Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on releasing attorney opinion and disputes town‑hall plan over amphitheater
Summary
A public commenter asked the council to release a city attorney opinion about an alleged mayoral conflict of interest on the amphitheater project; a motion to release the opinion tied 4–4 after city attorney Derek advised the opinion is attorney‑client privileged. A separate motion to set an April 16 town hall failed; the council agreed further outreach and answers from the amphitheater foundation are needed before firm action.
Simon Petrovic, a Washington resident, used the public comment period to request that the council release a legal opinion prepared by the city attorney about a potential mayoral conflict of interest related to an amphitheater project. Petrovic asked the council to place the matter on the March 3 agenda for public release.
Later in the meeting a councilmember moved to release the attorney opinion. City attorney Derek advised the council that attorney‑client privileged opinions are normally protected and that the attorney cannot unilaterally release privileged documents; he told the council that the body itself could vote to make the opinion public but recommended caution. Councilmembers debated the legal and practical implications of releasing a privileged opinion and whether doing so might expose the city to risk or undermine the attorney‑client relationship.
Clerk Valerie read the roll call for the release motion: Adams — no; Blende — yes; Brownfield — yes; Butler — no; Martin — yes; McIntyre — no; Smith — no; Stevens — yes. The result was a 4–4 tie and the motion failed. The mayor stated his position and characterized the release effort as politically motivated; supporters argued transparency and public trust required release, while opponents cited privilege and legal advice concerns.
Separately, several councilmembers pressed for a town hall for the amphitheater project so residents could pose questions directly to the foundation. One motion to set an April 16 town hall was made but lacked a second and did not pass; councilmembers disagreed over whether the foundation had provided adequate answers to outstanding technical questions (noise, financial feasibility) and whether the council should compel a public forum before further action.
Next steps: The council did not release the attorney opinion and did not schedule a town hall at this meeting. Members said they expect further outreach by the foundation and additional council review before any formal action; the conflict‑of‑interest question remained unresolved at adjournment.
