SPOKANE, Wash. — The board of the Spokane Regional Health District released a new statement Friday morning on the controversial ouster of former Spokane Health Officer Dr. Bob Lutz.
The statement is specifically in response to an article published in the Inlander, which included a leaked email from SRHD attorney Michelle Fossum to board members regarding that ouster.
In October 2020, Lutz was called into a meeting with SRHD Administrator Amelia Clark and then-chair of the SRHD board Ben Wick. What happened at the meeting has been the subject of a nearly year-long debate. Lutz has said Clark fired him, in violation of state law which states he can only be fired by a public vote of the board. Clark has said she merely told him to resign or she would recommend to the board that they fire him.
The board did eventually fire Lutz in an 8-4 vote in November 2020. However, the questionable circumstances of the firing resulted in the Washington State Board of Health launching a preliminary investigation to determine whether any laws may have been violated.
The investigation found evidence that they had and the state board voted to hold a hearing later this year to formally review the evidence and decide whether to take action, such as potentially removing Clark from her role.
On July 29, the Inlander published the aforementioned article, saying Fossum told board members in an email on the day of the meeting in question: "Please be advised that Amelia has terminated Dr. Lutz's employment. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to her or to me, but do not 'reply all' to this email." This is further evidence to support the findings of the preliminary investigation.
KREM 2 requested a copy of the email through a public records request but the contents of the email were redacted, claiming attorney client privilege. All SRHD Board members received the email.
This week, the SRHD board voted — with only one no vote from member Breean Beggs and one abstention from member Betsy Wilkerson — to issue a statement in response to the article.
SRHD board statement
The statement makes many assertions that are either void of important context or outright false. KREM has provided the relevant context or fact-checking below.
CLAIM: “The… Inlander published an email that was protected under attorney client privilege.”
CONTEXT: This is debatable. Attorney client privilege, by many interpretations, doesn’t cover all communication between lawyers and clients. Rather, it only covers communication that is specifically for the purpose of acquiring or providing legal advice. The email in question states only, “Please be advised that Amelia has terminated Dr. Lutz's employment. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to her or to me, but do not 'reply all' to this email,” according to the Inlander. Whether or not this constitutes legal advice could quite easily be disputed.
CLAIM: “The disclosed email adds to the public’s confusion surrounding the October 29th meeting between Dr. Clark, Dr. Lutz, and then BOH Chair Ben Wick.”
CONTEXT: If anything, the email adds further clarity. A preliminary investigation contracted by the Washington State Board of Health found “facts support a preliminary finding that Ms. Clark removed Dr. Lutz as the Local Health Officer.” The leaked email is more evidence to support that finding.
CLAIM: “As reported by the Washington State Board of Health’s preliminary investigation, Dr. Clark stated that in her meeting with Mr. Wick and Dr. Lutz on Oct. 29, she asked Dr. Lutz to resign.”
CONTEXT: This is accurate to the statements Clark gave to the investigator. But the same investigation found the other people in the meeting did not have the same recollection. Lutz’s was directly contrary and Wick’s was uncertain.
CLAIM: “Mr. Wick shared his recollection… [that] Dr. Clark advised Dr. Lutz that she was moving forward with his termination and offered him the opportunity to provide his resignation in lieu of termination.”
CONTEXT: Wick told state investigators that he recalled Clark asking for resignation and that she would be seeking termination. However, investigators also said Wick told them that he recalled Lutz being placed on suspension or probation. Investigators found significant evidence that Lutz was retroactively placed on administrative leave several days later, but that that didn’t change the reality that Lutz was effectively terminated by Clark in the meeting.
CLAIM: “Statements from all three [Clark, Lutz, and Wick] have been consistent; Dr. Lutz was not terminated at that meeting.”
CONTEXT: This is patently false. Lutz told investigators that Clark said to him in the meeting, “You're terminated, effective immediately,” and demanded he leave his SRHD-issued items.
CLAIM: “Dr. Lutz’s public statement dated October 31, 2020, makes it very clear he understood he was not terminated by Dr. Clark on October 29, 2020.”
CONTEXT: Lutz’s statement makes it clear that he had not resigned, and that the SRHD Board had not yet voted to terminate him. However, that does not mean Lutz was not under the impression he had been illegally terminated by Clark; in fact, his statements to investigators indicate he clearly thought he had been.
CLAIM: “It is clear from Dr. Lutz himself, Dr. Clark, and Mr. Wick, who have the same recollection, he was not terminated on Thursday, October 29.”
CONTEXT: Again, this is patently false. Lutz has repeatedly stated he believed he had been terminated by Clark in the meeting, a notion further supported by the leaked email, as well as other evidence uncovered in the preliminary investigation.