EAST ST. LOUIS – Madison County board members must allow former county employee Kristen Poshard to hear 53 minutes of their executive sessions, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison ruled on Aug. 31.
Poshard claims she lost her job as chief deputy community development administrator for reporting harassment by board member Philip Chapman.
Sison listened to four executive sessions lasting about four hours in all, and denied attorney client privilege for 17 portions.
He gave the county 14 days to provide those portions to Poshard.
Disclosure will include the board’s conversations with two witnesses on Sept. 20, 2017, lasting 13 and 17 minutes.
Other portions average a minute and a half, and the shortest one lasts 14 seconds.
Poshard sued the county and Chapman in 2019.
She also sued county board chairman Kurt Prenzler and former administrator Doug Hulme in their individual capacities.
District Judge Staci Yandle set trial this Dec. 14.
Poshard’s lawyer Ferne Wolf of Town and Country, Mo., asked the county for tapes of executive sessions from August to October 2017.
The county asserted attorney client privilege, stating the board met with State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons and outside counsel John Gilbert for legal advice.
Wolf moved to compel production this April, claiming an attorney’s presence doesn’t mean an entire meeting is privileged.
Yandle referred the motion to Sison, who held a hearing in May and agreed to listen to the sessions in chambers.
He listened in June, held a hearing in July, and issued his order in August.
“It is evident from a review of the tapes that the presence of Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Gibbons at these sessions was to provide the Madison County Board with legal advice regarding the termination of Ms. Poshard’s employment and the consequences of potential litigation that may result from such a decision,” Sison wrote.
“These sessions, however, did not simply involve questions directed to the attorneys from the members of the Madison County Board.
“It also included debate and discussion among the various members based on the legal advice and recommendations made by the attorneys.”
He wrote that members spoke freely about the advice and attorneys interjected and corrected them about misconceptions that arose.
“If the attorney client privilege did not attach to such discussions, the protections of the privilege would be meaningless,” Sison wrote.
He applied privilege for the most part but not for underlying facts.
He wrote that members directed questions and comments to Prenzler and Hulme.
“The responses of Mr. Prenzler and Mr. Hulme contained underlying facts regarding the termination of Ms. Poshard that the court believes are not protected by the attorney client privilege,” Sison wrote.
He wrote that board members directed questions and comments at two witnesses regarding their interactions with Poshard.
“Even though attorneys were present, these communications were not directed to any attorney present nor were such communications designed to solicit or obtain legal advice or opinions,” Sison wrote.
A December trial remained on Yandle’s calendar as of Sept. 1, but she planned to hear a motion to continue it due to the virus on Sept. 2.
She vacated a September trial in a separate case last month due to the virus, and set it in February.