Anchorage court will hear monofill lawsuit

ANCHORAGE — An Anchorage judge may hear a case in which his neighbor is an attorney trying one side, another judge has ruled.

The case in question involves the high-profile Central Monofill Services-planned monofill in the neighborhood of Mile 38.5, Parks Highway. The proposed monofill — essentially a specialized type of landfill specializing in construction debris — has drawn residents of surrounding neighborhoods to numerous meetings on the subject, and been rejected at least three times by various boards and commissions in the Mat-Su government. When the Board of Adjustments and Appeals voted to uphold the most recent 3-3 vote against the monofill, the company filed a lawsuit, arguing that the a member of the planning commission should not have been recused, the appeal board should have been able to re-try the case, and the decision was not based on substantial evidence.

The case had been filed in Anchorage court by Bill Ingaldson, who represents Central Monofill, in the proceedings. Borough attorneys sought to change the conditions under which the case will be considered on two fronts: disqualifying presiding judge Erin Marston on the grounds that he and Ingaldson live on the same cul-de-sac in an upscale Anchorage neighborhood near Earthquake Park; and changing the venue from Anchorage to the court in Palmer.

Marston rejected the request in a ruling issued July 8. The change-of-venue motion is pending, according to court documents.

“Matanuska-Susitna Borough believes that there is an appearance of impropriety because of this social relationship, as well as by the fact that Mr. Ingaldson was a reference for the Court’s application to the Judicial Council for appointment to the bench,” Marston wrote.

Marston cited previous cases where seemingly more intimate relationships were allowed to proceed.

“A social connection between a judge and a participant in litigation has been insufficient to support a reasonable appearance of bias in several Alaskan cases,” Marston wrote. “This includes situations where: the judge was appointed by a governor who was an alleged friend of one of the parties; the judge was the neighbor of a victim’s sister, the judge’s wife was friends with the sister, and their children played together; and the judge and the prosecutor were social acquaintances but not close friends.”

“Being a neighbor and attending the same social functions does not give rise to anything more than an ordinary social relationship,” Marston said.

Marston also noted that he used Ingaldson only as a professional reference, and not as a character or background reference.

A second Anchorage judge, Superior Court Andrew Guidi, upheld Marston’s ruling on review July 10.

“In the present case, the Borough did not solicit from Judge Marston any additional information about the precise nature of this social relationship with attorney Ingaldson; nor has the Borough requested an evidentiary hearing on the subject,” Guidi wrote. “The only information before the reviewing court is that Judge Marston and Mr. Ingaldson are ‘across the street neighbors’ and they have attended some of the same social events.

“The borough suggests that the fact that Judge Marston and Mr. Ingaldson live across the street from one another creates an appearance of potential bias,” he said. “The court disagrees.”

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269, brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com, or on Twitter @reporterbriano.