Violation? Ranking system or secret vote?

Published 1:30 am Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Was it a secret vote or a ranking system?

The Bainbridge Island City Council recently judged three candidates for city manager in executive session.

Fred Obee, executive director of the Washington Newspaper Publisher’s Association, said if it’s a secret vote it’s a violation of the state Open Public Meetings Act.

But Bainbridge Island city attorney Joe Levan said the council merely ranked the candidates based on their qualifications.

In the tabulation, Blair King of Coronado, CA received 10 points, Keith Campbell of Stayton, OR 14 points and Anthony Williams of Abilene, TX 15 points.

“It’s like golf. The lower score wins,” Councilmember Michael Pollock said.

Mayor Rasham Nassar has said at meetings she wants to improve the reputation of the council, along with transparency and the public process.

“In regard to the city manager search, council did rank the final three candidates, and that information was collected by our consultant and put into a spreadsheet,” she said.

“I appreciate public concerns that this might appear to be a closed-door vote. Moving forward, I think everyone on council agrees we want to avoid such appearances.”

Even though King later was picked to be the new city manager, and contract talks are ongoing, Levan said that was not a secret vote. He said the council is allowed to meet in executive session to evaluate qualifications for applicants.

“As part of such evaluation, the council is allowed to consider the quality and significance of the qualifications of applicants.

“As part of such consideration, individual councilmembers are allowed to express their opinions related to individual applicants, including by weighing the qualifications of applicants, such as by ranking them in relation to other candidates based on their qualifications,” Levan said.

The city attorney said the official decision on King was made in open session Jan. 26.

Levan said in no way is the city trying to circumvent the law. “The City Council, and the city more generally, take the Open Public Meetings Act very seriously and are committed to complying with all legal requirements,” he said.

Obee said that vote should not have been taken. “They’re not supposed to do that. They’re supposed to come out of executive session and take the vote in public,” he said.

He said an executive session takes three steps: Announce what it is for, say how long it will take and say if they will make a decision when they come out of executive session.

Obee pointed to Revised Code of Washington 42.30.060 which says: “No governing body of a public agency at any meeting required to be open to the public shall vote by secret ballot. Any vote taken in violation of this subsection shall be null and void, and shall be considered an “action” under this chapter.”

RCW 42.30.120 says if there was a violation each council member could face a civil penalty of $500 the first time, and $1,000 for any subsequent violation.

An email with the scoring on the ballot was send to the BI Review. It was between Levan and the consultant on the city manager process, Ron Holifield of SGR.

Though asked, Levan did not cite the state law that allows a ranking system tabulation.

The state Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.

Nassar said, “There’s a dynamic tension in state law between OPMA and executive session confidentiality requirements.”

She said the council normally does business publically, except when it involves litigation, property acquisition or evaluation of applicants.

“As mayor, my approach is to err on the side of public interest and advocate to curtail any executive session conversations that should be more properly discussed in public,” Nassar said. “But at the end of the day, the council majority gets to decide what constitutes executive session material, not the mayor.”