Council politics turn personal

WASILLA — It seems even municipal bodies aren’t immune to the emotional effects of social media. On the heels of a heated municipal election season, a Facebook post has opened a rift among some Wasilla City Council members.

The post, made by one city council member about another, was upsetting enough for Councilwoman Taffina Katkus to ask her colleagues on the council to discuss it in an executive session. She didn’t get enough votes to hold the closed-door meeting Nov. 14, but did when she brought the issue up again at the council’s Nov. 28 meeting.

But Councilwoman Colleen Sullivan-Leonard refused to go into the session.

“I wanted to know specifically why we were asked to go into an executive session, and they couldn’t give me an answer,” Sullivan-Leonard said. “It’s my right to know as a city council member and as a member of the public why we’re going behind closed doors.”

Sullivan-Leonard said she objected to the closed-door meeting because one council member being upset over a Facebook post is a private matter, not city business.

“I maintained my concern when the information that was provided to me stated it was a personal Facebook note that happened between two council members that happened on personal time,” she said. “It was a personal (post) and one wasn’t pleased with the other, period. All that says to me is it’s personal.”

Because it was discussed at an executive session, Sullivan-Leonard said she couldn’t divulge who was the author of the Facebook post, who was the target or the content of the post.

Katkus called for the executive session, and in addition to Sullivan-Leonard refusing to attend, Councilwoman Leone Harris walked out of the closed-door meeting before it was adjourned.

Harris said she walked out for the same reason Sullivan-Leonard didn’t attend.

“It was not a proper thing,” she said. “It had nothing to do with what a proper executive session should be about. I wasn’t going to have anything to do with it. It didn’t pertain to city business.”

While her colleagues objected to the meeting, Katkus said she’s equally frustrated with their refusal to take part in a meeting she contends was proper. Because her concerns involved a subject that could “prejudice the reputation and character” of another council member, a closed session was warranted, she said.

“It was pretty surprising,” she said of the flap over the meeting. “One council member who objected to going into the executive session (Sullivan-Leonard) surprised me because that one pursued putting in an ethics task force. … To not even be open-minded and not even go in, that was a surprise to me. I’m definitely going to have my guard up. To refuse to go into the meeting, to me, was very unprofessional. As elected officials, our duty is to find out information to make an effective decision.”

Councilman Steve Menard voiced his opinion about the situation at Monday’s council meeting.

“We had an issue here (Nov. 28) and it still bugs the heck out of me,” Menard said. “I just want to bring it out to the forefront that a person not participating in an executive session meeting, you want to talk about taking an oath that you do the duties of a city council person, participate and vote. … In all my years in politics, and I’ve been around politics for a long time, to have somebody just refuse to go into executive session, then (for another) to leave before adjournment. It was absolutely unheard of and uncalled for.”

Menard is the subject of a recall election, which the council has set for Feb. 7, 2012.

He said it’s duplicitous for him to face a recall for personal actions as a council member and allow another to not perform one of the duties of her office.

“I’m not going to sweep this under the rug, because it absolutely infuriates me,” Menard said. “That I am getting recalled for some of my personal behavior, but at least I come to the executive sessions, I vote and I do what’s asked of me as a council person.”

For her part, Sullivan-Leonard said the issue “is like two kids on the playground. They’re running to the teacher to tattle. We are adults and we can sit down. This was a personal issue, this wasn’t a city council issue.”

Her meeting protest was “less about one person or another, but more about the Open Meetings Act,” she said.

The meeting was in line with state law governing open meetings, Katkus said, adding she checked with the city attorney before asking for the executive session.

“When she said, ‘I’m not going into the room,’ we all looked at each other, then we looked at the attorney, who said, ‘Well, we can’t actually drag her in there,’” Katkus said. “I felt like I was watching a teenager pouting or something.”

Harris said the dustup over the closed meeting is a symptom of a deeper rift that’s been growing between council members.

“The council seems to have had a problem for quite a few months,” she said. “People need to, when we all sit at the council table, the personal things need to be set aside and focus needs to be on city business. Some people need to stop stealing all the thunder.”

Sullivan-Leonard said feuding “certainly gives that perception to the public” that the council is divided. “But my thoughts are I’d like to see us moving forward on goals to enhance the city. It’s a bump in the road, but it’s not the end of the road.”

Contact Greg Johnson at greg.johnson@frontiersman.com or 352-2269.