Council discusses litigation costs and whether volunteer board members should face removal after lawsuit expenses

Councilmembers and members of the public discussed a recent legal matter in which the city paid legal fees related to litigation initiated by former council members and a subsequent additional filing by a volunteer board member. Councilmembers said the litigation ultimately cost taxpayers; one councilmember said the city spent "$137,867 of taxpayer money" on the litigation and cited an additional $3,541 in fees tied to a later filing by a board member (identified in the discussion as Howard Steele).

Councilmembers and public commenters debated whether individuals who pursue litigation that results in costs to the city should be allowed to serve on city volunteer boards. Some councilmembers argued that board members should not undertake actions that needlessly expose the city to legal costs. Others cautioned that removing or refusing to reappoint board members because of their exercise of legal rights risks politicizing volunteer boards and could be a slippery slope.

Speakers also raised questions about whether the city attorney provided timely information to the council during the litigation and whether any professional or bar complaints were appropriate; commenters asked the council to consider whether the city could pursue reimbursement of fees paid to outside counsel. A public commenter urged the council to pursue recouping fees from the law firm involved and to consider an ethics or bar complaint. Staff noted the council could address appointment or reappointment decisions when volunteer terms expire.

Council did not take formal disciplinary action during the work session. Councilmembers said they will consider appointment and reappointment policies and that members may raise concerns when board terms come up for renewal.