Public may never know what happened in infamous executive session

The city of Columbus has finally released the minutes of a Sept. 27 Columbus Council executive session meeting more than 11 weeks after the event took place. Unlike in the minutes of an earlier related executive session on a series of ill-fated raises for top city executives, there is no detail of what was said.

The minutes are not subject to Open Records laws until Council has officially approved them, which took place Tuesday.

In a transcript of the earlier, Aug. 9, executive session, in which councilors discussed increasing a few executive salaries to eliminate inequities, verbal exchanges between councilors, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley and others are spelled out.

In the minutes of the Sept. 27 session, there is only a brief summary of the meeting, noting that Councilor Skip Henderson brought up the topic of the raises and that Councilor Glenn Davis asked that everyone who received a raise be asked to leave the room, and lists those who left.

On the subject of the ensuing conversation, which was reportedly heated, all that is reported is: “There was much discussion surrounding the issue of recent executive staff pay raises.”

According to documents obtained by the Ledger-Enquirer, the executive session was called to discuss litigation and personnel/compensation, which involved the raises given subsequently by administrative action to 16 of the city’s top executives and executive managers.

The raises, some of them as high as 22 percent and $16,000 a year, came about as a result of the earlier executive session on Aug. 9, when councilors and the administration discussed raising salaries for a few of the executives who were being paid less than newcomer department directors. At one point, City Manager Isaiah Hugley was told to “handle it” administratively.

But raising only a few salaries created what Tomlinson later called “an uphill domino effect,” and 16 salaries ended up being increased, going all the way up to Hugley’s. This was done without Council’s knowledge.

The Ledger-Enquirer was tipped off to the raises in late September and filed an Open Records request for all department head salaries for Fiscal 2016 and Fiscal 2017. That caused Hugley, acting through Deputy City Manager Lisa Goodwin, to email all members of council with a list of those salaries to give them a heads up.

That email was sent to council on Sept. 26, the day before the apparently contentious executive session during which the raises were rescinded and those who received them were told that they would have to pay back the amount they were overpaid during the previous two-week pay period.

The “unorthodox” Sept. 27 session, as Tomlinson called it, because the city’s attorneys and clerks were asked to leave, sparked a hot email exchange between the mayor and Councilor Glenn Davis, who questioned whether the executive session might have been held illegally and questioned the manner in which the minutes were taken and then handled and secured.

The Ledger-Enquirer obtained copies of the emails, which shed some light on what took place behind closed doors on Sept. 27.

The eight-email exchange took place between Davis and Tomlinson with all members of council, City Attorney Clifton Fay, Hugley, Clerk of Council Tiny Washington and Deputy Clerk of Council Lindsey Glisson copied. They were sent between about noon on Oct. 17 and 11 a.m. on Oct. 20.

“I am really concerned,” Davis wrote in his initial email. “There have been a lot of decisions lately that are outside a process that’s been followed for years.”

Davis wrote that his concerns were about the nature of the Sept. 27 executive session and how the minutes were handled. He asked Tomlinson, who was apparently assigned to take the minutes in Washington’s absence, if there was a third party involved in transcribing the recording of the session, and if so who was it? He also asked if any copies were made of the recording and if so asked that they be sent to the Clerk of Council’s office.

“The Clerk is the keeper/securer of all Council records,” Davis wrote. “I’m not suggesting anybody tampered with the records, but I am saying we should all be concerned how we make sure the integrity of our gov’t structure is kept.”

Tomlinson responded by reminding Davis that it was council that directed that the clerks and attorneys be told to leave the session, which set the unorthodox process in motion.

“Let’s not forget that it was you and council that sent the clerk out of the room and left no one to take minutes,” Tomlinson wrote. “Let’s not forget that Lindsey (Glisson) announced that I had to take minutes and I announced that to all of you and no one objected.”

The next day, Oct. 18, Davis said that he didn’t recall things the way the mayor did.

“As far as the executive session goes, forgive me, but I don’t remember it quite like that,” Davis wrote. “Of course, it should be in the minutes if recorded, but we asked all the employees who got raises to leave the room. Judy Thomas offered to take the minutes, and I believe everyone agreed that an audio recording would be the best way to record.

“Sorry, but I don’t recall you announcing to Council about the matter of you taking minutes, nor securing the minutes.”

