Halvorson, Young reject settlement offer in suit claiming that councilors broke open meetings law

Plaintiffs' lawyer going to court to force Boudreau, Lafave to answer questions

The lawyer for Longview City Councilmen Erik Halvorson and Keith Young has rejected a settlement offer in the lawsuit accusing them and two other councilors of violating the state Open Meetings Act multiple times in early 2024.

“Neither Mr. Halvorson nor Mr. Young have violated the OPMA and will not bow to your clients’ demands. While I’m sure it will be denied, I do not believe your clients seek to resolve this matter in good faith,” Nicholas Power wrote to the plaintiffs’ attorney last week.

‘The intermittent prosecution of your case makes it apparent that this litigation is guided not by principles of legality or justness, but by political opportunism. We see your offer for what it is — a strategically timed salvo to make headlines/bloglinks just as local elections approach.”

“As there is nothing in your client’s proposal that is remotely acceptable, please proceed with your case. We look forward to the speedy resolution of this matter,” Powers’ message concludes.

As of this weekend, the plaintiffs apparently had not received a response to the settlement offer from Eric Carlson, the Chehalis attorney representing Councilors Kalei Lafave and Spencer Boudreau, the other two defendants.

The settlement offer calls for the four council members to personally pay $500 to a Seattle-area based non-profit that champions government transparency.

Among other demands, the offer also would require the defendants to acknowledge that they broke the law, commit to transparency and retake compliance training on Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and Open Public Records Act. It also asked that the city of Longview, a codefendant in the suit, reimburse the plaintiffs for $52,000 in attorney fees.

It is the second settlement offer the plaintiffs have made in the suit, which was first filed in the spring of 2024 and amended that August.

“I’m disappointed that Councilmen Halvorson and Young have chosen to reject our second settlement offer. Despite them, and us, knowing the truth that they violated the OPMA, they have decided to continue to make the Longview taxpayers pay for their defense,” John Melink, one of the three plaintiffs in the case, said in response to Power’s message.

The defendant council members voted to have the city pay for their legal defense when the city’s insurance pool declined coverage.

The suit alleges that the foursome conferred outside public meetings to arrive at decisions to fire former City Manager Kris Swanson; hire retired city police chief Jim Duscha as an interim replacement; and appoint Boudreau mayor and Kalei LaFave mayor pro-tem.

The councilors shared hundreds of phone calls, text and emails in the time running up to those decisions, according to public records research by Thomas Samuels, one of the three plaintiffs in the case. The OPMA prohibits elected officials from making decisions in a “daisy chain” series of private meetings.

To date, defense costs born by the city total just short of $84,100, a total that includes about $38,000 for the city’s own lawyers. If the case goes to trial, the costs would multiply quickly into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Melink said the defense attorneys are unwilling to negotiate because “they are not willing to kill the goose that lays the golden egg — city taxpayers — in hopes that we will run out of money and give up. We aren’t going away.”

The third plaintiff is former Longview City Councilman Mike Wallin. The trio has been supported by donations from other citizens.

In another development in the slow-moving case, the plaintiffs’ attorney plans to file a “motion to compel” to force Boudreau and Lafave to answer questions — “interrogatories” in legal parlance — submitted them last November.

“The other two defendants (Halvorson and Young) got their responses in in July” Michelle Earl-Hubbard emailed to Carlson on October 14. “Your clients’ responses are nearly 11 months past due, and I have the emails to share with the court showing my efforts to get you to comply. Please provide answers and responses before I have to file my motion.”