Would an onsite city attorney
protect the interests of Safford?

By Aimee Staten
Managing Editor
Published on Sunday, November 1, 2009 1:49 PM MST

Maybe it would help the Safford City Council to have an onsite city attorney. Then again, maybe it wouldn't.

According to City Manager David Kincaid, Safford has a separate attorney for its water litigation with Thatcher, a separate attorney for its litigation concerning the demolition of the tent house that was located in Colonial Village #4 and a separate attorney to handle any litigation concerning its electricity issues. He said the city's insurance company is paying for separate attorneys for the city and Green in a $4.3 million lawsuit filed by Van Talley and to handle the $10.2 million lawsuit filed by Exeter President John Wilmot.

That's five attorneys — not counting the prosecuting attorney.

The biggest argument for having an onsite attorney has little to do with attorney salaries and everything to do with protecting the city before an issue becomes litigious.

We understand the councilors who are concerned about the council’s making decisions that could result in lawsuits. The problem is if the city has one on staff, will the votes to follow his or her advice be there?

If the mayor had heeded the counsel of former City Attorney Johnny Guthrie, it is possible that there would not now be lawsuits seeking more than $15 million in damages.

Of course, then we have to decide which opinion we like best: the one Guthrie gave after investigating the matter of Green's conflict of interest in the Exeter Development Commerce Park matter or the one he gave right before he headed into the sunset with a hefty severance agreement after only working for the city for five months.

The former stated the mayor had a definite conflict of interest, and the latter — saying there was only a perception of a conflict — was first publicized in a letter to the editor in this newspaper.

Before that, the mayor read in open session a letter regarding the potential lawsuit that former City Attorney Garn Emery had said shouldn't be read.

Mayor Green expressed his displeasure at Monday's meeting with Safford's previous two city attorneys and said they didn't work for him or the council but only the city manager. Actually, the city attorney's job is to protect the city's interests, not the interests of the council or members of the council.

So here's the question: If the council leadership disregards the advice of counsel even when they are there, what good would they be except possibly as witnesses to the blatant disregard the mayor has for their opinions?

Recently, two long-standing local business owners who have supported the city in various ways, including economically, felt slighted by the council for its actions that could have been avoided had an attorney been present at a work session or council meeting, according to Councilor Richard Ortega.

An option not mentioned during the meeting would be to hire a part-time, in-house local attorney that would save all of Malloque's quoted overhead fees and have a much smaller salary, most likely in the $60,000 to $75,000 range.

The attorney would then be present to handle any questions during Safford's semimonthly meetings and any sporadically scheduled work sessions while still devoting the same number of hours per week to city business as Sims does. The local attorney would handle his own secretary, office space and other legal expenses.

Print this story Email this story Post A Comment

Comments

9 comment(s)

Bury your head in the sand some more wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:29 AM:

" Bashing Aimee isn't going to fix our City problems. She is only a reporter, doing her job. Doing it well. Some people try too hard to make these articles personal, and they are not. It is simply a report and whether you like it or not, it has to be done. Seems like when we get real honest reporting, some people can't handle it. Rather bury their heads in the sand some more. Stick to the Obits or Classifieds if you can't handle the news. "

Small Town thinking wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:20 AM:

" This City absolutely, without question, needs a committed City Attorney that is here for the City full time. Not having a full time attorney at the City's disposal will inevitably create distress for this City eventually. Furthermore, the decisions being made by the Council of late are inexplicably making this town seem smaller. I thought the whole idea was to create a growing town. It keeps getting smaller by the day. I feel as if we have taken 2 steps forward and 20 steps back. Let's get it together before this town is a ghost town. Seriously. "

PimaTwo wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:32 AM:

" It's very simple. All these lawsuits either frivoulus or justified were not filed by LOCAL attorneys. You can't fight the outsiders from within. Why do you all think this is?
A good trial attorney can pick all these lawsuits apart very easlily as you will all see. Love em or hate em the atttornies are pro's at what they do.
Safford is very justified at hiring GOOD council for all of these. Just watch and see.
Even the Courior Staff get things wrong sometimes. "

Roadrunner wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:41 PM:

" Silence Dogood,
Do you, or have you ever had a friend or spouse who appears to have selective hearing and find that you have to repeat yourself after finding yourself giving a monologue?

That is the same effect this editorial had on you. This same analogy can be applied to our Mayor, & City Council toward the previous attorneys. "

Dont be naive wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:58 AM:

" This editorial is about prevention. Silence, you are being purposefully naive because if you really read the editorial, you know she said the city attorney was needed to prevent these situations from becoming lawsuits. "

Actually wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:53 AM:

" No Silence Donogood, Staten is correct in saying preventive measures could have prevented such actions. To go with your Dr. analogy, if people quit smoking, they would be less likely to get cancer and need a specialist. If the mayor and council listened to past advice from the city's previous attorneys, they would be less likely to find themselves in a situation where a specialist is needed. Is that too hard for you to comprehend or what? Do you realize what that makes you look like? "

Silence Dogood wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:25 AM:

" Are you serious. Ms. Staten dares to write about a situation, yet puts it into the context that Safford hired all of these lawyers in error, instead of hiring one lawyer. The problem could be that a couple of these lawyers came into play when existing lawyers had no expertise in the fields involved. By Amiee's standard she would recommend that a person shouldn't hire a nerurosurgeon for a complicated surgery, no, people should just hire a general practioner and expect that doctor to take care of every situation. Dumber than dumb. "

Roadrunner wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:52 PM:

" Didn't know we had Geniuses on Safford City Council.

Green & Malloque are the most intelligent & frugal Council people I know. We save money by hiring 6 or more out of town attorneys instead of hiring just one right here. They also know how to succeed in Business. Start many & close them all while ripping off your fellow business owners. Sounds like great Business Managers, huh? "

PimaTwo wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:02 AM:

" It's apparent that the Couriour Staff did not consult any attorneys before writing this editorial. They must not have had any lawsuits filed against them. That's how it is in a small town enviornment. There's only money in some places folks. The City, County, State etc... and of course some selected few folks that live around.
Keep up the good work Couriour and I can't wait for the articles after all these lawsuits get to court. "

WRITE A COMMENT

READER COMMENTS
* Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

* Be relevant. Keep your comments pertinent to the story that is being discussed.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All reader comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Eastern Arizona Courier is not liable for messages from third parties. IP addresses can be subpoenaed and your identity established by individuals who have been hurt by your comments.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity: You can be prosecuted for identity theft.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in www.eacourier.com reader comments represent the individual's own views and not those of the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Courier does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than Eastern Arizona Courier spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!