Big questions, few answers regarding fate of city attorney

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — There was plenty of drama regarding the future of city attorney Jacqueline Mittelstadt during a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting on Tuesday.

What was missing is something that has been in short supply since the City Council said they intended to dismiss Mittelstadt as city attorney in early September: answers.

Mittelstadt was expected to provide arguments as to why she should not be dismissed as city attorney during the council's Tuesday meeting.

And while there were hours of debate regarding how she should present here defense on Tuesday, the actual defense never came.

After one public session and two closed door sessions on Tuesday, the city council voted to continue discussion of Mittelstadt's possible removal as city attorney to their next regular meeting on Nov. 3.

No one's talking about why the city council delayed a decision, but the council's inaction indicates Mittelstadt may not be out the door just yet.

Wanting to stay

During an interview on Oct. 16, Mittelstadt indicated she would like to continue working for South Lake Tahoe, but said could very well be out of a job following Tuesday's council meeting.

There was an “expressed agreement” between City Council members not to discuss details of the matter publicly, said Councilman Bruce Grego following Tuesday's meeting.

Mayor Jerry Birdwell and councilwoman Kathay Lovell held strictly to that apparent agreement.

Councilman Bill Crawford also declined to discuss the matter because he said he didn't “want to screw things up.”

Councilman Hal Cole said the Council voted to continue the hearing on Mittelstadt's employment until November because “progress” is being made. “The reason why we're waiting is because we're making progress, not because of a bad thing,” Cole said.

The City Council hired Mittelstadt and attorney Patrick Enright in May following the retirement of former city attorney Catherine DiCamillo.

In September, members of the City Council indicated they intended to dismiss Mittelstadt because of an “incompatibility of management styles” and “work inconsistent with city expectations,” said Dick Whitmore, an attorney hired as an adviser to the council regarding Mittelstadt's possible dismissal, during Tuesday's meeting.

But those stated reasons were discussed very little on Tuesday.

Complaints by city employees

What dominated much of the discussion was alleged complaints against the city attorney's office by city employees.

Only one of the alleged complaints have been presented to city council members and their contents of the others remain unknown, Crawford said. Much of the one complaint that has been presented to the council is “bogus,” Crawford said.

The councilman accused Whitmore of “poisoning the well” against Mittelstadt by discussing the alleged complaints that have not been presented to the Council, and are not included in the stated reasons behind her possible dismissal.

Crawford also questioned why there hasn't been an investigation into the one complaint that has been presented to the city council.

“As far as I know there's been no activity to handle the complaints and come to resolution,” Crawford said. “If we had done that you wouldn't be here.”

Whitmore said he wasn't trying to “poison the well” against Mittelstadt, acknowledged the complaints aren't the stated basis for Mittelstadt dismissal and said he just wanted the Council to be aware of potential legal issues that could come up after Tuesday.

The legal issues surrounding Mittlestadt's possible dismissal surround attorney client privilege , privacy rights of city employees and how complaints should be filed, Whitmore said.

“It's more of a nature of caution than anything else,” Whitmore told the council.

Private vs. public

Also on Tuesday, lengthy discussion surrounded whether the council could hold deliberations in private after hearing Mittelstadt's defense of herself in open session.

Whitmore contended they could, but Mittelstadt disagreed.

Lovell, Grego and Cole successfully voted to have deliberations behind closed doors, with Birdwell and Crawford voting to have the deliberation in open session.

Closed session deliberation would protect the privacy of Mittelstadt, as well as the city employees who allegedly made the complaints, contended Cole and Lovell.

“This is not a courtroom and we're not judges and we're not trying a case,” Lovell said. “To have this open to the public takes away the level of privacy for those involved.”

Lovell later added that she felt her comments in an open session council deliberation would be used in future litigation against the city regardless of whether the city keeps Mittelstadt.

The often tense meeting also revealed a level of acrimony between some councilmembers.

And one point during the meeting, just as Lovell was beginning to speak, the councilwoman abruptly stopped and suggested Councilman Bill Crawford was laughing at her.

“I was making a Haiku in my mind and it was humorous,” Crawford responded, before suggesting Lovell continue.

At the end of Tuesday's meeting, the council agreed to more clearly define the city's process for handling employee grievances at their next meeting. Crawford said having a well-written grievance police would be “very helpful.”