Investigation finds four Evanston City Council members violated Open Meetings Act

EVANSTON — Four Evanston City Council members have been found in violation of the Wyoming Open Meetings Act following an investigation by City Attorney Mark Harris.

The violation occurred, Harris concluded, when the council members agreed to support a letter criticizing Mayor Kent Williams and declaring the four have “no confidence” in the mayor.

One council member communicating with another – or even with several others individually – isn’t necessarily a violation; however, in this instance, decisions were made by correcting and revising the letter. Therefore, even though the four council members did not meet together, they made public decisions together — without the rest of the council and without the public’s knowledge.

“This act is made to ensure the public has a right to know and be part of the process,” Harris said.

Harris began investigating following an August 20, 2024, council meeting in which councilmembers Jesse Lind, Jen Hegeman, Mike Sellers and then-councilmember Tim Lynch expressed vocal support for and agreement with the letter read by Lind.

Hegeman, at the time, said she sought advice from an attorney with the Wyoming Association of Municipalities, and then reached out to Lind, Sellers and Lynch separately concerning a vote of no confidence in Williams.

Those communications, however, included comments concerning the letter Lind read in the August 2024 meeting, which Harris said violates Wyoming statute.

Harris told the Herald that, after that meeting, he had set up time for individual interviews with the four council members. He said he asked Hegeman three times to meet with him; she declined all three times, once because she was sick.

Harris said Sellers declined after two invitations.

Wyoming’s Open Meetings Act states, “The agencies of Wyoming exist to conduct public business. Certain deliberations and actions shall be taken openly as provided in this act.”

Wyoming Statute 16-4-403 states, in part: “Communication outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among the members of an agency, shall not be used to circumvent the purpose of this act.”

Both Lynch and Lind met with him and told Harris that a violation did not occur, as the four did not have sequential communication.

However, after reviewing the emails and phone communication between the four council members, Harris concluded that the “four council members, a majority of the council, used sequential communications to agree on a joint statement to be read during the comment period of the Aug. 20, 2024, council meeting. The communications constituted a deliberation and were made in contravention of the OMA. Councilor Hegeman sequentially contacted the other three council members telephonically and via electronic mail to obtain a consensus about what ‘action’ would be taken and by whom. Agreement was obtained on the content and manner of delivery.”

Harris said the four council members made no attempt to consult him, as he represents the council in legal matters, regarding the content, procedure or effect of the action.

The matter was not placed on the agenda so the mayor, other councilors or the public could respond.

No one except four councilors had any input into the formulation, content of and procedure followed, Harris said.

A motion was not made, and no votes were taken, and it was brought up in the portion of the agenda where no votes are taken anyway, he said.

Harris said the violation “reflects the perils associated with conducting sequential deliberations not taken openly.”

The civil penalty for a violation of the OMA is a $750 fine per individual.

Harris said it will not be himself but the city council members — excluding the four who violated the OMA — who will decide if they want to levy the penalty, though he said he doesn’t recommend sanctioning the council members.

This story was published on March 12, 2025.