PORT ANGELES — A three-part ethics complaint against Port Angeles City Attorney Bill Bloor over fluoridation of the city’s water supply is without merit, a Seattle lawyer has decided.
Peter Perron, the Port Angeles attorney who filed the 33-page complaint Feb. 24, would not comment Wednesday on the report issued May 5 by Peter Eglick of Seattle and which City Manager Dan McKeen mailed Perron on Monday.
Eglick so far has billed the city $1,870 for working on the complaint at $275 an hour for fees that will be covered under the city general fund.
McKeen, Bloor’s supervisor as city manager, had already decided the complaint did not fall under the ethics code.
But McKeen said he hired Eglick anyway because Bloor’s integrity was called into question.
“I accept Mr. Eglick’s findings that the complaint is unsubstantiated,” McKeen said in the letter.
Citing three allegedly unethical events engaged in by Bloor, Perron said Bloor made “fraudulent misrepresentations” in a memo issued July 21, 2015, regarding the fluoridation system and failed to object to a Dec. 15 motion by the City Council to continue fluoridation.
Thirdly, Perron claimed, Bloor failed to object to Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd chairing a Feb. 2 meeting that was dominated by comments against fluoridation and for which Kidd has been taken to task by an ethics board for abruptly adjourning.
Eglick said Bloor, a city employee, is explicitly exempt from the ethics code, which says “this chapter does not apply to city employees.”
“Even if this were not the case and attorney employees are within the code’s scope, none of the three complaint ‘events’ provide a competent basis for [ethics] board review or action other than summary dismissal” of the complaint, Eglick said.
Finally, the complaint does not fall under the city Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual either, Eglick said.
Bloor said Tuesday that Eglick’s report confirmed his own analysis of Perron’s allegations.
“I’m pleased the city did not say, ‘This doesn’t apply, and we will not look into it,’ ” he said.
In his Event 1 allegation, Perron had accused Bloor of fraudulently misrepresenting the Washington Dental Service Foundation’s offer to pay the cost of installing the fluoridation system as a “donation,” after which the foundation would donate it to the city, if the city fluoridated its water for 10 years.
The city is under a 10-year contract with the foundation to fluoridate city water through May 18, after which the existing City Council has agreed to fluoridate the water for 10 more years, although not under any contract — meaning the council could change course at any time.
Eglick said the “gist” of Perron’s allegation is that use of the word donation was misleading.
“The Perron complaint ignores use of the same terms by Port Angeles fluoridation opponents and judicial authority,” Eglick said.
“No reasonable person reviewing these materials could have thought the transfer of the fluoridation system was one-sided.
“City obligations were described, recognized and discussed.”
In his Event 2 allegation, Perron said Bloor failed to correct a “vague and ambiguous” Dec. 15 City Council motion that resulted in the 4-3 vote to continue fluoridation for another decade after May 18.
The motion failed to state the definition of fluoridation, its chemical compounds, suppliers or testing protocols.
“A motion to ‘continue fluoridation’ is about as specific as a motion to ‘continue war,’ ” Perron said.
“[Bloor] failed to raise any procedural or substantive objects whatsoever to the motion,” adding that the city attorney “intentionally chose to conceal from the public any and all required details of the council’s motion.”
Here, Eglick said, Perron does not cite any specific standard contained in the ethical code that Bloor allegedly violated.
Instead, Perron cites state Open Public Meetings Act regulations that emphasize the importance of an informed public and make it a misdemeanor for public officials to engage in “wilful neglect” of their duties.
“No open public meetings violation has been alleged and, in fact, the complaint confirms that the council action was taken in public session,” Eglick said.
“The ‘Event 2’ allegations appear to fall short themselves of the ‘honest, accurate complete, and truthful’ standard that the complaint posits for others.”
In his Event 3 allegation, Perron alleges Bloor failed to correct an “unlawful” Feb. 2 City Council meeting.
Perron said Mayor Patrick Downie, who participated in the Feb. 2 meeting from home by speakerphone because he was ill, asked Kidd to chair the meeting “prior to the meeting and off the record.”
Downie’s delegation of power despite being present “became an ethical issue” for Bloor because it was a violation of the City Council Rules of Procedure about which Bloor remained silent, Perron said.
Attorneys “are not a potted plant,” Perron said, quoting famed defense attorney Brendan Sullivan Jr.
“[Bloor] chose the unethical path of allowing the deputy mayor to run amok, when he himself had the authority to speak up to prevent that.”
The “unlawful transfer of power” from Downie to Kidd made the Feb. 2 meeting “null and void,” Perron concluded.
Eglick said Perron again fails to allege any specific conduct that violates the ethical code.
Eglick said Perron himself acknowledged that enforcement of the state Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for lawyers is reserved to the state Bar Association.
“Analysis with regard to the RPCs reveals nothing colorable, but, as noted, does raise questions under the RPCs about the complaint itself,” Eglick said.
Ethical code complaints surrounding the fluoridation issue, particularly the Feb. 2 meeting, have been filed against all seven City Council members.
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at pgottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
