I’m going to throw out a question in the hope someone more “politically astute” than I can give me a logical explanation.
Why would 2 council persons vote against paying a law firm for services rendered?
From reading newspaper accounts, and attending Council Meetings, you would think these two believed “Best, Best & Krieger” to be the best attorneys around. Best thing since sliced bread.
And were all surprised, shocked and shaken when the firm was let go in June.
Politics! Politics! They fired the lawyers because of Politics became the cry!
OK..so these two seem to believe the law firm was let go in June because of “Politics”.
Which leads me to my question
If they had such faith in “Best, Best, & Krieger”
And truly believed firing the firm was only “politics”
Could someone please explain to me why these same council persons “in favor” of “Best, Best, & Krieger in June, could vote (on July 7th) against paying the firm for the work the firm did in May?
I looked up the particularly “offensive” check in the Warrant Register, made a few notes, did a few quick calculations and this is what I came up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check #68230 Best, Best & Kreiger Summary Breakdown from Warrant Register Council Meeting Date June 07 2009 |
||||
|
604283 |
legal review FF rendering plant |
570.00 |
||
|
604282 |
legal serv kisi review |
1,130.57 |
||
|
604275 |
misc legal conflict int & legal |
104.00 |
||
|
604281 |
misc legal EIR dom wwtr |
792.21 |
||
|
604276 |
misc legal for planning |
2,966.79 |
||
|
604277 |
misc legal p.records requests |
4,892.64 |
||
|
604279 |
misc legal serv |
1,005.68 |
||
|
604274 |
misc legal serv City Council |
5,528.05 |
||
|
604280 |
misc legal water rates |
7,004.08 |
||
|
604278 |
misc legal wwtr/sanit rate |
1,102.40 |
||
|
|
Total |
|
25,096.42 |
|
I don’t see what the “negative hoop-la” could be about Do You?
Personally, I don’t’ “get” why the vote to pay the bill wasn’t 5/0.
I don’t understand what the 2 votes against it were really about: Didn’t hear a coherent enough explanation from the dais to satisfy my curiosity.
OK..so this time around, paying the “fired law firm” for work done in May, passed with a 3/2 vote on July 7th.
I wonder what will happen when the bill for “services rendered” in June finally hits the Warrant Register…….
Just in case you don’t have enough to do already, you might want to check out some of these sites.
Free Our Health Care Petition Web Site Bouhammer’s Afghan Blog.
Beanies For Baghdad Operation Iraqi Children
The Kitchen Table Gang Thank You Soldier
Military Times The Christian Taekwondo Fellowship
Citizen Media Law Project The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC)
The Castle Coalition The Contra Costa Libertarian:
Hot Air Kelo v. City of New London
Livingston “Topix” The Onion News Network
Valley Land Alliance The Drudge Report
I think a better question is why some of the expenses. Why are they proceeding with work on the DWWTP EIR when there is no need. Why does the city keep getting sued? Has anyone looked into whether it would be cheaper for the city to hire its own lawyer? Was that 7000.00 for water rate due to research as to whether the 3 – 2 water rate increase was legal?
It is possible that they voted against it because they had questions on some of the work done, or they don’t trust the information they are receiving. There is a lot of misc in those charges. The first two are very specific – what is the meaning of misc?
Comment by Gerri Martin — July 11, 2009 @ 4:58 am |