When I moved here in 1978, the city had a nauseating aroma from the mills. “It smells like money,” people said. It took decades to clear the air. In just a couple months, the Gang of Four has managed to stink up the place worse than the mills ever did. And it will likely cost millions to undo the damage done so far. Elections have consequences.
Sounds like we all need to flood the meeting on the 25th and let them know we shouldn’t be footing the bill for their erratic decisions and blatant disregard of previous legal advice.
If the insurance company doesn't think they should have to cover them why should the taxpayers? These 4 repeatedly willfully risked and wasted taxpayer dollars and it appears broke several laws and most importantly broke the public's trust. I haven't been able to find any info on how to sign my name to the" group of 70 citizens" if they actually raised awareness I think there would be a lot more in thar group. At this point these 4 need to resign immediately. Nobody can trust them and from the looks of things we're 100% right to not trust them.
Am I the only one who thinks this is totally absurd? Why should the city pay to defend board members acting against public meeting laws? If they win the case, then I could see the city reimbursing them, but not paying for their attorneys up front.
I called Keith Young a few minutes ago and asked him why he thought my tax dollars should go to paying for his legal defense. He explained the legality and mechanisms that allow for this to happen and effectively said that the insurance company isn't covering the defense cost because it's not a damage claim, I guess trying to avoid the fact that it's an allegation of an illegal action. We talked about city council people being entitled to paychecks and he relayed basically that he believes that because he was acting as a city representative, the city should defend him as he believes his actions did not violate OPMA. He said that since he's not being sued as an individual he shouldn't have to pay for his own defense and otherwise would.
I pushed back on the violation aspect and we went back and forth, ultimately with his position being that the discussions of Swanson being fired took place before he was sworn in as city councilman so they aren't in violation and that there was no discussion about Jim Duscha being the replacement until the meeting where LaFave presented it for vote at which point he was on board because he already had Duscha in mind for doing the audit.
We started going in circles so I decided to wrap it up and let the courts and the voters decide. If Young see's this and disagrees with any aspect of what I relayed feel free discuss it with me or correct me.
I appreciate you taking the time to talk to your elected official. Regardless of how anyone feels, it's important to remember that these officials are still people, with families and lives.
Thank you for taking the time to both remember, and remind everyone else.
Please show up at the April 25 council meeting to make your presence known and your voice heard, if you choose to speak. Please don’t sit back and think someone else will do it. If we all think that way, we will lose the battle quickly.
Thanks, Andre! Tom S, I'm grateful you've chosen to take action against this egregious and blatanyly dishonest behavior by people who took an oath to serve the needs of the city. We're behind you.
That’s nice. Are Kris Swanson, Ann Rivers, and David Wallis “people”? Do they have families and lives? I can’t say I’ve witnessed Keith Young treat them with respect. In fact, I’ve witnessed him wear a homemade t-shirt deliberately supporting a damned lie about Kris and David. Forgive me if I can’t muster a single tear for the council majority who have deliberately upended the lives of so many people with cold and callous disregard.
They STILL sit by silently as their supporters continue to tell outrageous lies about the discrimination lawsuits, and now they’ve added thoroughly debunked allegations of financial impropriety to their script. The “interim” city manager hisself is polluting the public discourse with these absurdities. It’s reprehensible what they have done and shamelessly continue to do.
I'm certainly not defending any of the gang of 4. Frankly, there is clearly so much more at play here than I understand, so on the issue itself I have no opinion.
What seems very clear to me is that these people have acted in blatant disregard for the law and there should be all the consequences the law can bring to bear on them.
But I still think it's important to both get the story from the horses mouth (or whatever part it comes from) and to keep any personal attacks above a certain floor of decorum.
Writing people off because you disagree with their point of view is exactly what brought these 4 to the place they're in now, after all. Just suggesting maybe everyone else can show some higher wisdom is all.
Evan, normally I would appreciate your admirable inclination to extend the individuals in this matter a very generous benefit of the doubt. And by all means, go seek feedback from whatever end of the horse you want.
Just know that not only is your civility unwarranted here, it’s downright preposterous. The “personal attacks” the council majority and their supporters have lobbed AND CONTINUE to aim at Kris Swanson, Ann Rivers, and David and MaryAlice Wallis are not only beneath a “certain floor of decorum”, they’re several levels of basement deeper.
