VALE – Vale city councilors violated state law when they conducted an executive session last year regarding a request from an Ontario contractor to be reimbursed $16,000 for work completed on a local subdivision, a state agency concluded.
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission issued a letter of education to each member of the council in August – after a six-month investigation – for their violation of the state’s public meetings law.
“It was an oversight. No malice was intended,” said Vale Mayor Tom Vialpando.
“It was just a mistake. Basically, we had a reprimand from the ethics commission but they were really cool in explaining it to us. It was an educational moment for our council,” the mayor said.
The letters were issued to Vialpando and council members Monte Bixby, Alex Hartwell, Derick Peasley, and Leighton Keller and Chad Cooper.
At issue was a complaint filed with the ethics commission by city resident Cynthia Roberts regarding a city council meeting agenda change and two separate executive sessions last September.Roberts asserted improper changes were made to the city council agenda less than 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
Roberts also asserted the council met in executive session during the Sept. 28 meeting to discuss an unauthorized topic.
Under state law, elected boards can call an executive – or closed – session under specific circumstances such as labor negotiations, employee discipline, possible litigation or the employment of a public officer.
Each category to be discussed in an executive session must be publicly declared before an executive session is called.
The investigation by the ethics commission determined that council members did not violate the law regarding changes to the city council agenda.
The commission, though, did find that council members broke the law during an executive session to discuss the request for additional compensation from a contractor working on a Vale subdivision.
The council declared that it would meet in executive to “deliberate with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions.”
During the executive session, councilors discussed the reimbursed request – a topic not allowed to be handled behind closed doors.
“Discussing paying a developer for work already done is not deliberating with a person designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions,” the ethics commission found.
A penalty of up to $1,000 could have been assessed against each council member.
The council members settled the matter by agreeing to accept a letter of education.
News tip? Contact reporter Pat Caldwell at [email protected]
EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM – Available for $7.50 a month. Subscribe to the digital service of the Enterprise and get the very best in local journalism. We report with care, attention to accuracy, and an unwavering devotion to fairness. Get the kind of news you’ve been looking for – day in and day out from the Enterprise.