City taxpayers will cover an $11,000 attorney bill incurred by four Pittsburgh council members in their battle with Lamar Advertising if yesterday's first vote -- taken after a testy debate -- holds up in a final tally Tuesday. (P-G, Rich Lord)Testy may well turn titanic.
Councilman Patrick Dowd, who also challenged Lamar and paid a lawyer from his own pocket, said council shouldn't pay "after the fact" for an expense it never voted to authorize.
The several nuances of his position were effectively lost on the other council members, who had been caught up in a rapidly escalating war with the administration and its allies.
Councilwoman Darlene Harris joined the members who incurred the bill in voting to pay it.
Any more of this, and they'll have to reassign seats.
"I was sued for $2 million," Mr. Peduto said. "And you're telling me I shouldn't hire a lawyer?"
Typically, one does not pay out-of-pocket for legal expenses that one incurs on the job. The question is, did the foursome have to play their hand in the way that they did? Or was their hand forced by administrative and corporate malice?
At any rate, we believe this all a good argument for council activating § 310. A., and retaining in the future a humble attorney for the purposes of securing independent, timely and routine advice, and official or unofficial representation as necessary. A vigorous government can expect to have its share of intramural squabbles. Why pay retail?
Missing from the P-G account is the effect of Dowd's decision to be content with Lamar's agreement to send the LED billboard through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission -- while taking a pass on the golden opportunity to subpoena records of contacts between Lamar and the administration. Which might have been illuminating.
##
Weather permitting, crews will hoist UPMC's giant letters atop the Golden Triangle's tallest structure this Saturday. (P-G, Edit Board)
See, we already have one Fordian artifact being erected on Grant Street. One should be more than enough.
##
Speaking of all of the above, those who would be troubled by $11,000 going down the tubes due to legal tussles with Lamar would be apoplectic at the prospect of missing out on 14 months and $134,000 worth of planning and zoning expertise. Yet that may be the cost of the paid leave requested by Pat Ford and granted by Mayor Ravenstahl, while we await the outcome of a State Ethics investigation also undertaken on Ford's recommendation.
Ford's lawyer questions whether even a 2 month "preliminary" inquiry will be necessary, due to the nominal nature of the gifts.
The Comet, which is in agreement that a surround-sound system does not seem a major scandal make, continues to wonder how then our rather vanilla inquiry resulted in a hastily-arranged confessional to the Tribune-Review, followed by a dismissal, a temporary suspension with paid leave, and a State Ethics inquiry all within 27 hours -- and all arranged at Pat Ford's request?
There has got to be more to this story. There has got to!
Pat Ford worked with more than Lamar.
ReplyDeleteThe more I see Dowd on Council the more concerned I become. This guy has the markings of a looney tune.
ReplyDelete"Council should legslate not litigate."
That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Missing from the P-G account is the effect of Dowd's decision to content with Lamar's agreement to send the LED billboard through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission -- while taking a pass on the golden opportunity to subpoena records of contacts between Lamar and the administration. Which might have been illuminating.
ReplyDeleteThat is the key point here. If you are truly trying to eliminate the corruption, why would you take a pass? Hmmmm....
From past statements, Dowd seems to take a narrow view of his role on council -- legislate not litigate, nor investigate, et cetera. The other four members seem more excited to act as "jacks of all trades" as necessary.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there is a chance that Dowd is correct on at least one particular ... the city code appears to forbid entering into a contract as a council without a vote by council to approve it. When the four hired an attorney, it appears they should have held a vote on it if they had intended council to pay for it.
A vote which would have failed, because Dowd had no interest in being joined, and the remaining four had no interest in pursuing the case at all.
But the way things unfolded, it appeared council was reacting to a rapidly unfolding situation ... which on occasion they must do ... so paying now seems to be a matter of ends justifying means. And of the ability to harness five votes retroactively, which it appears they are able to do.
The ability to react to dynamic situations in real time is another reason I am in favor of council keeping a solicitor on retainer, or taking a similar measure. I don't know what the contract with the Fantastic 4's attorney looked like, but let's say council DID vote to approve the appeal to the ZBA ... upon getting sued by Lamar, would they have had to hold another vote to let the lawyer proceed with defending them? And so on down the line? Sometimes the legal activity resembles 3-dimensional chess, twisting and turning on a given day.
An interesting sideshow in this long running Lamar main event is Hugh McGough. The attorney for the Lamar four,McGough is a former city solicitor who resigned,I believe, in late 2007.Until that time,McGough was a good soldier for the Ravenstahl Administration.There will be at least 5 Common Pleas Courts seats open in the spring of 2009. McGough's resignation from the Solicitor's Office was a prelude to running again;he ran unsuccessfully in 2007.His embrace of the Lamar 4 will make it hard for him to secure the very important party nod for the judicial seat.Luke will see to that.
ReplyDeleteHold the phone.
ReplyDeletePatrick did NOT take a narrow view. Hell, Patrick filed well before the other 4 late arrivals did. Patrick was the pioneer here.
The other 4 followed Patrick's lead in actions -- but -- NOT in prudence.
I want 'limited government.' That is exactly what Patrick delivered.
The others went hyper on the spending. The others refused to go through the process in terms of getting legal representation from the Law Department. And, how ironic, it was 'process' that pushed the 4 spenders in the first place.
Typical Grant Street folly from Shields, Kraus, Peduto and Burgess --- spend first, ask questions later.
Motznik was on the right side of this too.
Peduto was getting sued for $2-M. Fine. Peduto blinked. Take it to the council. Then the council can act on the conditions -- before spending money.
Kraus, Peduto, Burgess and Shields are WRONG. Dowd was 100% correct. He taught them a lesson and they still have the opportunity to fix their ways.
Those funds, $3K each, should come from the 'slush funds' of each of the council members.
To be honest, I feel that the funds for the bills should come from the PACs or personal pockets of each of the council members. But, I'd settle for the funds from the offices of each council member.
ReplyDeleteDowd paid for his own representation. The others should do the same if they want to be quick to spend what they do NOT have the approval to spend.
I didn't mean narrow as a perjorative -- when I re-read that I actually thought to myself, "I should have written 'scrupulously' narrow."
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you say "the others refused to go through the process in terms of getting legal representation from the Law Department," I had to chuckle. That's like asking the crocodile to give you a ride across the swamp. There's also the question of whether the requirment of going into pocket to foil BS would have a severely chilling effect on anybody bothering to foil BS at all.