Mayor Sticks with City Attorney in Three-Three Tie As Aldermen Call for Her Ouster

By Pauline Masson – 

Following a lengthy diatribe over a trove of email messages detailing the city attorney meetings with the developer of a proposed data center and withholding plans for the controversial development from the board of aldermen (BOA), the mayor sided with the belabored attorney as the BOA split three-three on a motion to oust her.

The lengthy discussion took place at the Tuesday Feb. 17 BOA meeting.

Alderman Debbie. Kelley cited email messages between City Attorney Stephanie Karr – who had participated in meetings with data center developer Beltline Energy – and members of the city staff in which Ms. Karr advised the mayor, city administrator and staff on how and when aldermen were to be told of the controversial data center.

“I was very upset or overwhelmed to see all the negative stuff done behind the boards back,” Ms. Kelley said. “These emails mention things they reviewed, then say, ‘we will not disclose any information to the board.’ What kind of statement is that? The staff talks about things about the board behind our back, and then the people wonder what’s going on up here.”

Many of the email messages, that were provided to Hometown Matters, after they were un-redacted, centered on a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that city administrator Lee Terrell signed on behalf of the city. The NDA was then used to withhold details of a possible data center form individual aldermen.

“There was a private meeting on the 10th of December that nobody shared with us,” Ms. Kelley said. “It has lots of details that could help us with what was going to happen in our future, but it wasn’t shared with us.” 

I also would like all of these (emails and notes), which I will give the clerk, entered into our minutes so it’s on record.” She said.

Attorney Karr pushed back.

“I had always said that the NDA does not cover the board members unless they approve it,” the attorney said. But Ward Two Alderman Tyler Hoven had a different recollection.

Mr. Hoven said he had been led to believe that when city administrator signed the NDA that that it included him.

Ms. Kelley also responded.

“The email I’m referring to states from you. ‘Let’s have the mayor and city administrator sign it, and then we will not address anything with the board until the board approves the NDA in closed session. We are the Board of Aldermen who represent the citizens of the Pacific. This was not done properly. And then I have statements from the staff talking to you saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the board about it.”

“We are paying staff members to spend our taxpayers’ dollars on something you guys kept from us.”

Aldermen Ed Gass supported the decision to withhold information from the BOA.

“The only thing I have to say is on this conversation is, there’s a time and place when the aldermen really need to know something,” he said. “I’m sure the mayor and the attorney know when that place is,” he said.

Ms.Karr said she and staff members had felt very rushed, with the developer saying, “We have to do this now.”

Alderman Stewart said the model of data centers was to rush to cause division and upset in the towns they go into because they think they get a better outcome from it.

Alderman Scott Lesh questioned the practice of redacting emails before giving them to aldermen.

“When there was a sunshine request for the emails, they were redacted. And the item said, ‘Number one, legal,’” he said. “And then a week later, when we motioned to have them un-redacted, we asked if there was anything that needed to stay redacted. And there wasn’t  So what was the original reason that they were redacted?”

“They were redacted to take out attorney-client privilege,” Ms. Karr said.”Because the board of aldermen is the only one who can waive attorney-client privilege. Where I was actually giving advice legal advice, then that’s attorney-client privilege applied.”

Mr. Lesh said the city attorney had mislead aldermen on the issue of closed meetings.

 He said when the city went into closed session on December 10, “In that meeting we were being told that, now that we were in a closed session under the rules of the Sunshine Laws, we couldn’t discuss anything that we’ve just learned regarding the Beltline agreement, the data center,” he said.”We were being told that very strongly by the city attorney.”

“You were even referencing that we had a city ordinance,” he said.

“When I heard this strong language from the attorney, it was telling us, hey. We got you back in closed session now. You’re bound by it. I rejected that 100 percent,”  Mr. Lesh said.

“Getting back to what we’re experiencing from the public at this point is a whole lot of astonishment. How come that wasn’t realized before that? How come everybody else in that room wasn’t realizing that?”

Ms.Karr said she had pointed out to aldermen that they could vote to open up everything that happens in closed session.

“Because that section in your own code says that these matters will remain confidential until the board votes to open them.”

She said that city code allows the BOA to vote to open up anything in closed session. 

“I mean, I would caution you on personnel matters because the employees do have a liberty interest,” She said  “But anything else you can vote to open it up.”

Mr. Hoven said it wasn’t clear enough.

“I still felt like I was covered under the NDA even though I didn’t sign one. I felt like, because the city signed one that I was told it was insinuated that it covered me as well,” he said. “I don’t have an attorney to talk to out of here. I did still feel like I was covered by the NDA. I felt like that meeting couldn’t be opened up to the public.”

Mr. Lesh said the timing of the emails made it appear that prior conversations had been going on about withholding knowledge from aldermen.

“I believe you guys all had a conversation,” he said addressing the attorney,  “And there was a plan about when you were going to tell the alderman and how you were going to tell us.”

“The emails make it look like, it was like, we don’t need to tell them. Beltline doesn’t want to tell them. So we don’t need to tell them,” he said. “If Beltline doesn’t want to tell them, we don’t need to tell them because the law doesn’t force us to.”

Mr. Lesh said the entire issue of board need to know went beyond the city attorney.

“The attorney is not where the buck stops in the city. it’s with the mayor,” he said.”Where is the mayor?”

Directing his comments to Mayor Filley, Mr Lesh asked, “Were you in communication during this? If so, it’s not showing up in emails. Were you speaking to people? Were you giving direction?”

Mayor Filley refused to answer until the vote was taken on the issue of removing the attorney.

Aldermen Kelley, Lesh and Stewart voted yes. Aldermen Cleeve, Gass and Hoven cast no votes. Mayor Filley broke the tie providing a fourth no vote to retain the attorney.

Following the vote, she gave a rambling response to Mr. Lesh’s questiona bout her involvement with not informing aldermen.

“Yes. I have been involved in conversations that I need to be involved with as the administrative branch.” she said. “On the government, we have three branches. There is a branch that is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations, which is done by staff under my oversight, when needed. That brought me into conversations via email, via phone calls, maybe even at city hall. Included in conversations when it’s staff that I need to deal with.”

Author: paulinemasson

Pauline Masson, editor/publisher. View all posts by paulinemasson