The Ledger-Enquirer has asked for a copy of the audio recording of the session, but Fay said while the minutes of that portion of the meeting are public record, the audio recording is not.

Later that morning, Tomlinson called into question the validity of the executive session itself.

“Further, because legal counsel was instructed to leave the room, it was not an Executive Session in the ordinary sense, or perhaps any sense,” Tomlinson wrote. “Yes, the minutes clearly reflect everyone but elected officials and the CM (city manager) was ordered out of the room by councilors, including specifically Lindsey (Glisson).”

Later that afternoon, Davis responded by saying, “Your answers are becoming disturbing in content.”

“Now your (sic) saying you held an illegal meeting. Is that what you are now saying?” Davis said. “Even more, if the meeting was not an executive meeting then you have now violated the State ethics rules.”

Davis then asked Tomlinson to answer three questions:

Who did she use to transcribe the recording, who else had copies of the recording and when can councilors pick up copies of the minutes/recordings?

Tomlinson responded the next morning by saying that Davis’ “tone and accusations are misguided and wholly inappropriate.”

“First, in Columbus, like in many governments, we have separate but equal branches of government,” Tomlinson wrote. “As the head of the executive branch, I do not work for you. You are a part-time district councilor and I am a full time, countywide elected official: we have separate duties and authorities.

“If you would like to confer with me or engage in conversation, fine, but your emails are completely out of line.”

She repeated that it was council that changed the nature of the meeting when it ordered so many people out of the room, including the city’s attorneys.

“The administration has only tried to accommodate the circumstances created by that act,” Tomlinson wrote, adding that changing the nature of the meeting did not make it illegal. “The compensation portion of the meeting is not illegal, but it is not privileged.”

Later that afternoon, Davis responded, “Not sure what is bothering you. And I’m not sure what your (sic) trying to communicate, but I think we would agree that part of your responsibility is to run, conduct and govern over all Council meetings, to include executive sessions.”

Then he laid the problems between them in the exchange at Tomlinson’s feet, accusing her of not clearly answering his questions.

“If you read our email conversations, it seems you just dance around the questions, or spin the conversation which is quite confusing and frustrating,” Davis wrote. “But that doesn’t bother me cause we are all accustomed to such practice over the years.”

Tomlinson responded the morning of the 20^th by telling Davis there was no third party involved in the transcribing of the minutes. No one unfamiliar with the players’ voices and the subjects at hand would be able to adequately do the job. So Tomlinson herself began transcribing the tape herself, using a common cassette tape player in her office, she said.

But some legal research by Fay and Sheftall soon made her efforts unnecessary, Tomlinson wrote.

“It became clear that there were no legal grounds to have concealed the discussion from Lindsey or Tiny due to the lack of privilege and their roles as clerks,” Tomlinson wrote. “I stopped my work on the transcript at that time and the tape was tendered to the clerk’s office to handle in their normal course.”

Turning to the questions Davis had sent earlier, Tomlinson said they were “based on several errors.”

First, the tape itself is not a “legally required record” that is required to be harbored by the clerk.

“The minutes as approved by council would constitute the official minutes and those must be kept with the clerk.”

Then Tomlinson brought up Davis’ contention that she was intentionally avoiding giving straight answers.

“As to your repeated insult that you believe I am untruthful (that I ‘dance around’ or ‘spin’) your lack of understanding of a clear communication of fact and law does not rest on me,” Tomlinson wrote.

Further, Tomlinson wrote that by copying so many people in his emails, including unelected lower level workers, Davis was putting some workers in an uncomfortable position.

“You make accusation to the whole list, then Clifton and I have to respond to the whole list to make sure those accusations and errors are refuted,” Tomlinson wrote. “You must be aware of how inappropriate and demeaning your accusations are. Elected or not, no one should create this type of work environment.”

Finally, Davis sent another email thanking Tomlinson for answering his questions and apologizing for any misunderstanding that may have taken place in the exchange.

“Lastly, I am sorry that you feel like I have been demeaning or accusatory in my previous emails and will assure you that was never my intention,” Davis wrote. “I have no desire to create any issues for any of the people involved in this issue and would hope that we can put this behind us and move forward …”

This story was originally published December 16, 2016 at 7:24 AM with the headline "Public may never know what happened in infamous executive session."