Kodiak Island Borough Assembly waives attorney-client privilege; rules Roberts appointment stands

The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly voted Wednesday to waive and release an attorney-client opinion about a mayoral veto tied to the Oct. 16 appointment of Caroline Roberts to a vacant assembly seat and the chair ruled that the appointment stands.

The attorney’s written advice, which legal counsel issued on Oct. 21, concluded the outgoing mayor’s veto was untimely because it was submitted after the appointee had taken the oath of office. Mayor Griffin read the opinion’s conclusion during the meeting: “the mayor’s [veto] was untimely because it was submitted after the appointee had taken the oath of office,” and the assembly then voted to make the opinion public.

Why it matters: the waiver ended debate over whether the borough should treat the mayor’s written veto as effective. Assembly members said releasing the opinion promotes transparency; others raised concerns about the legal reasoning but ultimately deferred to the attorney’s conclusion and the practical consequences for the appointment and compliance with the borough’s 30-day appointment requirement.

Clerk Lina summarized the timeline for the record: the assembly interviewed candidates on Oct. 9, appointed Ms. Roberts on Oct. 16, and she “took and subscribed to the oath of office” at that meeting; the outgoing mayor, Scott Arndt, submitted a written veto on Oct. 17; the clerk’s office sought legal advice and the opinion was issued on Oct. 21. The assembly’s motion was to “waive and release the attorney’s opinion that is protected by attorney-client privilege concerning the mayoral veto,” and the motion passed by roll call.

Assembly member Jeff said he had reviewed the opinion and some cited case law and remained skeptical of parts of the legal analysis, calling portions “generally somewhat lackluster,” but he supported releasing the opinion for transparency. Several other members said clarity for the public and the record favored releasing the document.

Assembly member Caroline Roberts publicly declared a conflict of interest before discussion and said, “For transparency, I'd like to declare conflict of interest on this item as I have a financial stake in the matter since I will receive a stipend as a member of the assembly, and I will therefore abstain from voting on this item.” The assembly chair excused her from participation on that agenda item.

On the roll call for the motion to waive and release the attorney’s opinion, Assembly Members Ames, Gardner, Johnson, Smiley, Whiteside and Woods and Mayor Griffin voted yes; Roberts did not vote because she had been excused. The clerk recorded the motion as passing unanimously among voting members.

After the vote, the assembly’s chair announced a ruling that, on the basis of the attorney’s opinion and applicable code and statute, the veto had no legal effect because it was untimely and the borough’s appointment requirement had been satisfied. The chair said that ruling could be appealed but that the immediate consequence was that the appointment remains in effect.

The meeting record shows the assembly followed the staffing and statutory procedures it cited: vacancy declared and posted, interviews held, appointment made on Oct. 16 and oath administered the same evening. Members who spoke about litigation risk said that entertaining a late veto could invite legal challenges and additional taxpayer expense.

The assembly did not vote on any further action about the veto beyond waiving privilege and making the opinion public. The meeting ended after the chair’s ruling.