By Ward Peck

Editor

    Following a combative special meeting of the city
council on Monday night that was announced Sunday evening, the Mayor
has been authorized to seek outside legal advice regarding the
council’s “legal obligations and responsibilities and options are
regarding issues that have arisen” regarding the city’s attorney Mary
Kahl.

    The 4-2 vote to authorize the Mayor to meet with an
outside attorney fell along the same lines reported to have split the
council in an executive session over the need to formally review City
Manager Ted Jankowski’s six-month tenure. Mayor Claude Morgan, along
with councilors Jim Hughes, Ralph Baxter and Maxine Beecher all voted
in favor of seeking outside council. Those four councilors also
reportedly successfully blocked a formal review of the manager in
executive session on March 12. Councilors Linda Boudreau and Kay Loring
voted against the outside council and have expressed support for a
formal review of the city manager. Councilor James Soule, who was not
present at the special meeting, also pushed for a formal review
process, he has said.

    That the two issues are related seems clear from
developments over the last several weeks as well as comments from
Boudreau, Loring and members of the public at the special meeting.

    Boudreau made the connection in no uncertain terms
when she said, “the hypocrisy I hear here is incredible. To hear you
say there is nothing to fear [from going to outside counsel], that is
exactly what we said about the performance evaluation [of the city
manager].” Boudreau continued, “I think our corporation counsel, city
clerk and city manager deserve performance evaluations long before you
head out to an attorney to lynch the corporation counsel.”

Seven members of the public spoke out at the meeting and several
described the current controversy being played out as an
“embarrassment” to the city. Five of those individuals spoke about Kahl
in glowing terms.

    At the meeting Morgan resisted even naming the
person who would be the subject of the discussions with outside council
until Kahl insisted that he do so.

“If this personnel matter is me, I request that information is
disclosed to the public,” Kahl said when the matter was brought up.

    Even after acknowledging Kahl’s request, Morgan
still did not identify Kahl as the subject being discussed until
Boudreau interceded.

    “I don’t think corporation council’s request was
clear. Is this in fact with regard to Corporation Council?” Boudreau
asked.

    During public comment, resident Paul Nixon asked the council to disclose the specific “problem,” with Kahl.

    “I will waive my right to privacy if council chooses to answer that,” Kahl said.

    Still, the councilors in favor of an outside review
of Kahl, whose formal title is Corporation Counsel, did not disclose
specific reasons for their desire to go to an outside attorney.

    “We can’t tell you those issues,” Hughes said. Later
in the meeting Hughes said the purpose of the vote was not to discuss
the issues themselves, but to get permission to seek outside legal
advice.

    “We are in a Catch-22,” Morgan said. “Obviously, we
can’t seek Mary’s legal advice about Mary’s...” (he did not complete
the sentence).

    The special meeting was preceded by a series of
disclosures by Kahl to the press of emails and personal notes regarding
the city manager dispute. In a series of emails between Morgan and
Kahl– released by Kahl– over these releases, Morgan questions Kahl’s
interpretation of the “Freedom of Access” (FOAA) statutes Kahl used as
her rationale for the release.

    Taken together Morgan’s questions seem to point to a
belief that Kahl has interpreted the FOAA requests broadly and
selectively.

    Morgan’s theory on Kahl’s motive for doing so is
contained in an earlier email dated March 16 and released by Kahl.

    Reacting to the disclosure of an email exchange
between himself and City Manager Ted Jankowski regarding the
performance evaluation, Morgan wrote to Kahl, “I find your decision
very troubling. Therefore I’d like you to recuse yourself and refer us
to outside Council. I no longer have faith in your ability to provide
objective legal advice to this Council. I believe your personal opinion
and continued dispute with our City Manager is clouding your ability to
dispense legal opinion.”

    Kahl maintains that a broad interpretation of FOAA requests is the correct one.

    “Any FOAA request for public records requires
compliance by providing access to the requested documents,” Kahl wrote
to Morgan. “Only if a record falls within one of the very limited
categories for confidentiality is a request denied; when that happens,
we are required to provide a written response to the request stating
why it was denied.”

    In several e-mails Kahl writes that FOAA requests
need not be written nor specific and can be “standing requests,” as she
makes clear when she references one reporter’s request for “anything
new that came in.”

    In the present situation, Kahl has also forwarded
the fruits of a FOAA request to others beyond the reporter who made the
request, “since it was my understanding they all wanted to be receiving
the same info,” she wrote. As an example, Kahl informed this reporter
and at least one other about a request from a third reporter who
requested “all e-mail sent to or from the City Manager since February
1.”

    That information, as of press time was being
reviewed by outside counsel for any confidential information, according
to Kahl, and has not been received nor reviewed by this paper.