Monday, May 12, 2008

Editorial: In the Public Interest

"They have a personal financial interest in this," Dowd said of the four, noting that Pittsburgh's Home Rule Charter states that council members must refrain from voting on proposed legislation in which they have a "personal or private interest." (Trib, Jeremy Boren)

Although Patrick Dowd filed his appeal as a private citizen, he was sued by Lamar Advertising both as a private citizen and as a member of Council.

So either Lamar either didn't understand the distinction, or it took Dowd's actions as initiated only because he is a member of Council. A reasonable assumption, if nothing else about the lawsuit was reasonable.

Now. Because of concerns that Dowd's appeal would be rejected by the Zoning Board of Adjustment due solely to lack of standing, Ricky Burgess, Bruce Kraus, Bill Peduto and Doug Shields joined the appeal as members of Council. In so doing, they basically carbon-copied the work of Dowd's attorney and affixed their names and titles. Then they hired an attorney, as their position would need to be defended.

For their efforts, they also were sued by Lamar Advertising explicitly as members of Council.

##

Once Lamar went after these five Council members as Council members, with a real lawsuit in a real courtroom, they are entitled, right or wrong on the merits, to be represented at the city's expense.

If one disagrees with the courses of action taken by any of the five, that is why we have elections.

It makes no sense to demand that city officials sued in their official capacity must either shell out for their own legal representation, or submit to the will of their accusers. Such a system would lead to weak leadership and to shoddily served residents.

In this case, it is lucky that the four did not turn tail and run from Lamar's attempt at strongarming. It was only after the five were sued on bogus pretenses that Hugh McGough, the attorney contracted by the four, sprang into action in his own right -- counter-suing Lamar Advertising in federal court.

It was obviously this maneuver that caused the belligerent advertising company to withdraw its own charges, and submit the electronic billboard to the ZBA and the Planning Commission in fantastically short order.

A stickler for process, Dowd objects that Council should have voted to retain counsel on this matter beforehand. Would Councilman Dowd have supported such a measure? Would Mayor Ravenstahl have signed it? One would have to ask them, though we suspect they would have recommended that the four seek aid from the City Law department.

Would the City Law department have opted to take Lamar Advertising to federal court, threatening to file attendant motions of discovery? The question scarcely survives its statement.

##

An immaculate process might have seen Council voting to retain a lawyer beforehand -- but any hope of a pristine process was shattered by an up-is-down, black-is-white ruling by a city Zoning Administrator, and by a well-financed corporate interest assaulting those who dared to protest it with the encouragement of the mayor. To retroactively sanction this attorney's activity would not be any high crime or subversive wickedness -- it is a simple judgment call.

In short, there never was a "personal or private interest" at stake, and it should not be interpreted so. Attorney McGough did the taxpayers of Pittsburgh a considerable service in defending their rights to due process, thereby avoiding the establishment of onerous precedents that might apply to any neighborhood and on many issues.

He deserves to be paid for it, and no council member deserves to suffer for it personally.

9 comments:

  1. Could it be that Dr. Dowd is just miffed that he is no longer the point person on this, or that there are no solo headlines? Good job Hugh!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dowd misplayed his hand it seems. Good post Char,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not right. The premises in the posting is wrong.

    Once the members of council were sued, there would be no need to have a vote. There would be no need to get approval from Luke Ravenstahl either. As a matter of regular procedure, as a budgeted item, the law department would defend (or subcontract for representation of another lawyer to defend) the members of council.

    So,,,.

    The posting says: Dowd objects that Council should have voted to retain counsel on this matter beforehand.

    Right. Any move by "council" needs to be approved "by council." You can't act for "council" without having the authority to do so.

    You can, however, act as a citizen and act as an employee of the city. Fine. Each member of council has a misc. fund. Each member has a 'staff budget' too. They can spend those dollars as they wish, without a vote of the body. It is budgeted.

    Blog asks: Would Councilman Dowd have supported such a measure?

    Such a measure is what's vague. Dowd acted. His support is obvious. He didn't act to spend money that was NOT his to spend.

    Blog asks: Would Mayor Ravenstahl have signed it? "IT" is "what?" Ravenstahl would not need to sign off any thing, especially a tad of paperwork. Silly question, really.

    Question on the blog: Would the City Law department have opted to take Lamar Advertising to federal court, threatening to file attendant motions of discovery? The question scarcely survives its statement.

