JG Excerpt:Why does the city have a city attorney? The city council represents the top of the power pyramid under city manager/council style of government. In city matters, the city attorney must represent and advise the council against all others excluding the people.
Loasching said the council was unaware of the need to send Sheiffer a notice of intent to terminate. The council assumed it would simply buy out Sheiffer’s vacation and sick days and release him from his contract, she said.
JG Excerpt:The current city attorney and his assistant can no longer be trusted to protect the vital interests of the city and should be fired immediately for neglecting to inform the city council of their legal duties and requirements to fulfill any resolutions and negotiate in good faith.
The council hired its own attorney, and the two attorneys negotiated the eventual agreement.
Janesville's form of government needs to be revamped.
4 comments:
Why fire the city attorneys if you think the system needs to be revamped? Since they're just doing their job in a broken system.
Good question.
Not quite, because Janesville's governmental structure and by-laws are weak, they are subject to a wide range of legal interpretations and opinions.
On Monday during a meeting, the city council asked the city attorney about whether changing the manager/attorney/council relationship requires a change in the city's charter. The attorney advised that it did. Why didn't the attorney reply, "I can't advise the council on that issue, you'll have to seek legal council elsewhere - I don't work for you." That did not happen.
So the city attorneys are obligated to advise and represent the council on city matters. Sheiffer's employment contract/retirement falls under that umbrella.
The problem seems to stem from the idea that the city attorney has a conflict of interest by representing the city against his former/current boss. At some point they must have recused themselves from representing the council, but when they did, they implied favors are owed and patronage influence – which opens up another bag of worms. This is where their fiduciary responsibility, professional oath and a high level of trust should have come into play when the council was required to give notice of termination. The attorney(s) failed to do that. Oddly, Sheiffer’s attorney did not fail.
Thats a reasonable explanation in defense of your perception, but the city attorney represents all sides, so you can't have him work under one against the other, under the same umbrella. That's probably why the council had to get their own attorney.
I won’t argue that. Because the city attorney represents everyone - he represents no one - during litigation or negotiation between parties under that umbrella. That is precisely why the process is/has been broken. At some point they recused themselves, probably when they received the June letter from Sheiffer's attorney, but not before.
But that still doesn't excuse them from examining the contract and advising the council on protocol. Remember, the attorney works for and represents the CITY. Would he need orders to examine the contract? Possibly, but who controls him? The council or the manager? This is where the attorneys failed to protect their prime responsibility - the city’s interests.
Post a Comment