FAIRMONT — In spite of an investigator’s determination that city staff was not aware of the former City Attorney’s expired cases, the Fairmont City Council triad continued to press for information concerning staff statements this week.

At the council’s Nov. 25 meeting, Councilor Tom Hawkins requested the transcripts from interviews Michelle Soldo, an attorney and investigator, conducted with city staff about their awareness of the expired criminal cases from January 2012 through May 2019. The council voted on Sept. 30 to hire Soldo to handle the investigation at a rate of $155 per hour, and she submitted her findings exonerating the staff on Nov. 14.

“It was not established that city officials and/or city staff outside of the city prosecutor knew or should have known that the city did not prosecute or dismiss criminal cases prior to the applicable statute of limitations,” her report stated.

But Hawkins pushed to have transcripts of the interviews made available to the rest of the council, saying he and Mayor Debbie Foster, who had coordinated the investigation with Soldo, were already privy to additional information from their conversations with the investigator.

At the November meeting, Councilor Bruce Peters questioned the cost and necessity for the detailed transcripts so Foster offered to find out the cost.

Foster reported that Soldo sent an invoice for $4,131.86 for the investigation which, when combined with attorney fees of $145 per hour in the matter, ran the total cost to about $10,500.

Soldo estimated a cost of $800 to $1,000 more if she were to provide transcripts of the interviews, which she was averse to do. She cited three reasons for not providing the transcripts: relevance, timelessness and added cost, and witness concerns regarding retaliation.

“My report dated Nov. 14, 2019, includes all relevant information witnesses provided on the central issue of witness knowledge regarding the former City Attorney’s progress in criminal cases,” Soldo wrote in a letter to the council via the city’s interim civil counsel, Flaherty & Hood. “In regard to timelessness and cost, drafting witness summaries will add to the time and cost in completing the investigation that will not change the findings. Finally, there is a concern for information that witnesses candidly shared when asked to cooperate fully might not be reviewed favorably by decision makers and lead to retaliation.

“For these reasons, and particularly earnest witness concern for retaliation, I urge the council to accept the report submitted on Nov. 14 and not require the submission of witness interview summaries.”

“Even after reading this (Soldo’s letter), I would prefer the rest of the council see what we saw,” Hawkins said. “The mayor and I were able to know what was in those, and a lot of those transcripts were read to us. I believe that it (investigation) wasn’t a waste of time. There was a lot of information, and I just thought it was fair that all the council members have it.”

Hawkins said he could understand the witnesses’ fear of retaliation, “but I don’t know anybody here that would want to retaliate against an employee for sharing information.”

Councilor Randy Lubenow asked if the council could go into closed session and have Foster and Hawkins share the details of the information, but Erik Ordahl, an attorney with Flaherty & Hood nixed an immediate closed session because adequate public notice had not been given.

“So we voted and decided we wanted an investigation, but only one councilor and the mayor can know the findings of the investigation?” Lubenow asked Ordahl.

“Investigator Soldo already shared her findings of the investigation with the city council and the mayor in the Nov. 14, 2019, memorandum,” Ordahl said. “What Councilor Hawkins is requesting is essentially the word for word transcripts of what occurred in those interviews. What was already provided to the council was the summary of information gathered from those interviews and how it reflected on the investigation, what her findings were.”

Peters said his mind had not changed since the council’s last meeting when the subject was introduced.

“We got the results. They have been made public. There was nothing, and I don’t see any reason to spend another $1,000 to get the transcripts,” he said.

“The point I wanted to make was there was not ‘nothing,'” Hawkins said, claiming that the scope of the investigation was very narrow, dealing only with staff’s knowledge of the expired cases. “There’s a lot of valuable information that I felt it would be good for the council to know.”

He relinquished his request for actual transcripts, saying a conference call with all council members and Soldo would suffice.

“I just want everybody else on the council to hear what we heard,” he said. “That would suffice for me.”

Ordahl said he wasn’t sure if a phone conference would be the best avenue, but it was better than the council bringing up private personnel data at an open meeting. He agreed to check with a labor employee specialist at the law firm.

“Didn’t she (Soldo) say recommends not?” Peters asked.

“She did,” Foster said, rereading Soldo’s statement aloud. “I would hope that the council would listen to the recommendation of the investigator. She has been part of this since the beginning, and it’s not going to change anything. We can’t use it against people, if that is what people are thinking they want to do.”

On a motion from Lubenow, with a second from Ruth Cyphers, the proposal to postpone discussion related to the cost and need of interview transcripts until legal counsel can discuss the possibility of a closed-session conference call passed by a 3-2 vote, with Hawkins also in support. Peters and Councilor Wayne Hasek voted no.