From their first days in office, Dave Ward and Steven Bonkowski, along with two-year council veteran Debbi Lester, executed a plan to fire City Manager Brenda Bauer. The plan was developed and acted upon behind closed doors, without lawful authority. All three denied the existence of any such plan when publicly asked by council colleagues.
The timeline:
January 1, 2012 (Sunday)–Newly elected council members Ward, Bonkowski, Sarah Blossom and Anne Blair take office.
January 5 (Thursday)–Ward calls the offices of Inslee Best and speaks with firm partner Rod Kaseguma about Bauer’s Employment Agreement. “Mrs. Johnson” sends an anonymous email to Bauer, telling her she was about to lose her job and should resign rather than wait to be fired.
January 6 (Friday)–Kaseguma and another partner, Kathy Weber, review Bauer’s Employment Agreement, and Weber drafts a Separation and Release Agreement.
January 8 (Sunday)–The council retreat is held at Bloedel Reserve at which all seven members of council are present, along with Brenda Bauer and a handful of community members. Then-mayor Kirsten Hytopoulos raises the Mrs. Johnson email and council holds a lengthy discussion about the impropriety of working in secret. Bonkowski says he will comply with the Council Governance Manual. Lester claims ignorance of the intent behind the email. Ward takes offense when Bob Scales attempts to ask each member whether he or she knew anything about the email or its subject. Council reaches a consensus that they will develop criteria for a future performance review of Bauer. No one mentions any intent to fire her or discloses the ongoing communications with the Inslee Best firm. An informal agreement is reached to name Lester as mayor, but no action is taken.
January 9 (Monday)–Ward and Lester have telephone calls with Kaseguma. A resolution is drafted. Ward and Lester personally deliver to the City Clerk a document signed by both of them adding “performance review” to executive session at the next council meeting.
January 10 (Tuesday)–Ward calls Kaseguma. Later that day, Lester and Ward have a telephone conference with Kaseguma. Kaseguma reviews “proposed process” and prepares a “process outline.”
January 11 (Wednesday)–Lester and Ward confer with Kaseguma by phone. Lester becomes mayor by council vote at the council meeting that evening. Lester states her belief that Will Patton, City Attorney, has a conflict of interest in the matter to be discussed in exec session. Patton isn’t present during the ensuing discussion and is unable to respond to the claim of conflict of interest. Council agrees to have Patton attend the session and advise them on whether their discussion is appropriate for executive session. Council discusses performance in exec session.
January 13 (Friday)–Ward and Bonkowski have a phone conference with Kaseguma. Kaseguma prepares “talking points for revised transition scenario.” Weber works on a Separation and Release Agreement and drafts a Transition Addendum.
January 16 (Monday)–Kaseguma reviews the Transition Addendum and the Separation and Release Agreement. This is the last entry on the Inslee Best bill.
January 18 (Wednesday)–Council discusses performance in executive session.
January 25 (Wednesday)–Council discusses performance in executive session.
January 30 (Monday)–A Transition Addendum to Employment Agreement (prepared by City Attorney Patton) outlining the terms of Bauer’s separation from employment and severance is posted to the city website, effectively announcing her termination.
February 8 (Wednesday)–At the council meeting, Scales reveals the contents of the Inslee Best bill (which he obtained earlier that day). Council members have a tense discussion about the propriety of the actions of Ward, Bonkowski and Lester. Lester and Bonkowski suggest that the Governance Manual was unclear about their authority to hire the law firm. Ward argues that the firm’s litigation retainer agreement (written in 2008, before the change of government) allows the mayor to hire the firm. Patton states that he did not use any Inslee Best work product in preparing the final agreement with Bauer. The council votes 4-3 against paying the bill (Ward, Lester and Blossom voting against the motion.)
A few additional observations
The Governance Manual, which sets out the requirements and guidelines for conduct under our Council-Manager form of government, specifies the ways council may take action: among them are motions, resolutions, ordinances, budget amendments, comprehensive plan amendments and the like (Section 2.5). All must be done in a noticed, open public meeting, with a quorum and in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.
