Colman City Council Minutes -- For What They're Worth

I was hoping I might get a little insight on the Colman City Council's actions in May and June regarding their newly hired and quickly fired police chief Matt Schlueter. Alas, the Colman City Council is a little slow on the Internet uptake. Their official city website offers a link to Council minutes, but as of this morning, the only minutes provided are from the Council's April 9, 2007, meeting.

As a public service (and in the spirit of open government that is sweeping the state), I am thus happy to post copies of the Colman City Council minutes from May through July. For those of you who prefer not to download a 7.3 MB pdf file, here are some highlights:

May 14: Council hires Schlueter for $29,000. (Wow! That's less than some teachers make!) Not exactly the sort of grand sum that could convince a decent man to continue illegal practices for the benefit of the city.

June 11: While folks appear to come and go during meetings, Police Chief Schlueter comes and stays for the whole meeting, through all the zoning, payroll, and other non-law-enforcement issues, waiting for the discussion of police department issues, which the Council appears to like leaving for the end of the meeting.

Schlueter suggests getting a video camera for the patrol vehicle. The council tells him to look into getting a camera and a bulletproof vest. They also approve purchasing ammunition for Schlueter's firearms certification. The council at this point apparently still feels Schlueter is doing a good enough job to keep him safe and trust him with bullets.

The only mention in the minutes of the speeding-tickets issue is this one sentence: "City fines on SD Hwy 34 through Colman was [sic] discussed." Schlueter himself in private communication indicates that at that June 11 meeting, the City Council decided to handle all tickets through
the Moody County Clerk of Courts, but only with dissent from 3 of 7 council members. Not exactly eager consensus among council members on following the advice of the attorney general or even its own city attorney on how to process speeding tickets legally.

June 21: The Colman City Council holds a special session following a public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They approve a rezoning amendment from Planning and Zoning, then duck into executive session with City Finance Officer Van Duyn and City Attorney Ellingson to discuss "employee issues" for an hour and forty minutes. Ellingson leaves right after the executive session. They approve a payment and three building permits, then adjourn.

Sheer curiosity: I'd love to see the agenda posted prior to this meeting, just to make sure the executive session was listed. Alas, the Colman City Council agenda webpage doesn't have anything but April 9, either.

June 25: Another special session -- the taxpayers are getting their money's worth out of their councillors this week! The stated purpose of the meeting: "to have the Police Chief employee review." Chief Schlueter is there for the review, but, according to the minutes, "Mayor Nelson indicated other business on the agenda will be taken care of prior to the employee review." Perhaps they were worried that amidst the fuss and fire, they might forget what they originally convened to do. The council spends 20 minutes changing an order, discussing "electrical issues," and tabling a purchase agreement before diving into the black waters of executive session for 52 minutes. Upon re-opening the doors to the public, the Council declares Chief Schlueter "not a good 'fit' for the Chief of Police position in Colman and terminates him immediately with two weeks severance pay.

The minutes do not indicate that City Attorney Ellingson was present for the discussion and approval of Schlueter's firing. Maybe he should have been. If the city really could terminate its police chief without stating any cause, then why did it bother to preface the firing by stating that Schlueter didn't "fit" the position? (And what do those quote marks mean?) The statement may not weigh in any appeal of the firing (lawyers are paid to figure that sort of thing out), but the council only seems to open itself to more questions by making even a vague reference to reasons for firing when it supposedly doesn't need to give any. Attorney Ellingson might well have advised the council to make no statement, but simply to fire the Chief, per its rights, and let the matter go.

July 30: A special session to hear Schlueter's grievance. Schlueter and his attorney Todd Epp appear, but get no satisfaction. The commissioners vote to uphold the termination (unanimously, as is exceptionally noted in the minutes).

The minutes don't offer much insight into the events or rationale behind Schlueter's firing. Again, that darned executive session gets in the way of understanding what's really happening in government. Looks like if we want to know, the matter will have to go to court.

By the way, while I'm thinking about it, I notice that SDCL 1-25-2, which authorizes closed sessions for public bodies, says "Executive or closed meetings may be held," not "must be held." I've wondered: does that mean that the Colman City Council could have held its discussions of Schlueter's "fitness" for the position in open session, for the record, if it wanted to? Does that mean that when boards at various levels say they have to conduct these personnel matters in secret, they are actually stretching the truth? Legal opinion, anyone?