Allegation of ‘secret’ meeting stirs confusion — Douglas City Council kills investigation before it begins
DOUGLAS — An allegation of a Wyoming Open Meetings Act violation caused confusion and obvious frustration at the Douglas City Council meeting last week, yet any investigation into it was effectively ended quickly when the council failed to even second the motion to look into it.
The allegation was brought to the council Jan. 12, but few facts were presented publicly, including what meeting the complaint refers to or who made it.
Contacted individually in the days following the meeting, the council members indicated they would not talk about it further.
Yet when Mayor Kim Pexton made a motion to investigate the validity of the complaint at the meeting, no one on the council seconded it.
City Attorney Mike Armstrong had suggested the investigation, but when the council members failed to second it so it could be put to a vote, the motion and investigation possibilities died.
A violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act can be either civil or criminal, under Wyoming law. A civil case is when an individual brings an allegation and files a lawsuit, but it can become criminal if the county attorney believes the government entity or official “knowingly and willfully” violated the law.
Anyone found guilty of violating the act can be fined $750, though that fine has never been assessed in Wyoming. (The Wyoming Legislature is considering a bill which would increase the penalty and make other pieces of the act more definitive and clear. An interim committee is recommending the bill for the upcoming session which starts in February.)
The statute is unclear what steps are to be taken after such an allegation, Armstrong contended to the council, and it’s unclear who would levy the fine if it were found that the council had violated the Open Meetings Act.
That created more confusion, which was visible among the council members.
Council member Matt Schmidt initially thought the matter was criminal and suggested the Wyoming Department of Criminal Investigation look into it, but Armstrong advised that the matter wasn’t criminal and DCI wouldn’t investigate.
Council member Ron McNare, appearing frustrated, pointed out the agenda item was the first time the alleged violation was brought to his attention. He added, however, that he believes the allegation is baseless.
“I think it’s a witch hunt,” he said.
When Pexton became aware of the allegation, she took it to Armstrong, she said, and she followed his recommendation to bring it before the council.
“If it’s reported to me, then I have to do the right thing, which is to reach out to the city attorney (who) advised what he thought the next steps were,” Pexton said following the meeting. “We took it, brought it to the council, and then the council opted to not move forward with it.”
Armstrong and the council members declined to provide any specifics about the nature of the allegation during or after the meeting. The Douglas Budget is attempting to reach the unknown person or persons who made the allegation to find out what meeting was in question, but the city has declined to release any information.
Publisher Matt Adelman asked anyone with information about the allegation to contact the Budget at (307) 358-2965.
“We take allegations of open meetings act violations very seriously. It is a serious breach of trust for public officials to conduct business in secret, so if there is any validity to the complaint, the public has a right to know,” he said.
“By not offering any additional information about the alleged violation, the city administration and city council are seeming to cover up something or are pooh-poohing the complaint as groundless. If it is groundless, then why not tell the public what it is about?” Adelman said.
“If the allegation ‘has legs,’ then the public has a right to know what was discussed or what was decided in secret,” he said. “That is how the distrust of government and its officials takes hold, not being open and accountable.”
This story was published on Jan. 21, 2026.