July 23, 2024

Dear Editor,

Sometimes the most revealing City Council actions are lost in the firehose of news coverage. The Lookout (“Council Shakes Up Two Major Boards”) told us about the chaotic board and commission appointments, which another local paper described as “a disorganized circus.”

Another Lookout story (“Council Approves Three High Profile Items”) covered Bitcoin, the revived parking tax ballot measure, and the Grants Pass Supreme Court ruling.

But what about the ongoing cover-up of leaks from the Council, which have jeopardized our City and may cost our taxpayers considerable money?

I served during parts of four decades and two centuries, and it was only after the 2020 election that we ever saw illegal leaks from protected discussions about personnel, real estate negotiations, and litigation.

The first leak, in 2021, compromised the hiring of a City Manager. The public found out thanks to an open letter from one of the applicants, withdrawing because confidentiality had been breached. The Change Slate circled their wagons, and on a 4-3 vote refused to investigate.

The current leak, back on the agenda earlier this month, was documented by our City Attorney in a private email to the Council but remains more mysterious for members of the public.

Recent closed session agendas suggest several crucial issues where leaks could seriously hurt the City. Hiring of personnel is one possibility, as we’d been looking for a new City Clerk. Real estate negotiations recently have included our beloved Civic Auditorium.

Litigations discussed in closed session include district voting and a threat about a proposed ballot measure. Any one of these would be of great interest to residents, if only we knew what was leaked.

The Change Slate complains that an investigation would be divisive. Gleam Davis suggested voting just to let the City Attorney tell the public what information was compromised. Oscar de la Torre, with all the snarling charm of a cornered predator, accused her of a political attack.

Davis wasn’t asking the City Attorney to speculate on the identity of the leaker, simply that he reveal known facts. Telling the public what was leaked could have been entirely non-political, and wouldn’t have cost a cent.

Phil Brock's substitute motion instead exempted his current Council from ethics rules. How convenient.

Kevin McKeown
Retired former Mayor