10/24/2006: "Editorial"

Myhr & Lichter Do It Again?

In a mind boggling lapse of judgment, two members of the SJC Council held a non-scheduled meeting behind a locked door on Tuesday, excluding the public, and county employees. Well, all but one county employee, anyway. When we showed up for the regular scheduled Tuesday staff meeting, we found the door to the Council Conference Room locked. Did not know the door could be locked, but went to the Council Office to find out when, and where, the normal staff meeting might be held, and was informed it would be in the Conference Room. When asked "why is the door locked?", .a staff member said "I don't know.." and then they walked down to the room, found the door locked, and knocked on the door, which opened part way, and from within Chairman Lichter announced "We will be about five more minutes".

"They" turned out to be Chairman Lichter and Councilman Myhr, who were holding the meeting with a county employee. Once the meeting ended, Lichter and Myhr emerged, and without comment or explanation, returned to the Council Office. We asked the employee "what on earth are they thinking about, by holding an illegal meeting, and then to do it behind a locked door?"

The explanation was that no county business was discussed, and the meeting was at the request of the employee, who had received some personal bad news, and simply wished to share it with the two Councilmen. Understandable; but why would Lichter and Myhr agree to, one, meet together, and two, meet in a county office to discuss a matter "not involving county business". .

When asked to meet for a private meeting, why not just say, "sorry, but we cannot meet together", the answer that it was not about county matters begs the question; and some answers only generate more questions. Why would Lichter and Myhr agree to attend such a meeting, knowing full well that it is prohibited by law, but also given that they have in the past flirted with violations of the open meetings act, as evidenced by meeting on a ferry with the opponents of the Guest House appeals; having discussions while walking up from the ferry landing to the court house together; and holding executive sessions that have been questioned as inappropriate. And now to have a meeting behind closed doors? What gives?

It cannot be easily explained. They know better, as illustrated by the contradictory and twisted explanations given about the ferry meeting, and both of them have been advised on proper procedures by the Prosecuting Attorney. Both have attended the state run class for newly elected Commissioners and Council members, during which such things are covered. And they have acknowledged the prohibition of such meetings in the past.

In the face of all of this, the only word we can come up with to label and explain such bizarre behavior is "arrogance", and a lack of commitment to the rules of conduct for the office they hold.