An investigation into four Palmer City Council members, including Julie Berberich who is up for re-election on Oct. 5, has found that their participation in a private Facebook group likely violated Alaska’s prohibition against elected officials meeting in quorum to privately discuss matters they are empowered to act on.
The report, which was obtained by the Watchman, was conducted by attorney Scott Brandt-Erichsen and sent to Palmer City Manager John Moosey on Sept. 15. In addition to Berberich, the investigation involved actions taken by City Council members Brian Daniels, Sabrena Combs, Jill Valerius.
The report notes that the four elected officials were all members of the private left-leaning Facebook group, Mat-Su Moms for Social Justice, an association of 350 members that controls who has access to the group. The group advocates for far-left political and social issues such as critical race theory, community oversight of police, mask mandates, Black Lives Matter protest marches and more.
At the Aug. 24 city council meeting, Mat-Su resident Mike Coons raised concerns about council members engaged in the private online group. The city council then directed City Manager John Moosey to hire an independent investigator to look into whether the four council members violated Alaska’s Open Meetings Act.
Investigator Brant-Erichsen reviewed more than 100 screen shots from the Facebook group, which included dozens of conversations on matters the city council had authority to act on. This includes posts about mask mandates, police oversight boards, voting by mail, open seats for local boards and commissions and more.
While Brant-Erichsen was unable to view the Mat-Su Moms for Social Justice page directly, the screen shots revealed at least two instances in which all four city council members in question were either discussing or “liking” comments that directly pertained to mask mandates and board vacancies. Many other posts showed at least three members discussing public policy matters.
Brant-Erichsen said there is “no real question that the exchanges on Facebook” were “not made with notice of the date, time, place and location of a meeting” as required by the Open Meetings Act.
According to Alaska Statute, a meeting by a public body is considered a “a gathering of members of a governmental body when more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present and a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act.”
Brant-Erichsen focused in on two instances in late 2020 which he said raise serious concerns. In late October 2020 there was a Facebook thread about a proposed mask mandate being pushed by the four council members. The full city council later took this issue up at a Nov. 8 meeting which generated considerable public opposition and was ultimately rejected after multiple nights of extended and passionate public outcry.
“I believe that a court would find that the discourse in the Facebook group with a quorum of the city council members participating, even if not fully debating the public policy issue, constituted a meeting under the OMA (Open Meetings Act),” Brant-Erichsen concluded. “Further, I believe that a court deciding the issue would find that the lack of public access and notice for that meeting violated the OMA.”
He added that subsequent full consideration of the mask mandate over several public meetings “remedied the violation.” He also observed that it has now been more than 180 days since the violation took place so it would be “too late to challenge the validity of the action based upon an Open Meetings Act violation allegation.”
The other instance involved an Oct. 15 Facebook discussion on filling vacant boards and commissions, a specific duty of the city council. While this post included likes and comments from four council members, Brant-Erichsen said it was “less clear” whether this was an OMA violation because he could not identify whether any actions were brought up for a vote.
Violating Alaska’s Open Meetings Act through private online groups is new legal territory, Brant-Erichsen observed. That said, he believes a court would find that some of the actions by Berberich, Combs, Daniels and Valerius violated state law.
“The courts in Alaska have not addressed the issue of whether a person posting a social media comment or just a ‘like’ on another person’s comment constitutes consideration of a matter,” he said. “Where one or more council members does not make any comment other than posting a ‘like’ it may be argued that they are not engaging in any collective consideration.”
Brant-Erichsen warned, however, that courts in other states have found violations of similar open meetings laws when a quorum was present even if elected officials were not “actively engaged in the discussion” but merely participating in “some level of discourse on the issue of public policy that is being presented.’”
Here he cites a 2018 Michigan case and a 1985 Alaska Supreme Court decision, Brookwood Homeowners v. Municipality of Anchorage. The Alaska Supreme Court said a “meeting” includes “every step in the deliberative and decision making process when a governmental unit meets to transact business,” Brand-Erichsen stated. Applying the two cases, he said there is a “substantial likelihood that the Alaska courts would follow this reasoning” and find that the Palmer City Council members did, indeed, break the law.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
In conclusion he said the council members’ Oct. 2020 online discussion “raise serious concerns about OMA compliance” and that it “appears to have violated the OMA.”
The investigator recommended council members “not participate in communications by social media, e-mail or otherwise where a quorum of the council is included in the communication” and they are privately discussing matters they have authority to act on. Doing so, he said, poses “several risks,” including breaking Alaska law and the danger that local residents could file recall petitions against council members.
“The Alaska Supreme Court has held that compliance with the [Open Meetings] Act is a duty of office, and that violation of that duty is sufficient grounds to form the basis for a recall petition,” Brant-Erichsen concluded. “If allegations are properly made in a petition, the voters would be the judge of whether, in fact, the acts alleged constituted an OMA violation.”
Several Palmer citizens filed recall petitions for the council members in question. While the first petitions were rejected on technicalities in September, they have been refiled and are awaiting approval by the city clerk’s office.
READ THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
17 Comments
Thank You Mr. Davidson EVERYONE of them must be run off!!!!
GOOD!
They all should be fired and punished to the full extent of the law.
I always thought that more than 2 pulling aside in private like they were doing was considered a Conspiracy.
I could be wrong.
And you could be right, Ekim! Though I don’t make the rules, it seems only common sense to consider a “like” a committee support vote.
This is another reason why Leaders shouldn’t be using social media tools. The use eventually adds to them trouble they can’t undo and wish they never did.
They can use social media without breaking the law. People do it every day.
These aren’t “people”; they’re council members. You see the difference but don’t want to.
Hopefully their feet are held to the fire. The most infuriating thing about this is that it’s a huge story. But because of all the other garbage going on in Anchorage, it was getting buried. The collusion to avoid the report coming out before the election was pretty obvious too…to anyone who was paying attention. The spin job these people and their supporters have been doing on Facebook the last few weeks has been nauseating. Let the cards file where they lie. It would be nice to see some accountability from those who unethically conducted themselves. But we never really ever see public officials take ownership of their mistakes. You can’t grow if you don’t acknowledge what you did.
I wonder how long these four members have lived in the Palmer area. There probably from Portland or Anchorage. Trying to influence the normal god fearing people of Palmer, We can control this town and have power if you join us. Be on the cool side
(the woke bull crap) side.
Vote out are recall these Moms for social justice
The group advocates for far-left political and social issues such as critical race theory, community oversight of police, mask mandates, Black Lives Matter protest marches and more.
ALL of this is stupidity
They should all be fired immediately.
By law, that takes a recall, Butch.
where are the signatures being collected for the recall?
By this logic, every elected official under the open meetings act is in violation strictly for being on Facebook or on social media. Stop attacking the first amendment and stop these stupid recall elections. They are a waste of money and not what the founders of our state and country wanted.
The founders of our state? Um, OK. But were they not the ones who wrote the recall law in the first place?
So, FreedomLoving, you’ll sit behind your fictitious name. Too cowardly to come out of the closet, in a manner of speaking? You know what they’re up to and you’re supporting their subversive activity.
Following rules and laws are for the little people, not big important bosses like elected officials. Or as my dad used to say just before a quick backhand, “do as I say, not as I do”!
Thank you Mr. Davidson. We need to run them out now, before they move into higher office with more influence.
Jill Valerius I thought you were a doctor? What about following the rules and all that? Are you trying to get into the lying cheating politician category? Some people would say you are well on your way. Congrats!