This ENTIRE affair has been based on outright lies and deception that has upended the lives of Longview’s finest public servants. And as a result of this comprehensively corrupt process, Longview has gone from having the most qualified city manager we could have ever dreamt of, to a spectacularly inept and undeniably self-interest conflicted USURPER.
What’s worse, not only are Longview citizens and taxpayers already on the hook for a wide variety of costs associated with this scandal, now the council majority has the gall to add their personal legal defense to the tab. It’s gobsmacking, considering the only instance of ‘good faith’ they can legitimately claim is how deep their fidelity to ‘bad faith’ has been throughout all of this.
Please pay closer attention to what is really happening here. Be well, and have a good day.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, even if we don't necessarily agree.
I guess my thinking is we should hold ourselves to a higher standard then those who's actions are so deplorable.
Then again, I'm not a resident of Longview proper, so I've definitely got less skin in the game, maybe that's the cause of our difference in views.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but I do believe that if a judge or jury finds their actions to be willful (highly likely, think), they will be liable for all the legal costs they invited onto the city. It's ridiculous they get to decide that themselves, but I take some comfort from that.
It really is gross and I called him on matters of character and integrity, which is when we started going in circles and I realized I was wasting my time.
Having served for 13 years as a council member for the City of Kalama upon the first meeting I attended I was handed the Councilman’s Handbook of Rules and Regulations on how to legally act as a councilman without errors that would bring the council under any litigation.
If these council persons were properly informed and trained as they should have been and it is found that they are not responsible for acting improperly then the City of Longview should beheld responsible for their actions in not properly training them to avoid vulnerability ending in litigatin.
All 7 members of the Longview city council have undergone the AWC/MRSC training, and have been provided with a copy of the handbook you mentioned. A digital copy can be viewed here:
Seems four of the members didn’t understand any of what they were taught during their training or in the true spirit of Trumpism elected to ignore all of it.
When I moved here in 1978, the city had a nauseating aroma from the mills. “It smells like money,” people said. It took decades to clear the air. In just a couple months, the Gang of Four has managed to stink up the place worse than the mills ever did. And it will likely cost millions to undo the damage done so far. Elections have consequences.
Sounds like we all need to flood the meeting on the 25th and let them know we shouldn’t be footing the bill for their erratic decisions and blatant disregard of previous legal advice.
If the insurance company doesn't think they should have to cover them why should the taxpayers? These 4 repeatedly willfully risked and wasted taxpayer dollars and it appears broke several laws and most importantly broke the public's trust. I haven't been able to find any info on how to sign my name to the" group of 70 citizens" if they actually raised awareness I think there would be a lot more in thar group. At this point these 4 need to resign immediately. Nobody can trust them and from the looks of things we're 100% right to not trust them.
Am I the only one who thinks this is totally absurd? Why should the city pay to defend board members acting against public meeting laws? If they win the case, then I could see the city reimbursing them, but not paying for their attorneys up front.
I called Keith Young a few minutes ago and asked him why he thought my tax dollars should go to paying for his legal defense. He explained the legality and mechanisms that allow for this to happen and effectively said that the insurance company isn't covering the defense cost because it's not a damage claim, I guess trying to avoid the fact that it's an allegation of an illegal action. We talked about city council people being entitled to paychecks and he relayed basically that he believes that because he was acting as a city representative, the city should defend him as he believes his actions did not violate OPMA. He said that since he's not being sued as an individual he shouldn't have to pay for his own defense and otherwise would.
I pushed back on the violation aspect and we went back and forth, ultimately with his position being that the discussions of Swanson being fired took place before he was sworn in as city councilman so they aren't in violation and that there was no discussion about Jim Duscha being the replacement until the meeting where LaFave presented it for vote at which point he was on board because he already had Duscha in mind for doing the audit.
We started going in circles so I decided to wrap it up and let the courts and the voters decide. If Young see's this and disagrees with any aspect of what I relayed feel free discuss it with me or correct me.
I appreciate you taking the time to talk to your elected official. Regardless of how anyone feels, it's important to remember that these officials are still people, with families and lives.
Thank you for taking the time to both remember, and remind everyone else.
