Miller, town attorney clash over recusal question tied to proposed noise ordinance

Local News X The Nashville Town Council’s ongoing work on a proposed noise ordinance took a contentious turn during its Thursday, May 21 meeting, when Council Member Lance Miller publicly challenged Town Attorney Alyn Brown over a legal memo Brown sent to the council raising concerns about whether Miller should recuse himself from future votes or deliberations on the ordinance. No version of the noise ordinance was up for a vote that night, and no formal reading was held. Council President Andi Wilson said the town was still gathering information, including responses from a public survey that remained open through the middle of the month. But Miller said there was still a discussion to be had before the council moved forward, citing a memo the council had received. “Four pages of which all basically for my recusal,” he said. The noise ordinance has been under discussion for months, with prior public meetings and work sessions focused on whether Nashville needs clearer rules for sound levels, how decibel limits would be measured and enforced, and how any new ordinance could affect residents, businesses and live music venues. The debate has been tied in part to complaints about music and amplified sound from Hard Truth, which Miller has brought up in past meetings. Miller said the issue over his possible recusal came after he sent Brown a series of questions following an April 21 work session on the draft ordinance. Those questions, Miller said, dealt with the origins of the proposed ordinance, what research had been done, what comparable ordinances from other towns had been reviewed, what stakeholder outreach had occurred and why certain provisions, including a 70-decibel standard, were included. Brown’s response, Miller said, went beyond answering those ordinance-related questions and instead raised concerns about whether Miller’s past public comments created a conflict of interest. On May 8, Miller said the town council received a 12-page memo in response to his questions, and more than four pages of it focused on alleged conflicts of interest and recusal concerns involving him personally. Miller said he believed the memo went too far. “In my opinion, this memo goes far beyond impartial legal guidance,” he said. “It reads as a defense of the ordinance and includes assertions that call into question my integrity, motivations, and ability to participate in council deliberations.” He also said he believed the memo minimized years of resident complaints by characterizing them as subjective annoyance without enough objective context. “A town attorney’s role is to provide objective and impartial legal counsel to the entire council,” Miller said. “I think it is fair to ask, would such an extensive argument for my recusal have been made had I supported this ordinance rather than questioned it?” Miller said his intent was to ask questions, seek transparency, and understand an ordinance that could significantly affect residents, businesses and the future character of Nashville. Miller then read from legal opinions he said he obtained from outside attorneys. He said one attorney, Dan Cyr, of the Paganelli Law Group, told him Indiana does not apply an “appearance of impropriety” standard to elected officials acting legislatively. Miller also read that the attorney’s research indicated Miller was not in trouble for taking a position on a matter of public interest. Miller also cited an opinion from another attorney, Jenny Meltzer, who he said previously represented a local unit of government. Miller said Meltzer concluded he did not have a conflict requiring recusal. According to the opinion Miller read, Indiana conflict rules for local officials are largely tied to contracts and purchase agreements, not ordinances, and recusal is required when an official has a personal, direct financial interest in the outcome that is not generalized. Miller said he also checked with former town attorney Wanda Jones, referring to another source of legal or governmental guidance, and said three people had told him Brown’s position was not correct. Miller said the issue felt personal to him. Brown assured Miller that it was not personal and said he stood by his role in protecting the town. Miller also said Brown had told him he had been working on the ordinance for three years, which Miller said would mean the framework for the ordinance began before Brown became town attorney. “You revealed to me you’ve been working on this for three years,” Miller said. “That’s two and a half years before you were attorney. So, the framework of this, I think, was set before you came here. And I think that should be noted.” Brown said he believed he had answered Miller’s questions and asked whether there was anything else Miller wanted answered. He said he continued to believe Miller should recuse himself, but emphasized that he was not saying Miller had committed a crime or that the town could force him to step aside. Brown said his concern was not that Miller held an opinion, but that Miller’s repeated public comments had focused on a particular business, creating a potential perception problem for the town. “My concern with that is it gives the people affected by that the perception you are using your position on this board to weaponize this board against a particular entity,” Brown said. Miller objected to Brown’s characterization, saying, “I didn’t speak out against; I gave my opinion – that is allowed,” Miller said. “I’m not saying that your opinion is not allowed,” Brown said, adding that the comments Miller has made put the town at risk for litigation. Miller asked why three other people had given him the opposite opinion. Brown said the opinions Miller cited appeared to say he did not have to recuse himself, which Brown said he agreed with in the sense that recusal could not be forced. But Brown said that did not mean there was no litigation risk to the town. “I agree that you don’t have to refuse yourself,” Brown said. “I don’t think any one of them has said that the town council is not at risk.” Miller said council members are allowed to hold and share opinions. He said he had spoken about the noise issue before he was elected to the council and was elected afterward. “So, you could even say I was elected to speak, I think,” Miller said. Miller said he had considered asking for an executive session to discuss Brown’s memo, but said he would have had to accuse Brown of wrongdoing to do that. “I have stopped short of making that accusation,” Miller said. Council President Wilson then moved to bring the conversation back toward the ordinance and the public meeting. She said the discussion appeared to be getting away from the actual noise ordinance. “I think this is maybe a conversation we can continue either in another session or outside of this meeting,” Wilson said. “Because obviously there’s still some things to discuss, still some things to work on.” Miller said he believed the issue needed to be addressed publicly because his comments had been made in public meetings and because the council needed clarity before continuing work on the ordinance. Featured Local Savings