back and forth on the blog -- Legal Advice -- two ears, one tongue

I agree that it is desired for those who are making laws and spending public money to act in competent, legal ways.

If the legal advice provided from the city's law department is suspect -- then -- we are at a cross-roads.

Here is where we (perhaps) split on our decision tree (s).

First, I feel that smart people can act in competent and legal ways without the advice of lawyers.

Second, when poor performance comes from the law department -- what outcomes should occur (next). Hire or Fire? Add or Subtract? Expand Staffing/Costs or Contract?

I understand a fact of life: The next move is NEVER the last move. So, my solution: NUKE the Law Dept's budget, (for instance) is NOT the LONG TERM -- forever -- solution.

So, back to the front of the circle. Yeah, the city needs a law department. But, not this law department. And, not two or three sources of legal advice at the same time, either.

So, who is smart enough to see what's what?

The mayor?
What council member?
What next step legislation?

Should D.Haris or J.Motznik invite Mr. Specter to the table again, (set a snare), one could object.

Heads should roll.

Self inflicted cuts would work for the people of city. If not, those who we hire (elect) to do the job of controlling the purse strings can be replaced.