“No matter the veracity of the allegations against Ms. Hanagan, in order to preserve the perception of impropriety in the recall process, the Court finds it appropriate to replace Ms. Hanagan as designated election official.”
“Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion and removes Adrienne Hanagan as special designated election official.”
Court Order May 28, 2021.
Here is the full document:
Here is the motion filed by Jeff Baker and Alex Plotkin (and supported by Karen Morgan) which the Court granted:
Motion to Modify Court Order Appointing Adrienne Hanagan Designated Election Official
How did we get here. As with many stories there is a beginning, middle and end.
In short, the meeting on Tuesday evening, May 25, 2021 was perhaps one of the most clarifying meetings so far. With the help of persistent questioning by Karen Morgan and two solid motions by Alex Plotkin, along with the carnival antics by the folks running the recall campaign, the Green Mountain community got a good look at what is really going on.
Here is the tape of the meeting.
1. The Beginning
The first item was to issue a request for proposals soliciting bids by Title 32 attorneys to provide Title 32 advice and counsel on operational issues.
Not litigation. Counsel Timmons would remain as counsel to handle the remaining portions of the litigation.
No extra cost since Counsel Timmons would be free from having to deal with (and bill for) the day to day legal obligations.
That motion was made by Director Plotkin beginning at 1:03:10. After prolonged and contentious discussion, it was passed on a vote of 3 -2.
The discussion at 1:10:50 began a very contentious phase where Counsel Timmons falsely accused her own client in public of “destroying documents” (1:13:07) and again falsely accused her own client of violating the open meetings act (beginning discussion at 1:21:50 – 1:24:20).
If it wasn’t clear before, it is now clear that Counsel Timmons is in an irreconcilable conflict with her own client.
No board member destroyed documents and the open meetings act says nothing about board packets or second readings for motions. Nothing.
Here, again is the Open Meetings Law:
relevant excerpt:
“. . .The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body’s first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible.”
full text:
The RFP for Title 32 counsel had been discussed on several prior occasions and a vote on the issue was obstructed several times by Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons. They tried again Tuesday. But it finally reached a decision by 1:54:00.
Throughout the discussion, Counsel Timmons aggressively argued that another attorney handling the day to day Title 32 issues related to the operation of the district would be a “distraction” to her running the litigation.
What has become also increasingly clear is that what Counsel Timmons means is that having another attorney directly accountable to the board, and not her, is a threat to her ability to completely control the board’s actions. This became clearer with the next two motions.
2. The Middle
At 1:54:39 Director Karen Morgan addressed the departure of co-counsel Scott Gessler. The following discussion between Counsel Timmons and Director Morgan revealed that Counsel Timmons asked for Scott Gessler’s resignation – it was her decision; not Mr. Gessler’s.
The discussion begins about 2:02:00 where Director Morgan is thanking Mr. Gessler for his help and expresses concern that his resignation was “requested” by Counsel Timmons without permission of the board – the client.
During the course of the discussion, Counsel Timmons falsely accused Director Morgan of making a false statement to the public (2:03:10). Then the statements in a letter and a conversation revealed that, in fact, Counsel Timmons, not Mr. Gessler and not the Board, “asked” Mr. Gessler for his resignation.
Through the following 5 minutes (from 2:03:10 to 2:08:52), Director Morgan, fighting interruptions from Counsel Timmons and Director Hanagan, simply tried to make the obvious point that the Board, not Counsel Timmons, is responsible for making the hiring and firing decisions about who is going to be legal counsel for the board.
Finally, Counsel Timmons disclosed that she has had a complete breakdown in loyalty and trust to her own client and is using her position to openly obstruct the majority of the board as well as attack the board and support the recall her own client:
The discussion begins to focus at 2:10:53 and by 2:11:40 Counsel Timmons complains that her client is being very “ungrateful”, “pathetic”, is “tormenting” counsel, is “bullying” counsel, and is making counsel feel “marginalized”.
Counsel Timmons finally declares that she deserves “a lot better treatment”, is “disgusted” and states that Director Morgan’s punishments for these transgressions is: “YOU ARE BEING RECALLED”.
“YOU ARE BEING RECALLED” – as if to say, to her own client, “that is what you get for daring to question my bills for over $500,000”.
Counsel Timmons then continues to taunt her own client “go for it”. “Give it a go”. Try to question my billings. Again as if to say, Adrienne’s friends are going to recall you for trying to review my billings – “go for it”. “Give it a go”.
At 2:19:51, Counsel Timmons declares with no uncertainty:
“You are trying to lower my [billing] rate. Thats what you are doing.