The mayor is selected by fellow council members and continues to have the duties of a council member during the term as mayor (Section 4.3). Under our form of government, the mayor has few independent powers or duties other than presiding at council meetings and serving as a figurehead, and does not have the power to retain a law firm for city business. In any event, Lester was not mayor when the Inslee Best firm was hired on January 5th.
The secret hiring of Inslee Best, and the undisclosed discussions with the firm by Ward, Lester and Bonkowski were ultra vires acts—-beyond their powers. Their actions establish that none of the three can be taken at their word. Although Bonkowski seemed somewhat embarrassed at last week’s council meeting (and voted to refuse to pay the law firm’s bill), neither Ward nor Lester conceded any wrongdoing. In fact, yesterday Ward doubled down, telling the Review he was ambushed at the council meeting when Scales revealed the Inslee Best bill, speculating that Scales was trying to “compromise” Bauer’s firing.
The episode is a troubling opener for these green council members and Mayor Lester. It’s also a worrisome sign about trustworthiness, openness, and accountability in city government. More fundamentally, it is alarming to realize that several members of our city council do not appear to understand the basic rules about governance, and failed to seek support and guidance from their more experienced colleagues on council or the City Attorney when they were out of their depth.
*Here is the Inslee Best bill, which documents the lawyers’ time. Inslee Best invoice
I am a city resident who thinks rule-breaking by our local officials needs to be called out and criticized—whether it’s councilmembers spending public money unilaterally or civil service commissioners meeting in secret session. Councilmembers Lester, Ward, and Bonkowski should have consulted with their colleagues before running up a bill with Inslee Best, and they shouldn’t have proceeded without their approval.
But I also think that journalists have an obligation to educate the public, and not simply inflame them; indeed, Althea made this point earlier this year. Running a headline like “a timeline of deceit and improper action” is exciting, but it encourages us to think the worst about people, and distracts from equally important issues:
Why do some of our current councilmembers feel like they need to act in secret? Something is terribly wrong with inter-council relationships. Lester et al are taken to task for not being more open with their plans. I’d like to take other members to task, and particularly Councilmember Scales, for creating an environment that discourages open and collegial conversations. Mr. Scales, in the past few months, has accused one colleague of colluding with the Ratepayers Alliance, suggested that one colleague is not fit to serve as mayor, and called one colleague “outrageous” when she put a time limit to his comments. This does not encourage dialogue, or build trust between council members.
Why can’t we have a real conversation about lawyers and conflict of interest? It is clear to me, and many in the community, that the city attorney had two “clients” in this situation—a city manager who wants the most favorable terms for her departure, and a city council who wants her out with the least cost and conflict. We can put on a smiley face and say that the city has one interest, but I’d rather have an honest discussion what the council should do in this and similar situations.
Why can’t we be more consistent in our criticism of breaking rules? Three councilmembers hiring an attorney and billing the city for the cost is unacceptable. But so is violating whistleblower rules. Or collective bargaining agreements. Or rules around hiring temporary police officers. Let’s all take a deep breath and realize that rules are fudged, with some frequency, on our lovely island—and work together to reduce violations.
Thanks, Althea, for posting these comments. Perhaps you and I showing respect to each other in this forum will encourage others to do the same.
-Kim Hendrickson
Everything I’ve seen on Bainbridge Notes has been instructive and constructive. Bravo, Althea! Thanks, Kim, for this signed comment. Others, on other sites, are making salutary efforts to provide information and sound interpretation of events. Bainbridge Notes sets the bar high for all of us.
By describing Bainbridge Island’s new city council as having been deceitful and acting improperly does not bode well for this community. The recent unfortunate actions by councilors Bonkowski, Lester and Ward are inexcusable. The dismissal of City Manager Bauer by the entire council is highly questionable. Since councilors Bonkowski, Lester and Ward appear severely lacking in leadership skills, unable or unwilling to follow established governance practices, then (although early in their tenure) it is time for them to get out of the way. Their immediate resignations seem not only appropriate but necessary for the stability of this community. Their “our way or the highway” attitude is not what this community needs at this time or for that matter will ever need … or tolerate.
