Lewiston council: no open meeting breach

The Lewiston City Council followed the advice of its attorney Monday night, issuing a statement that a voting snafu over a proposed mask mandate at its Sept. 27 meeting didn’t amount to an open meeting violation.

Councilor John Bradbury filed the complaint that triggered the response the day after the meeting in question. Several dozen members of the public attended the meeting, most to voice their opposition to a new COVID-19 mask mandate. But confusion broke out after the public comment period ended and the council considered the mandate.

Bradbury made a motion to reinstate the mandate for six months at the September meeting, and Mayor Mike Collins asked for a second. When none came, Collins declared the motion failed for lack of a second and members of the public began to leave.

But Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Schroeder attended the meeting remotely via Zoom and couldn’t hear Bradbury’s motion, which she would have seconded. Councilors, City Attorney Jana Gomez and City Manager Alan Nygaard discussed how to proceed, and Gomez concluded that it would be acceptable for the council to revisit the agenda item that night.

Bradbury objected to the process, saying it denied his right granted by Idaho’s open meeting law to address members of the public. But the council did revisit the mandate, and Bradbury’s motion failed 3-2, with only he and Schroeder voting in favor. On Monday, Gomez reiterated her position that there was no violation.

“I advised that it was council’s choice, that they could put (a mandate) on a future agenda and reconsider it when the public was here again,” Gomez said. “Or you could reconsider it that same evening because it was an item that was on the agenda, the meeting was open to the public, and the fact that most of the people who were in attendance understandably chose to leave the meeting because they thought the discussion had finished.”

Bradbury agreed at Monday’s meeting that while the alleged violation was clearly a mistake and not done intentionally, it was still a violation.

“The purpose of the open meetings law is to provide an exchange of views and to allow both parties to hear what the other has to say about any given issue,” he said. “But (the public in attendance) passionately cared about whether there should be a mask mandate. Once they were told the issue was concluded, they left.”

He said that denied him the right to explain to their faces why he supported a mask mandate, and violated the open meeting law by taking away that engagement. But Councilor John Pernsteiner said the law is essentially about giving the public a chance to participate in the process, which they did during the lengthy public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.

“So from then on, in addressing this issue, the only engagement was eye contact,” he said. “That would have been it.”

There would also have been no difference in the outcome of the vote if the public had been there, Pernsteiner added.

The open meeting law required a response within 14 days of the alleged violation, so councilors voted 4-1 to adopt Gomez’s statement declaring there was no violation and therefore no remedy required. Bradbury cast the lone vote against the statement, and said he would appeal the decision. (Councilors Cari Miller and Kevin Kelly were absent).

In other business:

Councilors got yet another update on the city’s ongoing struggle to get Praveen Khurana to clean up the burned-out site of his former Emperor of India King Thai restaurant, which has sat in ruins on the south side of Lewiston’s Main Street since a fire in December 2019.

The time given to Khurana to abate the nuisance at the site expired Oct. 1, but his attorney Gregory Rauch wrote a letter asking for another 30 days. But City Building Official John Smith said any work done at the site so far has been superficial, and even potentially detrimental to public safety because of its low quality.

Councilors therefore directed staff to take steps by their next meeting toward having the city clean up the property. Those included finding out whether the city’s insurance will cover its legal fees for any court action; determining the approximate cost of abatement to know whether the city will be required to request bids for the work; and requesting documentation from Khurana about his claim that delays have been caused by problems securing construction materials.

The council will consider its course of action after reviewing those materials at its Oct. 25 meeting.

Mills may be contacted at jmills@lmtribune.com or at (208) 310-1901, ext. 2266.