City Attorney, David Lohman’s Early Retirement
Mr. Lohman did not simply retire. We find ourselves in the position of hiring a new city attorney because of statements made by the mayor to and about Mr. Lohman that created a professional conflict of interest leaving him no alternative but to resign. Because of these actions that have led to our City losing a critical person on our staff leadership team, it is imperative that we understand the events leading up to his resignation.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On April 25 of this year, Mr. Lohman sent an email message to the mayor and Council to address some procedural issues in order to help our meetings run more smoothly. He sent a set of five established meeting procedures that might have helped us in the previous meeting, and his summary of the recommendations presented by ICMA’s Pat Martel to Council. He also identified several procedural uncertainties that are not addressed in Robert’s Rules of Order or the City Code. Then he asked if we would favor having a future agenda item to address those uncertainties.
Mayor Akins (and Council BCC) -
In reviewing my notes from last Tuesday’s Council meeting, it occurred to me that more closely following certain common meeting procedures found in Robert’s Rules and reiterated in AMC 2.04 might have made the meeting run smoother. So I have taken the liberty of summarizing in the first attachment to this email 5 established meeting procedures that might have been used to good effect if observed in the 4/20/2021 meeting. See what you think, and use them as you think best.
In addition, several procedural uncertainties that are not specifically addressed in Robert’s Rules or City Code would be useful to get Council agreement on in order to avoid future misunderstandings. If Council is interested – and can find time -- another iteration of the Council Practices and Protocols finally approved by Council in early 2020 (Resolution 20-03, which is attached) could clarify Council procedures not already detailed in Robert’s Rules, AMC 2.04, or Resolution 20-03. Such an initiative would respond to many of the recommendations made by ICMA’s Pat Martel in her 4/19/2021 Zoom presentation to Council on the City Manager form of government. (My summary of key recommendations from that presentation is the third attachment to this email.) Resolution of at least the following procedural uncertainties that surfaced in 4/20/2021 Council meeting would seem to useful for furthering Council comity.
· What should be the procedure for voting on items pulled from the consent agenda?
• What should be the procedure for vetting and approving applicants to fill vacancies on City commissions?
• What should be the procedure for dealing with perceived lapses of civility or respect?
• What wrap-up should occur when an agenda item is not concluded with a motion (for example when the final decision will be made at a later date)?
• What should be the procedure for ensuring that directions to staff not formalized in ordinances or resolutions are clear and are supported by the Council majority?
• Should Council routinely follow the normal sequence of the ten stages of a standard agenda item? (Staff presentation > Councilmembers’ clarifying questions > Open public hearing (if required) > Public testimony > Close public hearing (if opened) > Motion and second > Deliberation, possibly with additional clarifying questions > Restatement of motion by Mayor (or Recorder) > Vote > Statement of vote outcome.
Please let me know whether you would favor having a future agenda item intended to supplement Resolution 20-03 with agreed-upon answers to the above questions –or to other pesky procedural questions.
Dave
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
In response to this message from Mr. Lohman, Mayor Akins on April 26, wrote the following email:
Dave,
We have Ashland Municipal Code which guides us and which I follow.
It’s quite clear under Mayor’s duties that I may run the meeting and am tasked with keeping order. That includes the consent agenda, liaison and commission appointments. I have no ambiguity in that role, nor should you.
Under the context of the established rules your questions would appear to add confusion where there need be none. I’m also concerned that you’re advising legally against the adopted AMC. That feels out of your lane, perhaps provably so. I’ve furnished council with the AMC involving these items and your email appears to subvert council rules.
If y’all want to undermine the office of mayor, that will affect all who follow. If you’re trying to thwart the will of the people, launch a recall and take your chances.
At this point, I consider these behaviors as part of a pattern of harassment.
Is that the intention?
Julie
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
In response, on April 26, Mr. Lohman’s sent an email response to Mayor Akins.
Mayor (with BCC to the six Councilors) --
Your email below misreads and misstates the intent of my email yesterday. I was attempting to fulfill the Parliamentarian role assigned to me by City Code. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure issued in 2012 by the American Institute of Parliamentarians contains a useful synopsis of that role:
“The parliamentarian should be alert to any problems that are developing and advise the presiding officer on proper procedures.…The parliamentarian is responsible for seeing that no procedural details are overlooked, for anticipating procedural strategy, and for being certain that all parliamentary requirements are observed.” Pp. 269-270.
--Dave
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mayor Akins Posts
Soon after, Mayor Akins posted on social media the following:
I have sent copies to everyone, including the city attorney who is now also suddenly confused.
The other person in the conversation commented “Sounds like you need a new City Attorney.” To which Mayor Akins responded and I quote, “ Well, we’ve lost most lawsuits, our insurance has skyrocketed, the past mayor called him his consigliere and I believe we have yet another lawsuit coming – at least one.”
This comment infers that Mr. Lohman was the cause of these issues even though that is not the case. Our City Attorney is not the trial attorney in litigation against the City. That is handled by our insurance company. Our insurance has not skyrocketed because of lost litigation, but even if it had, that wouldn’t be in the City Attorney’s purview. And, our City Attorney has nothing to do with whether someone decides to sue the City.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Conclusion
The relationship of the mayor and council to the City Attorney has elements that are different from other members of our staff. The mayor and council are the City Attorney’s client and as such, the City Attorney is required to protect the City’s legal interests. By accusing him of harassment, advising legally against the adopted AMC, and attempting to subvert Council rules, Mayor Akins put Mr. Lohman in the position where defending himself could put him at odds legally with the City of Ashland. He could not protect the City’s legal interests while defending himself against public criticism by an elected city official. This created an intractable professional conflict of interest, one that could only be solved with his resignation.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On May 5, Mr. Lohman sent the following resignation letter to the mayor and Council:
I have reluctantly concluded that for both professional and personal reasons the most sensible next step for me is to exercise my option to retire. In addition to detailing the schedule and steps of his transition and speaking highly of his colleague, Assistant City Attorney Katrina Brown, Mr. Lohman made the following statement:
I have had the rare good fortune to be able to spend ten years working to help make my hometown even better. And I feel profoundly lucky to have been able to work with and for some truly exceptional public servants. I wish all Ashlanders could see up close as I have the dedication and professionalism the majority of city staff and elected officials bring every day to the job of making this town safe, healthful, and vibrant. Thank you to everyone who has made this stage of my career possible and fulfilling. I leave with hope that the friendships made here will endure.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mr. Lohman served the Ashland community with integrity and distinction for ten years prior to his resignation.