    The Pgh Law Department has made a lot of people rich by going to federal court, frequently. Frankly, they don't shy away from a fight. From the 'bubble bill' to the 'Garden Theater' to the parking lot in Panther Hollow -- we've got a rash of over-reaching by the law department.

    I'm not going to predict what the Law Deptartment would or would not do.

    That isn't the real question at hand however.

    Those that demand process should be followed for others need to uphold those behaviors for themselves.

    And, those that keep the purse strings can't be dipping their own fingers into the purse to pay for whatever they want paid, without the necessary process.

    Dowd is 99% correct.

    The missing 1% was his vote to 'abstain' rather than 'no' on May 8. But that is a prelim vote.

    Motznik is 100% correct on this too.

    Wonder what Tonya Payne will say?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark, you always manage to contribute to a thought-provoking discussion, but city council absolutely has the right (the obligation!) to spend the public's money in the public's interest. If they do not do so in this case, it is very likely that this kind of corrosive, antisocial corporate behavior will be encouraged into the future, rather than very roundly discouraged.

    "The Pgh Law Department has made a lot of people rich by going to federal court, frequently. Frankly, they don't shy away from a fight. From the 'bubble bill' to the 'Garden Theater' to the parking lot in Panther Hollow -- we've got a rash of over-reaching by the law department."

    Ah, but in none of these cases was it going up against a close friend, contributor, and borderline co-conspirator of its boss.

    As to your question of what it is EXACTLY Dowd and Ravenstahl would have been hesitant to sign on to -- I am suggesting, anything at all, though each for their own different motives.

    I do not equate the terms "outside of ideal procedures" with "obviously inappropriate" -- and I CERTAINLY don't equate the zoning administrator's ruling with council's efforts to oppose it. One is being voted upon in an open public discussion, the other was a backroom deal that ran counter to plain English. Your efforts to equate the two simply because they both involve the word "procedure" strike me as the result of a Libertarian agenda to use any pretense to prevent public funds from being spent.

    If you continue to maintain that council's action to pay this bill is unjustifiable, you yourself are welcome to sue to prevent it -- though I do not think that case would go well.

    Finally, I *certainly* don't see anyone as dipping "their" fingers in anything for something "they" want. They get nothing out of this. If you dislike that things got a little adventurous and improvisational, your truck is with Lamar and with Pat Ford.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course city council has the right and obligation to spend the city's money on public interests -- IF -- the public process was followed.

    Here, with that $11,000 bill, the public process is/was not followed.

    It is corrosive if each council member does what he or she wishes -- in the name of the council -- and especially -- with the checkbook of the city.

    Lamar is a corporation in Louisianian, not a close friend. And, if a conflict of interest was in doubt, the city law department would and could have hired an attorney.

    How in thw world can you suggest that Dowd would be hesitant to sign on to anything at all when he acted first. Dowd led. And you think he would hesitate? Or, do NOTHING?

    Bram, that is twisted.

    Bram wrote: "Your efforts to equate the two simply because they both involve the word "procedure" strike me as the result of a Libertarian agenda to use any pretense to prevent public funds from being spent."

    You'd be wrong again.

    Procedure is a concept, more than a word.

    No need to "sue" about the $11,000 bill for the private attorney. Just file a two-part complaint to the Pgh Ethics Hearing Board. Likewise, that has low expectations of bearing fruit.

    Bram: "Finally, I *certainly* don't see anyone as dipping "their" fingers in anything for something "they" want. They get nothing out of this. If you dislike that things got a little adventurous and improvisational, your truck is with Lamar and with Pat Ford."

    WRONG again.

    Only a pea head see things in a black-and-white (or us vs. them) world.

    FWIW, that sign on a public building should not be built without a public bid process. That's my truck.

    Try this: Those in favor of the payment for the four which goes against 'proper procedure' are in favor of Lamar and the sign and ZBA's permit for the same reason. Neither are about best practices and PROCEDUES / PUBLIC PROCESS.

    Don't beat Lamar and the scum that fills this city by pulling a page from their playbook.

    The four hired an attorney. They wanted that service from Hugh. They should pay for it.

    After the fact -- (after the sign was built, and after the attorney's work was hired out) -- don't try to come clean with public process folly.

    Taxpayers already pay for lawyers (City Law Dept) to protect the city and workers within the city.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I posted the video of last week's meeting discussion. It is more than an hour.

    ReplyDelete