SRM Development requests Disqualification and Recusal of Councilmember Hodgson
In this letter to to Kirkland City Attorney Robin Jenkinson, dated July 25, 2008, SRM attorney Molly Lawrence objected to the events of the July 1, 2008 Bank of America quasi-judicial appeal, and requested that Councilmember Hodgson “be prohibited from participating further in this appeal in any manner.” SRM documented their objection as follows:
- Disqualification and Recusal of Councilmember Hodgson
- Due Process Violation
- Disclosure of “Anonymous Memo”
The letter states, “Based on his remarks and actions, SRM believes that Coucnilmember Hodgson has not been impartial or objective in this proceeding… consequently, he should be prohibited from participating further in this appeal in any manner…”
In regard to SRM’s claim of Due Process Violation, Ms. Lawrence argued that even if the Hodgson Memo is subject to attorney-client privilege, “the fact remains that CiViK has been provided access to materials relevant to this appeal proceeding that have been denied to SRM. This is a due process violation… The only way to fully remedy this unfairness is to provide SRM with an equal opportunity to review the memoranda provided to CiViK.”
The Kirkland City Council has scheduled a special meeting on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. to address this issue. The meeting is open to the public and you are encouraged to attend.
Related Articles
12 Responses to “SRM Development requests Disqualification and Recusal of Councilmember Hodgson”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
If this letter is accurate, it seems logical that legal council would advise City Councilman Hodgson to recuse himself from the quasi judicial hearing. That is a likely outcome of the meeting this evening. I also think it will allow the public to air their frustrations with this fiasco. What I really want to see is what was passed to the Civik lawyers. Without disclosure of that information, tonight will be insignificant in terms of public disclosure.
[Reply]
Once again you beat me to the punch, but thank god SOMEONE is getting FOI results.
SRM’s request to review memos that were generated and diseminated under attorney / client privilege has a series of pitfalls - not the least of which is “They broke the law, so why can’t we?”
CiViK’s actions - as well as the actions of their cohort on the council - were shameful of course, but little good can come from continuing this pattern of ignoring the law when it impacts your friends.
ATTEND TONIGHT’S MEETING - bring your friends.
Starts at 7 pm - not the standard 7:30pm start time.
Firework extravaganza to follow brought to you by Gilday’s Acres of Clams
[Reply]
I think I said this in my first post but I will repeat myself. I am a lawyer. Over a 20 year career I represented Cities, Counties, States and Federal Governments in land use appeals. I am licensed and have practiced law in ten States. I have represented clients in Superior, Appellate and Supreme Courts including the United States Supreme Court. I have served as arbitrator, mediator, and administrative law judge. I no longer practice having found something I like doing more, is less stressful and affords me more time with a young family.
I will be right to the point here. I have reviewed all the tapes and read all the blog comments and have researched the RCW’s. Given what I believe are the facts I would render the following decision:
1) Mr. Hodgson did breach the public trust by disclosing whatever the contents of the envelope were. I have to conclude without having the benefit of seeing the contents that Mr. Hodgson and the Appellant’s Attorney believed them to be valuable. The Appeallnat’s Attorney should be sanctioned for his behavior in any event and perhaps the Bar Association will. In the least the release of a document that was clearly meant to be seen only by the Council and people they designate is a gross violation of the RCW. I could not find any case law dealing with such an egregious violation of the RCW. Not uncommon, The RCW offers many penalties from fine to removal from office. At this point Mr. Hodgson has compromised himself and the Council and may have opened the City up to a lawsuit brought by the Applicant.
2. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest involving Council Member Greenway. Why the Applicant has not challenged this is beyond me. Review of PDC documents and numerous other documents available on line disclose a very close relationship between Ms. Greenway, Ms. Bea Nahon and Mr. James McElwee who are both names Appellants in the CIVIK Appela of the BOA proposed development. The relationship includes both Ms. Nahon and Mr. McElwee being listed as two of 4 Campaign leaders for Ms. Greenways’s 2007 election campaign. Also of note from Ms. Greenway’s PDC filing is what I would consider a significant amount of money and inkind contributions from Ms. Nahon to Ms. Greenway’s campaign. I don’t know how many of the other contributors listed on the PDC are members of this group called CIVIK. I have not been able to find anything on line that provides a membership but would surmise that there are some more contributions from this group to the campaign. I will note that there is nothing illegal about any of the above. Where it comes into play is in cases where appearance of fairness is challenged. Even though Ms. Greenway has mentioned some things during opportunities to disclose conflicts, it is her words regarding tranparency that a Judge would find troubling. As a Judge I would use the smell test. In this case I don’t think this smells good.
3. The Mayor very clearly supported Mr. Hodgson’s actions by his words “Bold” and his inactions. His not immediately seizing the envelope that Mr. Hodgson had placed on the countertop is troubling. I don’t know how the Mayor stands on this but if brought to trial he would have to explain. To the best of my knowledge the Mayor has been noticeably absent. It would appear that that he could answer this quesiton tonight.
That’s my overview of the situation. I don’t have any emotional or other connections to any of the involved. I have just tried to look at this as a Judge would.
I hope that all these people do the right thing.
I look forward to watching tonight as I feed the kids after soccer practice.
Have a great day!
[Reply]
GREAT POST.
Clear, concise and to the point.
You distill the tens - if not hundreds - of hours of testimony and effort on both sides to the essence of the situation.
I completely agree with your findings re: 1 and 3
I’m 75% on your side re: Greenway (#2), her early ‘efforts’ toward full disclosure buy her a little leeway in my mind, not much mind you, but a little. I have to agree with CiViK’s argument that donation to a particular campaign does not later preclude anyone from working toward or against any special interest.
I stand by my earlier statements.
The mayor must tender his immediate resignation for mal/misfeasance.