THAT IS WHY THERE IS A RECALL ON YOU PEOPLE.
THAT IS FOR SURE”.
So, according to their own legal counsel, a majority of the board is being recalled to stop the majority from reviewing legal counsel’s bills, which are now over $500,000.
This is a problem at so many levels. The board cannot continue to function with counsel who is no longer representing, and is openly hostile, with her own client.
Predictably, Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons teamed up to conclude that Director Morgan’s motion to reaffirm the billing schedule based upon the only engagement letter, “was out of order”.
Director Hanagan, reinforced by Counsel Timmons, literally refused to allow a vote on Director Morgan’s motion. “TOO BAD”, DECLARED DIRECTOR HANAGAN. “I AM THE PRESIDENT” “THIS WILL NOT BE VOTED ON” (discussion 2:20:18 – 2:27:10.)
3. The End
The third motion was made by Director Plotkin to appoint Sue Blair as the designated election official for the recall and to direct Counsel Timmons to file a motion asking the Court to modify the Court order appointing Adrienne Hanagan as the designated election official for the recall process.
You may remember that Adrienne Hanagan’s supporters have filed a recall petition against Mr. Baker, Ms. Morgan and Mr. Plotkin.
The Court appointed Adrienne Hanagan and the petitioner’s had Ms. Hanagan sign the following:
There is an obvious conflict of interest having Director Hanagan approve the petitions, decide whether or not the signed petitions are sufficient under the statute and then have Director Hanagan rule on any disputes – all required by the recall statutes.
In response to Director Plotkin’s motions, Counsel Timmons defended the recall committee and Director Hanagan by again attacking the majority of the board.
(discussion 2:27:26 – 2:58:19)
The Board’s own attorney abused her position and authority by trying to threaten her own client with contempt for filing a motion to modify and correct an obvious conflict of interest.
“You can’t change a court order” “You can’t file a motion to modify the court order” “There is no conflict of interest” “You need to get your own lawyer.” “I will not do this” “It is an illegitimate motion” “YOU WILL BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT” “YOU CAN’T REVERSE A COURT DECISION” “YOU CAN’T DEFY A COURT ORDER.”
To her credit, even Director Hanagan confessed that being a DEO “was completely new to her” and she didn’t know what to do.
Counsel Timmons argued vehemently that Sue Blair should not be the DEO, but it was somehow ok for for Director Hanagan to “hire” Sue Blair to “help” Director Hanagan. At board expense.
Have Sue Blair working for Adrienne Hanagan. That wouldn’t be a conflict.
All of this is from Counsel Timmons who is giving legal advice on how the board members have no right to modify the Court Order appointing Adrienne Hanagan as the DEO when Counsel Timmons has already explained that she supports the recall in order to protect her “job” as counsel to the district.
Counsel Timmons has no difficulty refusing to represent the majority of the board members but at the same time more than willingly representing and supporting one director against the majority.
Mr. Plotkin’s motion was never voted on.
And all the while, the leaders of the recall taunted and made fun of the majority directors while the elected directors tried to address these issues:
Christopher Arlen and Brenda Bronson playing “air violins” as Director Plotkin spoke
Christopher Arlen laughing at Director Plotkin.
Speaks for itself.
Speaks for itself.
Speaks for itself.
Speaks for itself.
Devon Neil enjoying a good laugh at the Directors – her sign “there is no conflict of interest” referring to Director Hanagan supporting the recall of her colleagues, refusing to allow votes on their motions and, at the same time acting as the designated election official.
Possible it appears that some people would think that is “funny”.
So, back to the very beginning of this story. Abandoned by the Board Counsel who continued to represent Director Hanagan. Acting as their own attorneys. Directors Plotkin and Baker, with the support of Director Morgan filed a motion to modify the Court Order and
were not found in contempt of court,
did not defy a court order,
did, in fact, modify and reverse a court order
and Director Hanagan is no longer the DEO because of the obvious “perception of impropriety”.
Counsel Timmons was wrong. And she deliberately used her position and misinformation against the board majority to protect Director Hanagan, protect the recall committee and obstruct the board from doing the right thing – eliminating the obvious conflict of interest in handling the recall proceedings. She did what she has been doing for a long time now – taking sides against a majority of the board.
The Court has directed the Board of Directors to provide an affidavit from Sue Blair stating her willingness to serve (as she has before) and providing a copy of her resume. The Court will then consider appointing Sue Blair as the DEO.
Once the new DEO is appointed, the recall can start over, without the “perception of impropriety.”
And, perhaps, the Board of Directors will retain local counsel who does not have an open and declared conflict of interest with a majority of the board.
John Henderson