PORT ANGELES — A second panel considering ethics complaints against Port Angeles Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd has asked for legal advice and materials amid questions on its jurisdiction.
Ken Williams, Jerry Dean and William Yucha voted unanimously Thursday to seek legal advice from a city-appointed attorney on the scope of its jurisdiction along with findings of facts and conclusions of law submitted by the initial ethics board.
The second committee scheduled another meeting for 10 a.m. April 19.
“The action may be to find we don’t have jurisdiction and we’re done,” said Williams, who chairs the panel.
“Or the action would be we do have jurisdiction, are any of the alleged violations such that we need to investigate further?”
The board was considering a Feb. 19 complaint by Our Water, Our Choice! over Kidd’s actions at a contentious Feb. 2 City Council meeting, alleging that she interrupted anti-fluoridation speaker Mark Johnson several times before he finished his allotted three minutes of public comments and six other alleged violations.
Both boards were asked to make recommendations to the Port Angeles City Council.
Jurisdiction question
Williams, a retired Clallam County Superior Court Judge, opined that the second board does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations on alleged violations already considered by the first committee.
Under the city code, council-appointed panels cannot reverse or modify a prior action of a public official, Williams said.
“The first board are public officials,” Williams said.
“They have taken action, be it to dismiss the charge or to find that the charge is valid and refer it to the City Council. As I read the code, we would be violating the code of ethics to reconsider that and issue a different opinion.”
Our Water, Our Choice! alleged seven ethics violations against the deputy mayor, as summarized by Williams.
Its members complained that Kidd did not give proper notice about signs at the meeting, chaired the meeting while Mayor Patrick Downie was available on speakerphone, interrupted speakers, gaveled out Councilman Lee Whetham when he asked for a legal opinion, declared a recess without giving the council time to overrule the declaration of recess, adjourned the meeting prior to the end of a scheduled public comment period and did not allow the council time to overrule the decision to adjourn.
Some withdrawn
The group withdrew the complaints that Kidd interrupted speakers and adjourned the meeting too soon.
“If we allow the other two to be withdrawn, then we are left with those [five] issues,” Williams said.
“My question would be whether or not they were resolved by the first council. . . . We’ll wait until we get more information and written findings from the first panel.”
Our Water, Our Choice! alleged Kidd’s attitude tended to “bring the city into disrepute” and “impair its efficient and effective operation” in violation of the ethics code, which the first ethics board decided Kidd violated.
The first board unanimously decided April 1 that Kidd did not violate three other sections of the code as alleged in a complaint filed by Marolee Smith.
Its members determined Kidd was not uncivil or unprofessional toward the public; did not engage in abusive conduct toward public officials, staff or the public; and did not “demean, harass or intimidate another person.”
Meeting today
The first ethics board, composed of Frank Prince Jr., Grant Meiner and Danetta Rutten, will meet at 2 p.m. today behind closed doors to consider whether to make a recommendation to the City Council on whether no action should be taken against Kidd, if she should be admonished verbally or in writing, or whether she should be removed as deputy mayor.
Those who met Thursday had said they would address issues not addressed by the Prince-Meiner-Rutten board.
“Last week, I know I told you that I couldn’t believe the code would allow a second panel to consider the same allegations and that the code had to be violation-specific as opposed to complainant-specific,” Williams said in a 40-minute meeting Thursday.
“Otherwise, you could have a complaint filed every week by another person who was offended by some action of the City Council. While double jeopardy doesn’t apply, eternal jeopardy probably is a factor.”
William added: “Unless there is something that [the first board] did not rule on in terms of a specific act, I don’t think we have jurisdiction to do anything.”
Dropped complaint
The second board dropped a complaint that alleged that City Councilman Dan Gase had also violated the ethics code by not objecting to Kidd’s actions.
Williams presented amended findings of fact and conclusions of law that stated “the complaint does not allege that [Gase] took inappropriate action other than silence.”
“If, in fact, somebody wants to allege that during the course of the meeting, he did something else inappropriate than was alleged, they can file a complaint,” Williams said.
“They’ve got three years to do that. But we are required to first look at the complaint and determine if there is any basis upon which we can sustain the allegations of a violation of the code of ethics.
“And if we cannot, it is fair to the individual charged, it is fair to the group charging and, most importantly, it’s fair to the citizens of Port Angeles that we dismiss it and move on.”
_________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 56450, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb contributed to this report.