I add to this the strong suggestion that tonight, Greenway and Hodgson state their irrevocable decision to permanently retire from the council at the end of their terms and furthermore, that Hodgson be sanctioned.
What the state bar association does with CiViK’s attorney is toothless, he’ll still be paid, hired and do this all over again. A single mea culpa won’t amount to spit.
John Gilday
[Reply]
Dear New2
With all due respect, should you be giving your legal opinion (even though not officially) on matters where you do not have enough of the facts? Seems dangerous to me to be adding this kind of fuel to the fire. I think if you examined all of the council members past affiliations, financial supporters, etc. that you’d find areas that could be considered a conflict of interest coming from the pro development camp as well. That’s politics! If you’re going to go down that road, lets be fair about it. Look at everyone’s history and then see who’s sitting on which side of the fence. I think a judge would want to have the facts presented before rendering this much opinion. Lets not ASSUME too much.
[Reply]
Thank you,
As I stated the contributions and leadership to someone’s Campaign is not really the issue. If it were there would be a limited number of people who would dare run for office fearing they get sued for conflict of interst.
The issue with Ms. Greenway is fairly simple. She as well any other Candidate is free to accept money and any other thing of value in support of their campaign. This isn’t quite the fair pole in Baseball. If you hit the Fair Pole in a position of public trust you are out! A Judge will look at the situation as a spectator would. He or she will conclude that there are far too many influences on this Council member for their to be fairness. The fairness does not become an issue when of two things happne. First, the Council Member recuses themselves and second if they cast a vote in a way that does not support the people, or organization that provided the support. In this case neither of these happened.
What did clearly happen from a review of the tapes is a nearly exact recitation of the CIVIK talking points. A Judge would rule that more than a coincidence.
Again, this is only my take. I am new here and have no allegiance to either side at this point. I am just trying to weave my way through the story.
[Reply]
Peggy,
I think my response dealt with most your concerns and I respect your opinion. I am not giving legal advice merely stating the facts as I am able to get them. If I have missed something or you have something to add that may help me or anyone else who is interested in this topic, please post.
You are absolutely right that I need to look at the other Council Members supporters past and present. If were keeping score the only one I can find who is “clean” is Council Member Sternoff. It does not appear that in two elections he has collected money from any person or organization. He hasn’t had an opponent either.
[Reply]
I agree with the Eastside Sun that the first post from New2kland was Xcellent. His or her view is educated and looks like its well reasoned. We also get the benefit of their education and experience.
While I enjoy the Sun a great deal especially the Letters To the editor, I’m not certain of that person’s qualifications to call for ouster of anyone. Intelligence doesn’t make you right all the time. In this situation I have to agree that Laginger needs to go but Hodgson and Greenway should follow him out the door. Lets not wait until elections because we really can’t afford it.
We will be there at tonights meeting and thank you for pointing out it will be at 7:00pm, otherwise we would have missed the fireworks!
[Reply]
I am saddened that Kirkland is in this mess. I want to believe our representatives are honest, hardworking people who have not succumbed to pressures to act against the public best interest. I want the believe that but I fear otherwise.
I know this is a feeding frenzy because the sharks in this town smell blood in the water but patience is called for at times like this. It is often that when limited information is available, people tend to fill in the blanks with their imagination. Sometimes our imaginations get the best of us. Have patience and see what transpires tonight. My hope is that there are some good explanations for what has transpired.
[Reply]
I think the lack of leadership is the biggest problem the City Council has. Former mayors Burleigh and Springer would never have lost control of a meeting like Mayor Lauinger did on July 1st. At the very least the council needs to elect a new mayor, I would suggest anyone but Lauinger, Hodgson( He should resign gracefully)or Greenway. Asher, Burleigh( she has already shown her capability to lead,) Sternoff or McBride should be mayor. They all have a measured approach to conducting Council business, conduct themselves accordingly and could lead the council. I do not expect any good news tonight. How can Hodgson explain his behavior without further compromsing the integrity of the council? I am attending but do not expect a favorable outcome. New2kirkland, welcome, it is always good to have citizens that benefit our town and I appreciate your thoughts and wisdom. have you thought of public office?
[Reply]
Mike,
Thanks for the left handed compliment.
Public comment is slated as follows:
3. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Items from the Audience
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Statement by Councilmember Hodgson
This means citizens can make their statements BEFORE the council gets the opportunity to whitewash this sad chapter.
If you speak, please MAKE A CLEAR STATEMENT in favor or against, no ambiguity. This is not the time for a Kubaya moment.
Who should stay and why
Who should go and why
Who should reimburse the city $12,000 in outside attorney fees and why
We at the Sun can have no dog in this fight, but we have gone on record stating the mayor must resign to give the remaining council a chance to redeem itself. Who replaces him as mayor is up to the remaining councilmembers.
The 2 suggested by K Jordan would make excellent choices.
SEVEN O’CLOCK SHARP PEOPLE
123 5th Street
John Gilday
[Reply]
K. Jordan,
Thanks for the kind remarks. I haven’t been here anywhere near long enough to understand this place. I will at some point get involved in something here but right now family comes first. I find the issues fascinating and the passions of the people here incredible. The challenge is to harness all this energy and use it in a positive way. I respect Lack of Leaderships desire to see things in a positive light. I too hope that there is a thorough explanation that leaves everyone with proper closure. I never represented a client who didn’t believe they were right. I never sat across a courtroom from a lawyer who didn’t put on a case to show that their client was right. I never heard two lawyers appear before me who didn’t argue that their clients were right! I will tell you that a Judge can discern the issues and facts very quickly. The rest of the trial is pretty letting the fighters fight. In this case I don’t think there is much of the facts we don’t know. As you request I will withold my judgement.
[Reply]