One notable issue raised during the meeting was the conduct of a council member, identified as Brad Scott, who had been forwarding emails containing sensitive personnel data to individuals outside the council. This issue, which came to light following concerns expressed by Administrator Chansky during the summer of 2023, has been a source of contention and mistrust within the council for the past two years. Mayor Angel Zierden initiated the discussion by recounting the series of events that led to this point, emphasizing the breakdown in trust and transparency due to Scott’s actions. The situation was further compounded by Administrator Chansky’s resignation, reportedly tied to the mishandling of private data.

Legal counsel, referred to as Joe, provided detailed findings from an investigation into the email forwarding incidents. Joe confirmed that while transferring emails from a city account to a personal one is not illegal, the specific cases involved raised significant legal and ethical concerns. Six problematic instances were outlined, including four involving private personnel data and one related to attorney-client privilege. Joe noted that forwarding information about job applicants prior to their selection for interviews violated confidentiality agreements and the Data Practices Act, which safeguards private personnel data.

Council members engaged in a heated discussion about the implications of Scott’s actions, with one member reflecting on the lack of training and clear guidelines for handling public data. The member expressed frustration over the council’s failure to address the issue effectively over the past year. Another member highlighted the perceived malicious intent behind the email forwarding, stating that the issue extended beyond mere procedural errors.

The conversation shifted to potential remedies, with a notable debate arising over the suggestion of issuing a public apology to staff and fellow council members. While some supported the motion, emphasizing the need to acknowledge the harm caused, others questioned its efficacy and whether Scott would comply. One member pointed out the uncertainty surrounding the situation, asking, “What if he says no?”

One member articulated a strong sense of betrayal, noting that the situation was fundamentally a “trust issue” and expressing concern over the sharing of personal information and derogatory comments about residents and staff.

Ultimately, a motion was made to request a formal letter of apology from Scott to the staff and the public. The motion was seconded and approved by the council members. The decision to seek an apology was seen as a necessary step towards accountability, although there were divisions on whether it would be sufficient to prevent future occurrences.

In addition to the call for an apology, the meeting highlighted the need for formal training in compliance and data management. Several members stressed the importance of implementing training programs to ensure all council members understand the rules and implications of handling public data. The lack of existing training was criticized, with one speaker noting that Scott had been made aware of the data management guidelines but continued to act against them.

The meeting concluded with a consensus on the importance of moving forward with clear accountability measures and a structured training program.