GUEST COMMENT: JIM DAVISON

Overlooked so far is how some folks gained information of Nestle’s interest in Waitsburg’s water. “Rumor has it” was the reference given in a letter to the editor which appeared in the June 30, 2016 edition of The Times. If Nestle’s interest in Waitsburg was discussed during Executive Session at the June 15 Waitsburg City Council Meeting and the “rumor” mentioned in the June 30 letter-to-the-editor came from an attendee within that executive session, that is troublesome, since the purpose of an executive session is to allow confidential discussion of sensitive matters. Such a breach of ethics--if by a council member--is also concerning since council members are expected to remain neutral until ALL relevant facts are gathered upon which to base an informed decision. Posting related information/opinions on Facebook by a council member, even if later deleted, before hearing all information could indicate a lack of impartiality and be considered unethical.

RCW 42.23.070(4) states “No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.” Could passing on such information in order to promote personal beliefs/positions be considered personal benefit? According to information from The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), such a violation of ethical behavior “. . . can result in a penalty of five hundred dollars, in addition to such other civil or criminal liability that might be imposed upon the officer by law, and may be grounds for forfeiture of office.” (RCW 42.23.050)

In addition, according to information from MRSC, “It is also possible that disclosure of confidential information may constitute “misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office or a “violation of the oath of office,” which could provide grounds for a recall under RCW 29A.56.110.” (http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/April-2013/What-Can-Be-Done-if-an-Elected-Official-Divulges-I.aspx).

Also, it is my understanding that had action been taken on Council Member Hockersmith’s motion at the end of the August 2 Town Hall community input meeting it would have been illegal since it was advertised—and stated at the start of the meeting—that no action would be taken at that meeting.

Claims were made by a council member’s spouse in a letter-to-the-editor in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin that officials of Waitsburg overstepped their authority and owed an apology. If the original leaked information regarding Nestle came from a council member due to information gained during executive session perhaps there is another apology—or resignation—due citizens of Waitsburg. Also true if the “leak” was from a city employee.