In January, a Yamhill County judge ruled that four current and former members of the Newberg school board purposely violated state public meetings law in 2021. Now, a recent filing by the plaintiffs’ attorneys lays out just how much of a monetary impact that violation could have on the defendants and the school district.
In a word, massive, and could potentially grow larger.
The law firm representing the seven plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit in the case submitted a statement for fees, costs and disbursements in Yamhill County Circuit Court on May 17. They are seeking $370,118 for the work of three attorneys and one paralegal over the course of more than a year in representing their clients, all Newberg residents.
The plaintiffs filed the civil lawsuit in 2021 on allegations that then-school board Chair Dave Brown, former Vice Chair Brian Shannon, former board member Renee Powell and current board member Trevor DeHart met outside of a public session for the purposes of hiring Canby attorney Tyler Smith as supplemental counsel.
The lawsuit argued that the four board members, and ultimately the school district itself, should be liable for reimbursing the nearly $28,000 in fees that Smith charged over an 18-month period.
Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Easterday found in favor of the plaintiffs in January, ordering the board members to reimburse the school district for payments to Smith.
The school district’s counsel, Portland attorney Robert Steringer, filed an objection to the decision and asked that Easterday reexamine the case. The four board members’ counsel, Portland attorney Chelsea Pyasetskyy, filed a similar motion.
On May 6, Easterday declined the objection, reaffirming her decision against the defendants and ordering that they pay the plaintiffs’ fees attorney fees and costs.
The plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Lake Oswego attorney Judy Snyder, said the defendants can now file a response in opposition to the statement for fees and costs. Easterday has scheduled a hearing for July 15 to hear oral arguments concerning the statement, as well as objections against it.
“The judge will decide who will pay the attorney fees,” Snyder said. “The court can order that the fees and costs be paid by the district and/or by the individual defendants, jointly and severally, meaning that they each have liability.”
Steringer confirmed that defendants’ counsels could file objections to statement for fees and costs but stopped short of commenting on the reasonableness of the charges.
“The district will address that in its objections and will not have a comment beyond that,” he said, adding that defendants’ counsel has until June 3 to submit objections.
Potential appeals
Complicating matters is the possibility that the defendants will take their argument against Easterday’s finding that they willingly violated public meeting laws before the Oregon Court of Appeals.
“I can’t speak for the individual defendants, but that is still under consideration by the district,” Steringer said.
Attempts to contact Pyasetskyy to determine if the four board members are going to appeal were unsuccessful.
Regardless, the liability of the defendants to pay attorney fees and costs will be decided locally.
“The decision (regarding) the amount attorney fees and costs will be made by Judge Easterday even if the defendants appeal,” Snyder said. “She does not lose jurisdiction to make that decision merely because they filed an appeal.”
She added that the prospect of an appeal in the case could drive up the liability of the defendants even more.
“If this case is appealed, we will also seek our fees and costs on appeal,” Snyder said, adding that “any judgement against the defendants for fees and costs will bear statutory interest of 9% per annum while the appeal is pending and until the judgement is paid.”
If Easterday’s order is maintained, it is the school district that is liable for paying the lawsuit, Steringer said, adding “Under the applicable law, the court can only award attorney fees against the district.”
However, should the district be found financially liable for the lawsuit it can under state law take aim at the four defendants.
“The district can file a claim against the individual defendants under the statute,” Snyder said. “The district may seek to recover from the individual defendants whatever fees and costs the district needs to pay as the individual defendants have been found to have willfully violated the public meetings law.”
Steringer concurred: “Under the applicable law, if the court makes a finding that a violation has occurred and that the violation is the result of willful misconduct by any member or members of the governing body, that member or members are jointly and severally liable to the district for the amount paid by the district to the plaintiffs.”
Ultimately, Snyder exhorted, Easterday’s judgement was an important one because it sends a message.
“A full award of fees may make the consequences of such misconduct known to a wider public than just the parties to this litigation, and thus deter future wrongdoing,” she said. “A full award of fees encourages government entities to take more seriously their obligations to the public and notifies them that they will eventually have to pay if they violate the public meeting laws. A full award of attorney fees would further encourage public employers to not assert meritless defenses.”
Costs of litigation inflated by defendants?
Snyder argued that the attorney fees were inflated because the defendants’ and their counsel prolonged discovery unnecessarily, for example delaying providing cell phone records and other electronic files from the defendants when asked for by plaintiffs’ attorneys more than a year prior.
“When some of those records were finally obtained, they created a road map for the methods the individual defendants had used to make decisions outside of the view of the public and by serial communications through telephone calls, text messages and emails,” Snyder said. “In addition, the defendants repeatedly represented that certain text messages were no longer available, yet then produced those very text messages.”
Steringer’s response to Snyder’s claims of delay tactics was brief: “The district will address that in its objections and will not have a comment beyond that.”
Local News
