus about $84,000 in penalties for violating the public records law. The City Council rejected the offer on Tuesday, with City Councilman Mitch Ruth the sole dissenting vote. “No matter what the dollar amount is, it’s going to have a negative impact on this upcoming fiscal year,” Ruth said Thursday. City Attorney Phil Olbrechts called the offer inflated. He believes the city will save money by letting a lower court set the price tag. The court could tell the city it only needs to pay a portion of Mechling’s fees and charge the city less severe penalties, Olbrechts said. “The city’s interest at this point is to spend as little more money on this as possible,” Olbrechts said. The case itself relates to e-mails sent among City Council members and other officials in 2005. Mechling was concerned that debate that should have been held in public was being conducted online. She requested dozens of documents. The city gave her some, but redacted information in e-mails that had been sent from personal accounts. Other e-mails were withheld outright, with the city claiming attorney-client privilege. Mechling sued for the information in 2006. A Snohomish Superior Court judge backed the city and Mechling appealed. “I am tenacious,” she said. Mechling was rewarded by a three-judge panel. The state Court of Appeals unanimously agreed in an Oct. 26 decision that Monroe must hand over the e-mails. Mechling — the wife of former City Councilman Marc Mechling and treasurer of Mayor Donnetta Walser’s failed re-election campaign — faulted the legal advice given to Monroe. The city doesn’t have an in-house attorney, instead hiring counsel from the Seattle firm Ogden Murphy Wallace on a variable hourly rate. Lawyers with the firm, including Olbrechts, and city officials said they couldn’t discuss the specifics of the case until it is completely resolved. The cost to settle the case — to pay penalties and cover legal expenses — will come out of Monroe’s general fund, city officials said. Those tax dollars support departments such as the police, parks and planning. Those departments are already being squeezed. With the 2010 deficit at $290,000, taxpayers may feel the pinch too, as the city considers a new tax and more furlough days for city staff. Many expect the final bill on Mechling’s case to arrive in 2010. Until then, Mechling will wait. “It seems silly to keep that meter running,” she said. “It seems silly that it has gone on as long as it has.” Andy Rathbun: 425-339-3455, arathbun@heraldnet.com READER COMMENTS Log in or register to post new comment | Log out Cost of dispute "City Attorney Phil Olbrechts called the offer inflated". The only thing here inflated is the ego of the City attorney. When you have 2 public records requests for the same documents you can't give one request all the documents and not the other and then hope you don't get caught. He got caught "He believes the city will save money by letting a lower court set the price tag". Is this the same lower court that ruled the city had done no wrong? So he is beating hard earned taxpayer dollars this same court will stand on the same laws after a higher court ruled the lower court wrong? Yep lets run the bill up some more and waste more taxpayer dollars by going back to court with all the attorneys plus more court costs that will bring down the cost of the price tag. This guy has given advice from the start and look where it's gotten them. This all started over 3 council members Minnick, Zimmerman and Berger with the help of Olbrechts to speed up and get rid of the ethcis board. What was the council thinking when they voted? Do they not see the big picture here. whitebear | Nov 13, 2009 9:29 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) If elected and appointed government officials could be charged individually for wrong doings, and they were not allowed to pay for their defense with taxpayer money, I wonder if issues like this would lessen? The "Elected" can behave badly simply because the cost to them is minimal. We should be outraged every time these things happen. We're supposed to feel bad and become angry at the plaintiff because of the impact on city services? How rediculous! Get mad at the city! william monger | Nov 13, 2009 7:12 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal idiots Just think- Monroe's deficit would be cut by more than half if they had complied to begin with. Monroe- you're a bunch of winners! R N | Nov 13, 2009 6:58 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal freedom of information act, does not exempt Monroe... ...or any other city. People need to keep in mind... when you work for government, we, joe public, have EVERY RIGHT to view every little thing you do. You can't hide behind your good ol'boys/girls club anymore. The walls are crashing down. The sad part about this is how Monroe illegally used tax payer funds to fight this in court, adding up into the hundreds of thousands. All over what? A few E-mails? Come on. What a joke. Publish the Emails & let's see what all the comotion is about! cme everett | Nov 13, 2009 1:30 am | 1 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal E-Mail Elected Officials 101 should start with a lesson in correspondence both paper and e-mail; what they could reasonably expect to remain private - that is, basically very little. Especially with e-mail that can be forwarded to sites around the world in seconds. It is a lesson for other government entities to remind their staff and the elected officials to think before they e-mail (or Twitter or whatever): is there anything in this message that I don't want the world to see? T G | Nov 13, 2009 6:07 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal

1. Boy, 16, admits role in Sultan slaying of teen 2. Jet-winged adventurer ditches in Atlantic, unhurt 3. Swift buses ready for fast lane 4. Gunshots injure two Everett men 5. County law could change to allow guns in parks 6. Turkey gets attention, but don't forget the pie 7. Enron and others pay for roles in manufactured energy ‘crisis’ 8. Beach now an enemy of the Silvertips 9. How to make the most of Black Friday shopping 10. Thanksgiving tradition evolves as families evolve 2 - Top 10 Stories Most Talked about 3 - Top 10 Stories Most Emailed

• Holiday Lightings & Santa Sightings • Ruling in the pool • Archbishop Murphy takes title • A season of performing arts • Budget numbers have official fuming • Wildcats move on to 2A semifinals • Holiday Bazaars & Fairs Calendar • Edmonds’ Westgate Chapel serves up hospitality for holiday • Mavericks fall • Boeing will build, flight test and deliver 787s in South Carolina to spe ... • Snohomish County EDC promoting job growth in key industry clusters • $4 million grant to advance brain tumor research has Everett links • Providence medical center construction tops off its 12-story steel frame ... • Tulalip affordable housing project to be financed by KeyBank, Raymond Ja ... • Arlington's Lak of Ink has a growing following for Luke Kooyman's creati ... • Bank of the Northwest formed • Cascade Bank earns $1.6 million