Spokane Valley chooses not to provide city council with an attorney at taxpayer expense

The city announced earlier this month that a third party Investigation found Merkel violated the Council’s Governance Manual and potentially state law. The situation arose following a complaint from fellow council member Jessica Yaeger about his use of the social media platform Nextdoor.

Merkel certified that he uses the platform to engage with his constituency, but on a personal level and not for business purposes in the city; However, the investigator disputes this and concludes that Merkel violated the governance manual’s social media guidelines and “most likely” violated the Public Records Act.

“I want to make this clear,” Merkel wrote in a press release, “I did not ask the city to pay for my legal fees.”

According to Tuesday agendaIf the Valley had actually provided Merkel with city-funded representation, it could have cost about $5,000 to $10,000. Merkel was already facing another one Investigationwhich cost the Valley at least $28,000, according to records obtained by The Center Square.

Center Square asked Communications Manager Jill Smith about the cost of this latest investigation and the cost of representing the city throughout the appeal process. Smith did not provide a response before publication.

The city and investigators believe Merkel’s posts are likely considered public records, but they cannot archive them because he uses a personal account. They kept pushing him to use a council member-specific account that uses an automatic page freeze for archiving.

Merkel did not comply with this request, opting instead to ask her voters whether they should appeal the findings, which he said could come at the expense of their tax dollars, or whether they should accept the reprimand.

He ultimately appealed the investigator’s findings to the city hearing examiner on Sept. 10, with the case scheduled for Oct. 24. Under state and local rules, Merkel was not allowed to take part in Tuesday’s discussion or vote.

“The remaining six council members voted unanimously that Council member Merkel is not entitled to legal representation funded by the city because SVMC 2.70.030 “prevents the city from doing so based on allegations that council members have violated city policy,” the city’s statement said Press release.

When Merkel was initially asked to withdraw, she told Mayor Pam Hayley that he disagreed with her interpretation of the law that banned him from attending. She asked him again and found that he again disagreed with the interpretation of several people, including the state Supreme Court.

“You have a different opinion than the Supreme Court,” she asked, smiling at Merkel.

“I mean, I don’t agree with this interpretation,” Merkel replied.

City Manager John Hohman chimed in, noting that the city anticipated Merkel’s reluctance to bail itself out and urged the rest of the city council to move forward anyway. Hohman told Merkel that he was still not allowed to vote or ask questions.

Hohman reminded Merkel of the state and local laws that Attorney Kelly Konkright supported, and Hayley then asked staffers to mute Merkel’s microphone at the podium.

“Part of my responsibility as city manager is to manage risk,” Hohman said. “This has been, in my opinion, one of the most challenging years since our founding in 2003, primarily due to Councilor Merkel’s pattern of behavior.”

He said this was not about anyone trying to silence Merkel; It’s about following the rules. If Merkel wanted legal representation, she would have to provide it at her own expense or at someone else’s expense, he said.