Members of the Wellington Village Council directed village staff Tuesday not to release two transcripts from closed-door sessions discussing the Equestrian Sport Productions and Jacobs family lawsuits.
Council members voted 4-1 to withhold the transcripts. Because one lawsuit is still pending, council members said they did not want the litigants gaining an advantage. Councilwoman Anne Gerwig was the lone dissenter.
“We have rules we have to work within,” she said. “I think if we step out of those guidelines, we may be taking a risk.”
The issue stems from several attorney-client closed-door sessions where council members met with legal staff to discuss the lawsuits surrounding the Equestrian Village project.
“We did have a request for transcripts of shade sessions for any sessions in which the various Far Niente/Equestrian Sport Productions, Solar Sportsystems and any of the other litigants surrounding Equestrian Village were mentioned,” Village Attorney Laurie Cohen told council members. “Most of those cases have been resolved. There is one pending case.”
Two of the sessions involved the discussion of as many as seven cases at one time, and Cohen said it was difficult to separate discussions of the closed cases from the one still pending.
“One of the issues I was considering, was because the majority of those cases had concluded, do we release the transcript, or do we redact the information that addresses the one remaining lawsuit,” she said. “In reviewing the transcripts, it really is not possible to separate that out.”
But, Cohen said, it wasn’t likely that the discussion would hurt the village’s arguments in the pending case.
“I don’t think there’s anything in those transcripts that would in any way compromise our position in the pending litigation,” Cohen said. “It’s my recommendation we go ahead and release those transcripts.”
Gerwig asked if it was up to the council to decide whether to release them. Cohen said, ultimately, it would be a court decision, as current statutes require municipalities to release transcripts when cases have concluded.
If the council chooses not to release the transcripts, Cohen will have to file an action to get the court to rule on the matter.
“The argument to release them would be that we took the risk when we combined all of that discussion into one shade session,” she said. “Once a majority of those cases concluded, we were going to go ahead and disclose all of the discussion that occurred.”
Wellington might not have to release them if the court agrees that the issues were too intertwined to be discussed separately, Cohen said.
“The counterargument would be that everything is inextricably intertwined,” she said. “It wouldn’t be possible to separate out the discussions on the one lawsuit versus the others. I don’t know which way the court would decide that issue.”
Cohen said she spoke with the state attorney general’s office and did not find any legal opinions or cases that addressed the issue.
“At the end of the day, when you read the transcript, I don’t think that there’s anything there that would negatively impact our position in the lawsuit,” she said. “I recommend that we release it.”
She also noted that Wellington could be on the hook for attorneys’ fees should the village lose in court.
“If court rules against us, we may end up paying attorneys’ fees for the requesting party,” she said. “I don’t think there is anything particularly necessary to keep close to the vest at this point, but if the council wants to use this as a test case, I’m happy to do that.”
Councilman Howard Coates worried that Wellington might set a precedent that could harm the village.
“The only concern I have is setting a precedent that puts a noose around our neck in the future,” he said. “This won’t be the last time we’re going to have multiple litigation matters with one party or another. I don’t want the council to be unable to discuss those items at one shade session, where we can look at things from a global perspective. Otherwise we’d have to talk about each individual case and we wouldn’t be able to talk about the global perspective of how they can be resolved.”
Since Wellington is first reviewing the transcripts to be sure nothing could harm its legal defense, Cohen said she didn’t think it was setting such a precedent.
“This decision would be based on the review of the transcripts and that we don’t believe there’s anything in there that would be damaging,” Cohen said.
Coates, also an attorney, pressed her on the issue.
“I just know what whatever we do on this, it’s going to come back to bite us at some point,” he said.
Cohen said she thought there were bigger issues to be concerned about. “I think there will be other battles in the future that will be more worth fighting, but that’s your decision,” she said.
Councilman Matt Willhite also believed Wellington would be setting a precedent. “I believe everything we decide to do sets a precedent,” he said.
Willhite said discussing all the cases at once was necessary to come to a resolution.
“When we went to mediation, we all looked at the global aspect to try and resolve this,” he said. “It’s going to be impossible for us to talk about any individual case without it impacting the other. It was a village-wide issue we were talking about.”
Further, he said that should any information in the transcripts benefit the litigant, Wellington would have to pay attorneys’ fees to defend itself. “I take into consideration the cost to defend something should there be something in there that benefits them,” Willhite said. “We have to weigh all costs into whatever decisions we make.”
Vice Mayor John Greene agreed.
“I would say let’s test it,” he said. “I think when we go into these shade sessions, we have this liberty and freedom to speak about these things. Anything we say could benefit one party in another matter. We have to go into these sessions knowing we can speak freely without giving any party something that can support them.”
He made a motion not to release the transcripts, which passed 4-1 with Gerwig opposed.
What happen to transparency. Once again smoke and mirrors. They want us to be death,dumb and blind to our villages games to the common person. Lets get back the peoples control.
The Mayor needs to have better control over public speakers at Council meetings. At the latest meeting, former Mayor Wenham spoke for 3 minutes and then afterwards interjected himself again and took control; commenting on another matter.
The Mayor certainly wouldn’t allow frequent speaker, Bart Novak, to do this. Why is he letting Tom Wenham do so?
The same rules should apply to everyone. No special previleges for a few and not others.