Wednesday, March 19, 2008

My comment at another blog thread

Recap: Some say we need two sets a legal advisors, not one. Then some predict that the mayor's lawyers might battle the lawyers of city council.

Then Ed also suggests that we get legal help for the ethics hearing board too. Then we'd have three.

Folks, that is a pathway to FOLLY!

When the Solicitor is being told what to do by people who are only interested in serving themselves, Council needs to

WRONG: --> have its own attorney.
RIGHT: ---> budget adjust the LEGAL DEPARTMENT to ZERO.

Purse strings is the pressure point of council.

Don't grow government by hiring more lawyers.

Get to the roots of the problems by getting rid of the lawyers we already pay for that are NOT helping the situations at hand and have hurt the city greatly in the past.

We have 1 now. The fix is NOT to go to 2 or 3. The fix is to go to ZERO.

Council is trying to put a moratorium on 'business' (no billboards). Rather, I want a moratorium on paying piss-poor lawyers with taxpayer funds. Moratorum the growing of government. Stop hiring bureaucrats. Stop hiring others to fix ills of those who should have been fired.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think I disagree with you 'in principal'.
Council's and executives need to operate with the assurance of their decisions being 'legal'.
But yeah... all the leagal 'b.s.' tends to turn into a 'running the clock' billing situation.
How about just limiting the amount that could be spent on the position? (and then, adding positions for 'everyone' would still have a fixed budget amount).
It might restrain the legal b.s., but also provide assurance to elected officals.
Just my thought