Okay Kim, let’s discuss respectfully.
But respect involves more than smiling and avoiding name-calling.
Respect also means a willingness by all parties to discuss the issues in a reality-based way–with facts and candor, not spin and innuendo.
Now that Brenda Bauer has been fired, Bob Scales is the chief bad guy for people who hate the city. I get that. Bob is blunt and aggressive. He doesn’t play the back-slapping, jolly politician. I actually endorsed his opponent in the last election.
But facts are facts and fair is fair. You ignored reality in several of your points above and in my opinion, that’s not respectful.
1. Bob Scales read an email at City Council, dated October 14, 2011, in which Bill Knobloch addressed several recipients, including Sally Adams and Dick Allen, the two publicly identified principals of the Ratepayers’ Alliance. Knobloch wrote that the consultants who were advising the City on the water utility had ignored “what I had requested regarding the best solution for the rate payer,” and predicted a “very interesting conversation” on the Council “when we get to the UAC recommendation.” He ended by telling his recipients to “stay the course.”
I’ll post the email if you want. It violates the Governance Manual (section 3.13) which says, “once an individual or organization has filed a legal proceeding against the City, no City Council member shall engage in discussions or other communications with such individual (or the officers or directors of the organization) about the subject of the lawsuit without first disclosing the intent to do so to the Council.”
But I’ll go Scales one better. Dave Ward accepted a campaign contribution from Dick Allen when he was running for council last fall. Check the PDC filings. Allen’s contribution is on his form C-3, along with the contribution you made from your “Hendrickson for Council” account. In addition, Sally Adams actively campaigned for him. He did these things while he was on the UAC, and while the UAC was actively deliberating on its recommendation to the Council on whether to divest the water utility. Divestiture is one of the subjects of the Ratepayer lawsuit.
I believe “colluding” is your rather inflammatory word, not Scales’. But yes, I think the evidence suggests that at least two council members, past and present, have been working with the Ratepayers Alliance.
2. Scales stated that Lester had made no secret of her dislike for Brenda Bauer. Further, according to the Kitsap Sun, “Scales said Lester lacks other key mayoral ‘traits,’ including a solid understanding of council rules and a good relationship with all council members. ‘Unfortunately, after working for two years with council member Lester, I do not believe she possesses those traits in sufficient quantity to be a successful mayor,’ he said.’
A council member should be able and willing to state reasons for a vote. In light of the Inslee Best embarrassment, his words seem quite appropriate.
3. The City Attorney represents the City. No competent City Attorney would have represented both Bauer, as an individual, and the City, in negotiations on the terms of her departure. The City Attorney could never represent the personal interests of any employee, including the City Manager, and there was never any suggestion he would have.
The Ward-Lester-Bonkowski group hired Inslee Best BEFORE the Council had any discussion about her performance or took action on her contract. The entries on the Inslee Best bill show that they contacted Inslee Best for advice on how to fire her, not on how to respond to her in renegotiating her contract–because no one, including Bauer, knew that was in the offing when they hired the firm. There was no conflict until negotiations began, and at that point the City was represented by Patton and Bauer was represented by her own attorney.
Finally, I hope it is not true, as you imply, that Ward, Lester and Bonkowski are so weak and trembling that they are “forced” to act in secret, breaking Council rules and trust, because they are afraid of Bob Scales.
Hello, Althea:
I think your readers benefit from our dialogue. I appreciate your willingness to post my response.
I made the general point that secretive behavior by councilmembers is unfortunate—but so is aggressive behavior that discourages collaborative relations. Councilmember Scales has the right to “out” his colleagues as rule breakers, or to publicly state they are unfit for leadership positions. But these sorts of presentations have destructive effects. What’s better for the city, Althea? Public outings and scoldings, or councilmembers who look to build bridges and encourage the best in each other? (I hope and trust if councilmembers are really breaking the rules, there are other ways to address these problems.) A councilmember need not be “weak” nor “trembling” to conclude that one of their colleagues is a bit of a bully, and not up for a constructive conversation.
