Judge Fines City $90,560 for Public Records Act Violations
A Federal Court rules in favor of former Mercer Island city employee Londi Lindell's claims the city illegally withheld documents that should have been given to her more than two years ago.
Photos
Pdfs
A Federal judge has fined the City of Mercer Island nearly $100,000 in fines for violating the Public Records Act (PRA).
The June 26 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart held the city responsible forillegally withholding several public records for an average range of 842 to 882 days from former Deputy City Manager and Attorney Londi Lindell. She alleged the city withheld certain documents that were vital to her case against the city for violating her civil rights in dismissing her in 2008.
The fine of $90,560 does not include an undetermined amount in attorney's fees also awarded to Lindell, though Judge Robart warned her to only claim "reasonable" fees that had not already been awarded in a prior sanction against the city in the case.
In a silver lining for the city, the punishment was far less than the $1.2 million fine Lindell and her legal team had sought. Judge Robart determined the city was liable for only three instances of illegally withholding documents and graded each penalty differently in terms of severity. He harshly criticized the city, however, in particular over its handling of records relating to a sex harassment investigation involving several City Council members, City Manager Rich Conrad and Human Resources Director Kryss Segle.
"The court finds that the decision to withhold the documents relating to the Segle Matter, in the face of the Waiver Email, constituted a negligent, reckless, wanton, or intentional noncompliance with the PRA by the City," Judge Robart wrote.
The fine against the city is a separate claim apart from a tentative settlement reportedly reached by Lindell and the city, made public on June 9. Claims paid in that settlement will be covered by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, which is used by municipal governments to cover their expenses in lawsuits. The PRA fines, however, are not covered and must be paid directly by the city.
(Ed Note: Due to an editing error, a declaration in support of sanctions for attorney's fees in an earlier motion in the case was misattributed to the PRA sanction discussed in this story. Mercer Island Patch regrets the error and sincerely appreciates readers who pointed out the bone-headed mistake.)
Jim Flack
1:29 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
THIS is the woman who is the center of this storm?
Kendall Watson
1:52 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
Yes.
john
3:46 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
"The court finds that the decision to withhold the documents relating to the Segle Matter, in the face of the Waiver Email, constituted a negligent, reckless, wanton, or intentional noncompliance with the PRA by the City," Judge Robart wrote.
How much more proof do the good people of MI need before they start making some city management changes? This could have been much more costly. Judge Robarts could have imposed up to $100.00 per document per day withheld from the plaintiffs. Do the math. The city is getting off cheap with this one. I sort of hope they appeal and this goes to a different court with a different judge.
Thornton Gale
5:25 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
This judgment of $90,560 against the City of Mercer Island must actually be paid out of city coffers. Unlike the related “big settlement” (the Lindell multi-million dollar sex discrimination and retaliation settlement which is being paid by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA)), this judgment must in effect be paid by us, the citizens, because of the actions of our city leaders.
And the $90k is just the tip of the iceberg. According to this judgment, we must also pay the thousands for Londi’s attorney fees not to mention a similar figure for the attorneys' the city hired to try to wiggle-out of this issue.
So we’re probably talking about a total of well over $150k to pay for the actions of the City of Mercer Island which Judge Robart said “…constituted a negligent, reckless, wanton, or intentional noncompliance with the PRA by the City…"
Also, don’t forget the drastic increase in the insurance premiums that the city pays to the WCIA due to this whole case (i.e., the WCIA works by charging insurance premiums to its 130 or so member municipalities in the state). Mercer Island’s WCIA premiums will increase by thousands per year due to the Lindell case since it is unreasonable to think that the citizens of places like Omak, Wash should help pay for Mercer Island’s mistakes.
Kendall Watson
8:05 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
Speaking of mistakes, it looks like I goofed on an earlier version of this story about attorney's fees. There is no determination as yet for attorney's fees in the PRA claim. Thanks also for the clarification on the city's liability in this case. The city IS NOT COVERED by the WCIA in the PRA claim. Both elements of the story have been clarified and corrected.
Sarah Waller
6:35 pm on Monday, June 27, 2011
It just all leaves me with a bad feeling. The City has been negligent on many levels; if I am reading the transcripts correctly. Money is being wasted because of egos and poor judgement. This money could have been used for community projects and outreach. It seems selfish. Imagine what $90,000+ could provide the Food Pantry or other
services serving community members. It is sad.
Carol Friends
10:31 am on Tuesday, June 28, 2011
""The fine of $90,560 does not include an undetermined amount in attorney's fees also awarded to Lindell, though Judge Robart warned her to only claim "reasonable" fees that had not already been awarded in a prior sanction against the city in the case."
Does this mean that the original case has been settled and Ms. Lindell has been awarded lawyer's fees from it?
Kendall Watson
10:42 am on Tuesday, June 28, 2011
So this is what tripped me up earlier, resulting in the Editor's Note at the end of the story. There's two data points here: 1) The other claims in the case, Lindell v City of Mercer Island et al (not the PRA claim discussed here in this story) has reached a preliminary settlement, but it's sealed and we can't see it. One would assume that attorney's fees would be part of any calculation in a settlement negotiation payout with the city's insurer, WCIA. 2) The judge sanctioned the city earlier in this case to the tune of around $15,000 in the discovery phase (which is also, incidentally, part of the reason how that infamous video of depositions became public record). Lindell asked for around $330,000 and apparently the judge remembered that & reminded her not to go too far in asking for fees and to account for the prior sanction.
Carol Friends
1:50 pm on Tuesday, June 28, 2011
One more question. What is the chance that the public will ever know the contents of the settlement between the city and Ms. Lindell?
Kendall Watson
2:47 pm on Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Your guess is as good as mine. It's pure speculation, but based the last time I covered a story that involved the WCIA in Kirkland, the settlement agreement wasn't disclosed.
Thornton Gale
8:00 am on Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The city won't appeal the $90k judgment:
The reason is that this judgment finds the city in violation of the Public Records Act. Essentially, the city is guilty of hiding information from the public. If the city were to appeal this judgment then they would be saying that they have the right to hide information from the public. An appeal would cost the city thousands more and would have to be approved by the city council to proceed. I don’t think the city council would vote to spend a huge amount of money to defend their alleged right to hide information from the public.
Kendall Watson
9:52 am on Wednesday, June 29, 2011
I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of the decision was that the City basically accepted the premise that they had violated the PRA with respect to the Reed/Segle Investigation, which was ruled on last year. They tried to minimize their exposure, which in retrospect they did quite well (Lindell asked for $1.2 M + atty's fees, judge gave $90K +.attorney's fees). It seems to me that if they appealed it the time spent on the appeal might outweigh overturning the fine.