UPDATE: June 3 at 10:15 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Council unanimously voted against a settlement agreement with Councilman Al Merkel.
Merkel and his lawyers presented the agreement following accusations that he violated city social media policies.
The council members argued that Merkel violated the Public Records Act. However, Merkel’s attorney contended that the statute does not apply to his client.
Merkel expressed his reaction to the decision, stating, “Yeah. I guess I just feel, not surprised. I mean, you know, the council, again, clearly had a right path. They knew what they could have done because they chose to do this. You know, it’s just going to mean the lawyers win. That’s the only people that win from this. And the public, meanwhile, we’re going to get defunded, public safety and all kinds of other issues as a result of wasted money.”
The case is now set to proceed to court, with a hearing scheduled for July 18.
SPOKANE VALLEY, Wash. – The ongoing legal dispute between the City of Spokane Valley and Al Merkel centers on the Public Records Act.
Merkel’s proposed settlement includes five key provisions that could resolve the issue. The first provision requires the city to dismiss its case against Merkel with prejudice, preventing future claims. The second provision involves appointing an “independent master” to determine which of Merkel’s Nextdoor posts are considered public record. The city would be responsible for covering the cost of this independent master, as stated in the third provision.
According to the fourth provision, Merkel would only be required to produce the social media posts deemed public record by the independent master.
Finally, the city would reimburse Merkel’s attorney fees.
The Public Records Act is central to this dispute.
Attorney Michael Hines explained its significance: “The public records act is a state law that directs government officials when they’re communicating about government affairs, that they preserve those records so the public has access to them as a check on government conduct.”
Patrick Kirby, representing Merkel, disagrees with the application of the statute to his client. “The public records act that they’re suing under does not provide anywhere that a public agency can sue one of its employees or public officials. They have completely invented a cause of action against Al Merkel that doesn’t exist,” Kirby stated.
Hines, however, maintains that the law applies to Merkel.
“It applies to them. He is violating them. That’s why we have a law attempting to get a court order to require his compliance,” Hines said.
The initial lawsuit arose from allegations that Merkel posted City Council information on his private Nextdoor account. According to the Public Records Act, all information discussing official business must be preserved.
Hines explained the potential legal implications: “If he doesn’t preserve these communications… there is nothing to produce.”
Merkel’s lawyer stated, “Al will cooperate if the independent master determines that his records constitute public records. But Al has not violated the public records act.”
The city remains firm in its stance. “Eventually at the end of the day… we believe we are entitled to and desire a court order compelling Mr. Merkel to comply with state law,” a city representative said.
Voting is set to take place at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night.
