Accusations fly in Longview council Open Meetings Act case as city is added to suit

Councilman Erik Halvorson calls suit 'political payback'; plaintiff Tom Samuels wants defendant councilors to answer 'discovery' questions and stop delaying case

This story has been updated to clarify a time sequence. The revised paragraph appears in italics.

Developments in the lawsuit that accuses four Longview City Council members of violating the state open meetings law early last year led to some pointed accusations of lying and political revenge between one of the defendant councilmen and one of the plaintiffs Wednesday.

In a Facebook post, Councilman Erik Halvorson accused the plaintiffs, including former Councilman Mike Wallin, of engaging in “political payback, plain and simple” and trying to undercut the re-election campaign of Mayor Spencer Boudreau.

Plaintiff Tom Samuels, who with Wallin and John Melink brought the lawsuit, called Halvorson’s post “dishonest and misleading” and accused him of a “blatant lie” in a phone interview.

The barbs followed an announcement by the plaintiffs this week that they agreed to add the city of Longview as a defendant to the public meetings lawsuit — which the lawyers for the defendant council members demanded on January 3.

The lawsuit alleges that the council members colluded outside of public meetings to arrive at a strategy to fire Kris Swanson without cause in March last year, appoint retired Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha as an interim replacement and take several other actions.

The defendants are Halvorson and councilors Keith Young, Kalei LaFave and Mayor Boudreau.

The suit, originally filed last March and amended the following August, documents hundreds of phone calls, text messages and emails among the foursome early last year. The suit alleges that the extensive communications show the group colluded in private to make decisions in violation of the State Open Public Meetings Law.

The original suit did not name the city as a defendant. A judge “joined” the city to the case as a defendant at the councilors’ request last May. However, shortly afterward he reversed himself after a city contract attorney objected, saying the city had not received adequate notice.

In November, the plaintiffs submitted hundreds of questions (called interrogatories) to the defending council members as part of the “discovery” process that routinely is involved in any civil lawsuit. In response, lawyers for the council members on January 3 asked the court to put off discovery unless the plaintiffs agreed to add the city to the suit. If the plaintiffs resisted, the defense asked that the case be dismissed.

There are many possible reasons for the “joinder” request, including making sure all potential litigants are included and, of course, getting the city on the hook for potential damages. It also has the appearance, at least, of a delay tactic.

The attorney for Samuels, Wallin and Melink agreed in January to add the city to the lawsuit as a defendant. However, the attorney for Boudreau and LaFave didn’t sign an agreement on the issue until May 7, Samuels said.

The city already is paying for the defense costs of the council foursome. Despite many public objections, Halvorson, Young, Boudreau and LaFave voted for the city to cover their lawyers’ fees after the city’s liability insurance carrier declined coverage, saying the council’s own actions led to the suit.

As of January 1, the two lawyers for the defendants had billed the city $45,000. Another invoice submitted since then — for $4,130 — has pushed the city’s cost to defend the foursome to just under $50,000. The city has received no further defense billings for work after February, city spokeswoman Angela Abel said.

“We want (the public) to understand we never wanted” to drag the city into the case, Samuels said in a phone interview Tuesday.

He added: “When we filed this suit we were only concerned with accountability from the council members. They don’t want to answer our discovery questions. This is one more way of hiding behind taxpayers. We could not risk the judge siding with them and throwing out our lawsuit before we had our day in court, even though it pains us to do it.”

The court record clearly shows the defense insisted that the city be added to the case and has withheld answers to the interrogatories pending a resolution to the issue.

In arguing to join the city to the case, the defense lawyers argued the city “clearly has an interest” in ensuring that meetings conducted under its authority are done so legally. They also argued that they could not, by themselves, determine what documents “can be tendered without trampling on the rights of the city as a municipal entity.”

Despite the record that it is the defense who wants the city involved, Halvorson posted on Facebook:

“After months of doing nothing, Wallin’s attorney suddenly serves the city the same week Spencer Boudreau announced his re-election campaign. Come on. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

“This isn’t about justice — it’s about political payback, plain and simple. A weak case gets dragged back to life just in time to try and derail Spencer’s campaign,” Halvorson wrote. “Wallin lost (to LaFave) in 2023 and now he’s trying to settle a score.”

Halvorson urges voters to get behind Boudreau “if you’re tired of this kind of garbage in local politics.”

Samuels rejoined in an email to Halvorson, other members of the council and city administrators, calling Halvorson’s Facebook post “dishonest and misleading.”

“The truth of the matter is, we plaintiffs never intended to sue the city over this matter, and in fact we resisted it multiple times. But eventually we were forced to add the city AS DEMANDED by Mr. Halvorson and his fellow council member defendants.

“Furthermore, we reluctantly agreed to this change back in January, but we were only given the green light to proceed by Mayor Boudreau’s and Mayor Pro tem LaFave’s attorney on Wednesday of last week,” Samuels continued.

“Quite simply, there was no consideration given to Mayor Boudreau’s re-election efforts as Mr. Halvorson falsely asserts. In fact, this whole matter could have been settled last October, but none of the four defendants even bothered to respond to our earnestly made offer.”

Halvorson rejoined to Samuels: “Your ‘facts’ are all over the place.” He did not specify what he considered amiss, referring questions to his lawyer, who has never made a substantive response to my queries.

Some clarifications and reminders are in order here:

• Boudreau formally announced his re-election campaign last week, which was filing week for candidates seeking elective office (He never sent me an announcement, as he said he would.) However, he had filed his re-election campaign with the state Public Disclosure Commission months ago. His “announcement” was hardly unexpected.

• Critics have had an electoral target on Boudreau’s back for months because he is the only one of the four defendant council members up for re-election this year. Halvorson, Young and LaFave’s four-year terms expire at the end of 2027.

• The OPMA case is dragging along partly because defense attorneys have been unavailable for large stretches of time in the first four months of this year.

  Chehalis attorney Eric Carlson, who represents Boudreau and LaFave, notified the court he would be unavailable for appearances for periods totaling about seven weeks from January through April.

  Friday Harbor attorney Nick Power, who represents Halvorson and Young, told the court he would be unavailable from January 19 through February — about five weeks — because he planned to be out of the country.
  The plaintiffs’ attorney, Michelle Earl-Hubbard of Seattle, submitted zero “not available” dates during the first four months of 2025.

• The plaintiffs have no interest in dragging this case out because it would cost them more money. Why would they risk thousands of dollars to pursue a case without conviction of their cause?

• Earl Hubbard is one of the most experienced open government lawyers in the state, and she has described the defendants actions as “the most egregious example of Open Meetings Act (OPMA) violations” she had ever seen.

  It is virtually unheard of for members of previous councils to exchange such an abundant number of calls and messages as these defendants shared before sacking Swanson.

  During the debate about Swanson, multiple people publicly upbraided the council foursome for acting with a lack transparency.

  More than 40 people — I could not immediately get an exact number —  in addition to the Wallin, Samuels and Melink are helping to finance the OPMA suit.

• People of different political persuasions are involved in this suit. Melink lost the 2019 council race to Wallin, for example. Most of the candidates for three city council seats up for election this fall have criticized the council’s decision to fire Swanson. The only ”score” to settle here is with the majority’s ill advised and allegedly illegal actions.

  The bottom line here: This is not a “weak case being dragged back to life,” as Halvorson states. There’s an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. The plaintiffs — and the public — deserve answers to their questions. It’s time for the council members to answer them.