A hearing examiner for Bainbridge Island confirmed one ethics complaint, but dismissed another against former mayor and councilmember Kol Medina.
The complaint regarding the possibility of using eminent domain in the police-court facility process now advances to the City Council, which has 45 days from April 7 to respond.
The hearing examiner, Andrew M. Reeves of Sound Law Center, says the council can “take further action as it deems appropriate.”
The types of sanctions the council could impose include: admonition, reprimand, censure or other. Another option would be to do nothing.
Former councilman Ron Peltier, who filed the complaint, wrote in an email: “Two councilmembers are on record objecting to an inference that the site selection process for a new police and court facility possibly involved any misconduct by councilmembers. The finding of guilt regarding ethics complaint No. 2020-02, I believe, proves there was some misconduct related to that process.”
His email continued, saying: “I believe there was more misconduct but the whole process of exposing it, or not, is very political right now. If I were on council now I would advocate for an opinion from independent counsel as I believe our current city attorney is too invested and basically has a conflict of interest.”
Deputy City Attorney Andrew James Sletten appeared as special counsel during this process.
The complaint that was upheld was filed Sept. 11, 2020. It says when Medina was mayor on April 3, 2018, there was a discussion in executive session regarding the possible use of eminent domain to obtain property for the police-court facility. City leaders are never supposed to disclose executive session discussions. But the result of those discussions are required to be made in an open session. Medina reportedly disclosed such information during a City Council meeting and in an email to a member of the public.
Medina said a number of things about that complaint.
• It was moot because he’s no longer with the council. He left for a job in Walla Walla.
• The information was obtained by talking to other councilmembers, not from the email of executive session discussion.
• Discussions of the idea with individual council members prior to the executive session in question absolve him of confidentiality. “Private conversations outside of executive session do not render the topic as general knowledge,” the hearing examiner wrote.
• That he cannot confirm if the topic was discussed then or not because that in itself would violate the ethics code.
Reeves wrote it is “more probably true than not true” that Medina broke that the ethics code. As mayor he signed the council minutes that day, the executive session was about the police-court facility site and at the next public meeting he said the majority of the council did not support the idea of using eminent domain.
The hearing examiner said it’s important to make rulings like this “Reminding the former councilmember of his or her continuing confidentiality obligations.” The city’s Code of Ethics explicitly says former councilmembers cannot divulge information from executive sessions. It imposes a continuing obligation on councilmembers to abide by its terms after leaving office.”
Peltier’s other complaint, filed Nov. 11, 2020, was dismissed by the hearing examiner. It noted a perceived conflict of interest. It claims Medina tried to change the process to not allow anonymous ethics complaints. It says a “councilmember should not take any direct official action on a matter if they have a significant financial or private interest in the matter.” The hearing examiner said Medina’s alleged behavior did not reach that level.
Peltier has filed a motion to reconsider that ruling.
In that motion he alleges the hearing examiner accepted as fact information provided by the deputy city attorney, whose primary job is to represent the city, not the Ethics Program.
Peltier’s motion to reconsider cites comments from a council meeting by councilmember and now Mayor Rasham Nassar mentioned regarding fellow Councilmember Michael Pollock’s concern about protecting complainers who fear retaliation.
The ethics process says nothing about not allowing anonymous complaints, but Medina and other council members allegedly tried to change that after such a complaint against Medina was submitted by an attorney on behalf of an anonymous client.
An important issue was whether Medina’s proposed change to the Ethics Board’s Operating Rules would apply retroactively, thereby affecting his personal situation. Peltier presented an example of when such a change was previously made and says Medina was well aware of that precedent.
Another complaint filed by attorney Wyatt Golding on behalf of an anonymous client pertained to undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding the purchase of the Harrison Medical Center for a new police and court facility. When the council approved the purchase, then-mayor Medina voted for the purchase, even though Harrison leaders were donors to the foundation where Medina worked. That complaint was not even heard by the hearing examiner because it was dismissed by the Ethics Board earlier. “I believe Medina tried to make it go away with his proposed amendment to the Operating Rules” Oct. 27, 2020, Peltier says in his email.
