Wasilla council torn over executive sessions

WASILLA — For the third time in less than nine months, city council members were at odds Monday about how to address ethical concerns involving city officials or employees.

Wasilla City Council met for more than an hour to discuss three of four issues proposed in a closed-door executive session, but not without some animated public debate. In the end, the council elected to adjourn to executive session to discuss contract negotiations with Teamsters Local 959 and a pair of concerns from Councilwoman Dianne Woodruff. She wanted to talk about her concern over some potential legal liability to the city and what she described as a related “behavior” issue with a city official.

That debate may have triggered a little déjà vu for Councilwoman Taffina Katkus when the council failed to approve her motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss “subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character” of an elected official. That was the same result Katkus received last October when she tried to adjourn the council to executive session to discuss a Facebook post one councilmember had made about another. Katkus would later get the council, by a 4-2 vote, to approve that closed-door meeting in November. But then Councilwoman Colleen Sullivan-Leonard refused to go into that meeting and Councilwoman Leone Harris leaving the session before it had ended.

On Monday, some of the same objections seemed to still be in play, with Sullivan-Leonard voting against the executive sessions both Katkus and Woodruff proposed.

“I think for us as a council, we have the right to know why we will be conducting city business behind closed doors,” Sullivan-Leonard said in explaining her assertion that wording of motions to go into executive session are too vague.

She said she did know what Katkus’ call for an executive session was about, but maintained her objection.

“I believe the issue at hand has come to the public,” she said. “It believe it has been in the newspaper, so I think we have a right to know why we’re going behind closed doors.”

The issue of how much information is available in the motion shouldn’t be a problem, said Richard Payne, the council’s legal adviser.

“In this situation, it sounds like you’ve just indicated you know why we’re going in and everyone knows, and the newspaper and everything,” he said. “I’m not sure why we’re debating whether we have enough information or not.”

Although never directly stated, the debate and executive session motion seemed to reference an incident that occurred during an April 23 Wasilla City Council meeting.

The dustup occurred after local resident Bill Bruu accused mayor Verne Rupright of working on behalf of a developer with regard to the Parks Highway upgrade.

After Bruu’s remarks, Rupright can be heard on the official recording of the meeting uttering an expletive and “I’ll kill you.” But Rupright has denied that his remarks were directed at Bruu.

Katkus never directly referenced that incident as the topic of her motion for executive session, but told her follow council members that if they needed more information, she could play a recording for them.

“Maybe we could play a tape or CD if you like (here) in public and that might (be) enough to give the reason why we’re going to executive session,” she said. “I think when you have enough questions or appropriate — or inappropriate — reasons to go into an executive session, you need to treat it in an ethical way.”

Katkus followed up her Monday comments in a letter to the editor submitted to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. In that letter, she also doesn’t reference the mayor’s April 23 comments directly, but does write that “there is no room, no place for vulgarity, threats, libel and defamation from elected officials.”

Sullivan-Leonard wasn’t alone in her objection to Katkus’ motion either. Harris and Councilman Brandon Wall also voted against it. The motion, which needs at least four votes to pass, failed on a 3-3 tie with Katkus, Woodruff and deputy mayor Doug Holler voting in favor.

“I just don’t appreciate being drug into extra meetings that just don’t seem to be necessary because everybody seems to know what we’re talking about anyway,” Harris said. “I have to agree with councilmember Sullivan-Leonard. I think that the public should have a right to know, maybe not necessarily who or the exact details, but I don’t like this. I think there should be a little more meat to it, so I can’t support it, either.”

After voting down Katkus’ motion for executive session, many of the same questions were raised when Woodruff introduced her motions. When pressed for more information, Woodruff said because it dealt with legal liabilities, it would be dangerous to give too much information in public.

That “would give potential parties better grounds to file claims that would be very expensive for our taxpayers, and I don’t wish as a councilmember to obligate the taxpayers to more than what is necessary,” she said. “We have some behavior that has been problematic and needs to be addressed without giving anybody any additional ammunition.”

Rupright asked Payne if he had any knowledge of potential or pending litigation against the city.

“Knowledge? You hear people talk about rumors upon rumors upon rumors,” Payne said. “Do I know of anyone filing a lawsuit? No. Has anyone confided in me they thought they wanted to file a lawsuit? No. Do I have a firm understanding someone’s going to file a lawsuit? No. I don’t want to sound like a lawyer, but that’s just the way it is.”

Woodruff countered that the litigation is “potential,” and that “I have at least four individuals who have told me they would be more than happy to go on the (witness) stand and testify truthfully in a way that would be detrimental to the city.”

In the end, the council voted 5-1 — with Sullivan-Leonard against — in favor of Woodruff’s motion to discuss the legal matter. For her related matter that could prejudice or be harmful to a person, the council passed that motion as well 4-2, with Sullivan-Leonard and Wall in the minority.

Mystery policy

Council, the mayor and selected staff spent more than an hour in executive session discussing Woodruff’s matters and the union negotiations. Upon emerging from the session, a visibly agitated council took their seats and Rupright abruptly gaveled the meeting closed.

As the mayor and council members were rising to leave, Woodruff asked if the mayor had called for a motion for a policy change discussed during the executive session. Rupright responded that the meeting had been adjourned, and Woodruff asked if the policy change needed a council motion.

Apparently, the policy matter is administrative, as the mayor responded, “We’ll deal with it” as he left the table.

After the meeting, the city’s attorney, Payne, declined to give any information about the policy changed referenced by Woodruff, saying, “I don’t know anything about it.”

Attempts to reach Rupright before press time to learn about what, if any, policy changes resulted from the executive session were unsuccessful.

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