Please show up at the April 25 council meeting to make your presence known and your voice heard, if you choose to speak. Please don’t sit back and think someone else will do it. If we all think that way, we will lose the battle quickly.
Thanks, Andre! Tom S, I'm grateful you've chosen to take action against this egregious and blatanyly dishonest behavior by people who took an oath to serve the needs of the city. We're behind you.
That’s nice. Are Kris Swanson, Ann Rivers, and David Wallis “people”? Do they have families and lives? I can’t say I’ve witnessed Keith Young treat them with respect. In fact, I’ve witnessed him wear a homemade t-shirt deliberately supporting a damned lie about Kris and David. Forgive me if I can’t muster a single tear for the council majority who have deliberately upended the lives of so many people with cold and callous disregard.
They STILL sit by silently as their supporters continue to tell outrageous lies about the discrimination lawsuits, and now they’ve added thoroughly debunked allegations of financial impropriety to their script. The “interim” city manager hisself is polluting the public discourse with these absurdities. It’s reprehensible what they have done and shamelessly continue to do.
This was supposed to be in response to Evan Jones. I don't know why it posted up here.
I'm certainly not defending any of the gang of 4. Frankly, there is clearly so much more at play here than I understand, so on the issue itself I have no opinion.
What seems very clear to me is that these people have acted in blatant disregard for the law and there should be all the consequences the law can bring to bear on them.
But I still think it's important to both get the story from the horses mouth (or whatever part it comes from) and to keep any personal attacks above a certain floor of decorum.
Writing people off because you disagree with their point of view is exactly what brought these 4 to the place they're in now, after all. Just suggesting maybe everyone else can show some higher wisdom is all.
Evan, normally I would appreciate your admirable inclination to extend the individuals in this matter a very generous benefit of the doubt. And by all means, go seek feedback from whatever end of the horse you want.
Just know that not only is your civility unwarranted here, it’s downright preposterous. The “personal attacks” the council majority and their supporters have lobbed AND CONTINUE to aim at Kris Swanson, Ann Rivers, and David and MaryAlice Wallis are not only beneath a “certain floor of decorum”, they’re several levels of basement deeper.
This ENTIRE affair has been based on outright lies and deception that has upended the lives of Longview’s finest public servants. And as a result of this comprehensively corrupt process, Longview has gone from having the most qualified city manager we could have ever dreamt of, to a spectacularly inept and undeniably self-interest conflicted USURPER.
What’s worse, not only are Longview citizens and taxpayers already on the hook for a wide variety of costs associated with this scandal, now the council majority has the gall to add their personal legal defense to the tab. It’s gobsmacking, considering the only instance of ‘good faith’ they can legitimately claim is how deep their fidelity to ‘bad faith’ has been throughout all of this.
Please pay closer attention to what is really happening here. Be well, and have a good day.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, even if we don't necessarily agree.
I guess my thinking is we should hold ourselves to a higher standard then those who's actions are so deplorable.
Then again, I'm not a resident of Longview proper, so I've definitely got less skin in the game, maybe that's the cause of our difference in views.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but I do believe that if a judge or jury finds their actions to be willful (highly likely, think), they will be liable for all the legal costs they invited onto the city. It's ridiculous they get to decide that themselves, but I take some comfort from that.
It really is gross and I called him on matters of character and integrity, which is when we started going in circles and I realized I was wasting my time.
Another excellent analysis, André. Many thanks to you and to those who have added their comments.
John McClelland
Having served for 13 years as a council member for the City of Kalama upon the first meeting I attended I was handed the Councilman’s Handbook of Rules and Regulations on how to legally act as a councilman without errors that would bring the council under any litigation.
If these council persons were properly informed and trained as they should have been and it is found that they are not responsible for acting improperly then the City of Longview should beheld responsible for their actions in not properly training them to avoid vulnerability ending in litigatin.
All 7 members of the Longview city council have undergone the AWC/MRSC training, and have been provided with a copy of the handbook you mentioned. A digital copy can be viewed here:
https://mrsc.org/getmedia/034f13b6-7ec2-4594-b60b-efaf61dd7d10/Mayor-And-Councilmember-Handbook.pdf?ext=.pdf
Seems four of the members didn’t understand any of what they were taught during their training or in the true spirit of Trumpism elected to ignore all of it.