|
Re: Response to question of hiring outside legal council to defend issues involving Councilwoman Rutherford
 10/24/2007I draw the line at the spending of potentially large amounts of taxpayer’s dollars on expensive outside attorneys – and I certainly hope that the City Council has not contracted for more than a single hour of their lawyer’s $250 per hour consultation fee. As this issue began to unfold a few weeks ago, there were a number of individuals – myself included – who attempted to work between the various interests to try and resolve things with a minimum of confrontation. Unfortunately, when the Council acted preemptively, matters accelerated and the desire to minimize conflict and confusion became more problematic. The issue of legal residence is rather common in jurisdictional elections and court decisions have been mixed. We have seen it come up from time to time here locally. A very similar situation involving the recent election of a new Mayor in Birmingham, Alabama is currently working its way through the system. I have always maintained that I was fully aware of Ms. Rutherford’s claim of a voting address for purposes of her council service and assumed since she had adequate legal advice on the matter that it met the necessary tests. Although I respect our city attorney’s recent opinion regarding the characteristics of Ms. Rutherford’s situation, the fact remains that the courts might still have ruled in her favor. In any event, the deciding of the issue would have involved a protracted and expensive legal battle which would have been at best a diversion from what we were elected to do. Court costs would quickly exceed any cost of employee benefits for Ms. Rutherford. For this reason (and perhaps ill-advisedly for my personal well-being) I injected myself into the fray and attempted to find a compromise to settle the matter so that we could move on. Most importantly, Ms. Rutherford’s legal residence has been open public knowledge since before the last election. It has been the subject of conversations both serious and not so serious throughout the term of this administration. It was well known by members of the City Council, the city attorney, some representatives of the media and (I can say with particular knowledge since I live in District 6) by a wide swath of her constituents. Ms. Rutherford even had a Christmas party at her Hemphill address last year and everyone was invited – so the evidence is clear. I can understand that it may not have been a matter of particular interest in other parts of the city, but to claim that Ms. Rutherford’s residential arrangement was in any way a secret is simply not true. Again, it was open public knowledge. Perhaps more significantly, the legality or illegality of Ms. Rutherford’s voting residence situation has never been determined – although almost everyone has an opinion. The point is that for the Council to react with mock horror at this stage and pretend to have just discovered the issue is a bit disingenuous, to put it kindly. For the Council to reject all compromise solutions and act in a preemptive fashion to strip Ms. Rutherford of a common retirement benefit three days short of an important anniversary is, at best, spiteful, small and mean. At worst, it is personal and vindictive. Once again, let me state that I have often clashed with Ms. Rutherford, but fair is fair. She has been a very busy member of the council and – like her or not – no one should say that she didn’t work hard and attempt to represent her district. Her attendance record at committee meetings and council meetings (better than many of her critics) bears witness to her serious intent to serve. She is also constantly meeting with neighborhood groups and special interests within the Brainerd community. With apologies to pet lovers and to Ms. Rutherford, I confess that I have sometimes used the term “pit bull” to describe her approach to the job – and not in a totally complimentary fashion. Having attempted to resolve the Council’s family feud in a less confrontational manner, I have been pummeled in the process. Political life imitates real life. So be it. Even though I do not believe that the Council’s action to isolate a single individual and withhold benefits that have been earned by ten years of service - except for three days - would pass legal muster, I will not hire expensive outside legal council to defend the issue. Ron Littlefield ###
|
|