You make some interesting points about the content of conversations with Inslee Best. But my larger point remains: there are occasions when a city attorney has “clients” with different interests. Questions about when this occurs and who should decide when this occurs are very important, and were glossed over at the last council meeting.
A question: do you really mean to say that taking a campaign contribution from someone in litigation with the city is improper, even if it’s disclosed? This is an interesting new standard and I’d like to hear more about it. Not sure what point was served in disclosing my campaign contribution to Councilmember Ward; perhaps it was to thank me for my civic involvement. I’m proud of the contribution but not the paltry amount–next time it will be more than $30.
-Kim Hendrcikson
Althea,
It sounds like you have Kim both have solid points to make. Instead of keeping it in the blog comments, perhaps you two would consider sitting down for a documented “point/counterpoint” conversation which you could publish here.
As I mentioned previously, the Council has been dysfunctional for many years. Instead of boondoggles like “team building retreats,” perhaps every one of the elected officials should buckle down and get to work — recognizing that they were not elected to serve agendas and special interests, but to serve all of the people of Bainbridge Island.
In years past, it was much easier to know who in city government was beholden to whom, whether it was the home builder “lobby” or the social services “lobby” or the arts “lobby.” Nowadays, Bainbridge has enough entangled special interest groups and sub-groups that maybe Winslow Way should be renamed K Street. Again, Council members should remember that they serve all of us, not just their personal donors and supporters.
Your loyal and civil opposition,
Anonymous
Loyal Opp: Yes, government should stop playing politics, get to work and serve all of us.
But what does that mean? Who is “all of us”? Is it the home rule folks who worked so hard to incorporate Bainbridge so we can chart our own course, growing pains, warts and all? Is it the “outsource everything” people, who (variously) have argued for outsourcing utilities (and not only water), police, the municipal court, public works and disincorporating the whole city? Is it the bike riders and trails people? Farmers? Environmentalists? The shoreline property owners? The Winslow Ratepayers? The arts groups? Social services? Downtown Winslow?
Everyone has interests, and these days we call the other guys’ interests “special.” Strangely, only our own interests represent “the community” (a term so widely used and misused I have temporarily banned it from my writing). If our friends agree with us, well then everyone does, right? That “vocal minority” or those “scheming back-room dealers” who don’t agree are simply agenda-driven special interests. Or they just don’t “get it.” Case closed.
I think we all tend to use various buzz-word labels (usually borrowed from national politics) on anyone who opposes us. Repeat something often enough, it becomes true, even if it’s not.
That said, I have observed that on the island, an interest becomes closer to a “special interest” (i.e. a group with disproportionate influence) when its advocates push for more than a single issue. It is pretty well documented for instance, that members of the Ratepayers Alliance and their allies supported (and campaigned for) a slate of successful council candidates, including those who initiated the Bauer firing. That raises the question: is a group that represents, at most, 2300 households, influencing those candidates on a variety of other issues, such as City Hall management?
Even if they are, I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse them of bad intent (though I’d point out that the road to hell is paved with good intentions!) Before the change of government vote, I got to know many of the Ratepayer supporters, including one of the principals. Few of them seemed to be involved in city politics for financial gain, power or gamesmanship (with a couple of glaring exceptions). They were just regular people with a sense of moral outrage about city finances which, over time, grew into a general outrage at the city. And let’s face it–right, left or center—who isn’t unhappy with government at all levels these days?
It’s a fiction that we’re all going to come together as one big happy citizenry, collaborating in the sunshine, as soon as we find the right (fill in the blank) Council, City Manager, staff, level of government service, news source. We’ve been fighting for as long as I’ve lived here (20 years), and probably long before that. Our own opinions are reasoned and valuable, and those other guys are idiots, probably involved in a dark conspiracy with the many other idiots who don’t agree with us. As go the anger and suspicion in the world around us, so goes the polarization right here at home.
So….is it this government we dislike? Government generally? Or our neighbors? That’s probably worth an entire team-building retreat…with all 23,000 of us.