Board rejects motion to email investigation findings to members; attorney-client privilege cited
Summary
A motion to have the investigator’s written findings emailed to board members by 10 a.m. on May 28 failed 4-3 after board counsel and the report author recommended discussing the report in closed session because it contains potentially privileged material and witness names.
Board members debated and then rejected a motion to distribute the written findings of the Allen Law Group investigation to all board members by 10 a.m. on May 28. The motion failed on a 4-3 roll call.
Board member April Beaton moved that the written findings be emailed to the full board by 10 a.m. the next day; the motion was seconded. Board legal counsel and the investigator advised that the report contains witness names and other information covered by attorney-client privilege, and that their recommendation was to review the report first in closed session.
Board Attorney Patterson told the board that the investigator recommended discussion in closed session because the report may contain information that should not be public. ‘‘It was his recommendation to start there,’’ Patterson said during the meeting. The investigator’s recommendation and attorney advice were cited repeatedly by members who voted against immediate distribution.
Supporters of distribution said board members have a right to see the completed report and that releasing the findings to the board, with redaction where necessary, would help restore public trust. Several public commenters during the meeting urged release of the report and wider transparency; one resident told the board, “Publish the reports to help the community's trust build back up in you, the board.” (Public comment excerpt.)
Opponents said the report contains names of witnesses who may not want their identities disclosed and that emailed distribution could create a public record subject to Freedom of Information Act requests unless properly redacted. The board’s operating bylaws and the Open Meetings Act were referenced in the discussion as governing electronic distribution and confidentiality.
The board did not order the report to be emailed to members; the attorney indicated the findings letter exists and that the board may receive a findings letter in the future subject to legal review and privilege considerations.
