Demand letter for ‘misused funds’ sparks tensions at Woodland council

Posted

A demand letter seeking repayment of $580 in “misused funds” has ignited tensions between Woodland Mayor Todd Dinehart and members of the City Council.

During a Monday, Jan. 6 meeting, Dinehart introduced a letter into the public record, sent from the city attorney to former Mayor Will Finn. The letter, dated Jan. 3, demanded repayment of $580 identified in a recent state audit.

The state auditor’s report, published on Dec. 26, 2024, reviewed the City of Woodland’s finances for 2023. It found that former Mayor Finn made personal purchases totaling $3,965 between March 2022 and November 2023. While the city’s monitoring procedures flagged $3,820 of the personal charges, $3,385 had been recovered as of the report’s publication, leaving $580 outstanding. The demand letter and auditor’s report did not detail the nature of these purchases.

“I want it to be clear here this is not a witch hunt. This is not a Todd Dinehart thing,” Dinehart said. “This is an audit that's required, and I want people to know what we as a city and our employees are doing to correct the issues that are out there.”

Councilor Terry Hall, however, raised concerns about including the letter in the mayor’s report, arguing it could pose legal risks. He motioned to remove the letter from the agenda, but the council voted 4-3 to retain it. Hall criticized the letter for not providing detailed receipts to substantiate the claim, calling the demand speculative. Hall also doubted the adequacy of some of the purchases as being unapproved by the Council.

“When we make a conjecture like the auditor did that there was misappropriation of funds, we need to find out what that transaction was and if that is indeed true,” Hall said.

Dinehart countered, affirming that the city possessed the relevant receipts. He added that even if the council had approved the purchases at the time, they might have violated city or state law and therefore needed to be recovered.

Council member Douglas Freimarck shared his concerns that the wording was inappropriate and agreed with Hall that it could open the city to legal trouble for mischaracterizing the former mayor.

“What I'm saying is we just opened the door to a heck of a legal suit for nothing else [than] slander, misrepresentation because they use the words like ‘misuse’ and that's calling and that's calling him either a thief or that he did something illegal,” Friemark said. “I don't doubt that he might have made mistakes. I don't doubt that he owes us some money on it, but what I don't like is the tone of the letter to him that accuses him of illegal activities of … intentionally doing something wrong. That’s where the mistake was made in my judgment,” Friemark said.

In response to a public records request from The Reflector, city staff provided documentation identifying the $580 in disputed purchases. Records revealed a $144.91 transaction at Walmart that included a box of white wine, violating city policy prohibiting the purchase of alcohol with public funds. Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Gina Anderson additionally detailed other purchases made on the city’s credit card that were not reimbursed:

  • $35.20 — Burger King
  • $268.03 — Corner Store
  • $39.27 — Costa Vida
  • $92.62 — ilani Rose and Thorn

In a response letter to the city, Finn expressed concern that the specific details of the funds were not fully outlined. He also stated that he first learned of the demand through social media, after the City Council meeting agenda was uploaded. Following the meeting, Finn emailed The Reflector, explaining that he had requested his letter to the city be read aloud. However, the letter was neither included in the agenda nor read during the meeting.

“As I read through the reports and letter linked on your agenda, I see no documentation as to what the $580 represents in the ‘demand letter’ except ‘misuse.’ It is vague, undetailed, and unsupported by any evidence. Was this a one-time charge or multiple charges? Who determined what was ‘misuse’ without an explanation? I am quite confident not one of you would blindly hand over any funds without a detailed explanation as to ‘what’ those funds are being applied,” Finn wrote.