Why do we allow our elected officials to do this to us? Maybe because not enough of us pay attention. The legislature (notice I did not use "our legislature") spends and spends. It would be great if they did so sensibly. What we need is infrastructure; repair, maintain, replace or new. We need a skilled workforce. We need an educated populace. We need jobs. We don't need to catch up with other states, we need to bypass them.
We have a chance to try a new group this coming election, let's give them a chance. If they fail, well, throw them out next election. If not Louisiana is doomed to loose it's population, it's businesses, and itself (coastline!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1,289 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1289 of 1289Royboy listened to Lamar and his ilk thinking that politics (as their view of life) is a walk through the park. For some reason Roy went in thinking he could change everything through outright applying pressure. He soon found out, as do a lot of people, when you get way out on that limb and look to see who is behind you all you see is he fellow with the saw cutting the limb off.
Roy has bullied, threatened and asked for a public uprising of the people. For his efforts he got Aymond. That should say something - result of all his efforts is the council hiring a rel lawyer and Roy in cahoots with Aymond.
You are a liar and a moron but that is not untypical of Roy's accusers and detractors.
Roy has tried to do the right thing and that has not been well received by the council because it reduces their unfettered authority granted by the retreat of the Randolph administration.
Roy is right and everyone knows that. The question is "is he tough enough". Those results aren't out yet.
Is Scott willing to forsake all of his principles AGAIN for a shot at power and influence? We shall see.
It is funny how words such as liar and moron are used when an immature person has no facts. A debate is supposed to be a friendly, respectful,intelligent exchange of ideas.
I may well be a moron and a liar but the charter is the charter. Additionally, I don't believe Royboy has reached water walker status yet.
Sec. 2-06. General powers and duties.
All powers of the city shall be vested in the council, except as otherwise provided by law or this charter, and the council shall provide for the exercise thereof and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed on the city by law.
Sec. 3-07. Powers and duties of the mayor.
The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city. He shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Appoint and suspend or remove for just cause all city employees and appointive administrative officers provided for by or under this charter, except as otherwise provided by law, this charter, civil service or other personnel rules adopted pursuant to this charter. He may authorize any administrative officer who is subject to his direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's division, department, office or agency.
(2) Direct and supervise the administration of all divisions, departments, offices and agencies of the city except as otherwise provided by this charter or by law.
(3) See that all laws, provisions of this charter and acts of the council, subject to enforcement by him or by officers subject to his direction and supervision, are faithfully executed.
(4) Prepare and submit the annual budget and five (5) year capital program to the council.
(5) Submit to the council and make available to the public a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the city as of the end of each fiscal year.
(6) Make such other reports as the council may reasonably request to enable the council to conduct its councilmanic function.
(7) Keep the council fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city and make such recommendations to the council concerning the affairs of the city as he deems desirable.
(8) Perform such other duties as are specified in this charter or may be required by the council.
Could the Mayor possibly work for the Council?
8) Perform such other duties as are specified in this charter or may be required by the council
(3) See that all laws, provisions of this charter and acts of the council, subject to enforcement by him or by officers subject to his direction and supervision, are faithfully executed.
. . . . did you overlook reading this provision? I may have to add "dislexic" to liar and moron.
No I did not overlook it. It is meaningless. Council can repeal an ordnance so that means nothing. Laws - what laws are in this Charter. What laws has the Council violated? What particular point are you trying to make?
"Laws - what laws are in this Charter. What laws has the Council violated? What particular point are you trying to make?"
Have you been on Mars or in Jena? I have to rethink this. Lying dyslexic moron may not cover it.
What hole has your head been in?
Several of the councilmen violated the open meeting law, according to the attorney general. The also violated the City charter by giving city employees orders not to play the banned council video, without going thru the mayor like is required by the charter. DO you read the newspaper? Or do you choose not to belive what tey report?
(3) See that all laws, provisions of this charter and acts of the council, subject to enforcement by him or by officers subject to his direction and supervision, are faithfully executed.
OK you so brilliant with caustic words what laws, provisions of the charter and act of the council are subject to enforcement by him or his underlings?
What does the word executed mean in this context? Does it mean he is an Officer of the law as regards the Council?
What does the word "see" mean in this context?
No fool they did not give any city employee an order not to play anything. They said it would not be played. Who is in charge of the tv? Is the control of what will be played and what will not be played under the Council's control? No one knows for there is not a procedures manual on who is in charge of the tv channel. Where does it say in the Charter the tv channel is under control of the Mayor.
The AG did not find them guilty of meeting privatly and they deny it. Until a court of law says they did they didn't. Now pull your head out of Roy's ass and do some mature thinking.
Part of the AG's findings
Given the subsequent action of the city council in addressing this issue in open session, it appears clear that a suit to nullify any action taken pursuant to an informal poll of its members is doomed to failure from the outset. Accordingly, the filing of a suit for that purpose would be inappropriate and might possibly subject the filing attorney and plaintiff(s) to an award of sanctions under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.
Come on now dick wad let us talk about the tv channel. You so smart with them fancy words like dicklicksick and everything. Quote something that says the Mayor or anyone else is in charge of it. The Mayor lectured the Council that they took charge of it by their action.
The Council responded it has never been the Council's policy to air special council meetings. So who is in charge of the channel?
Believe Chuckie Poo just got put in his place. He seems to forget it is the City Council meeting nit the City Attorney meeting.
Four power-hungry race-baiting idiots on the council just did a disservice to entire city by passing an illegal ordinance that will only end up costing taxpayers more money in legal fees. They have clearly lost their minds.
Louis Marshall, Charles Smith, and Roosevelt Johnson are up for reelection next year, if they aren't recalled or removed beforehand.
"They have clearly lost their minds."
What minds?
With all the horrible things Scott said about the black council members, particularly Lawson, it is amazing to see where this all ends up. I think the big loser here will be Scott who abandoned his party, and now his friends and faithful supporters for political leverage and a bunch of money. He was a major author of the personal and untruthful attack on Roy from the Brewer camp. I shall never support him again.
Amen to that. I used to have respect for Jock Scott. Now I know he is a man with absolutely no integrity. I hope Scott is reprimanded by the bar for this, and I hope the AG decides to call Lawson's bluff and punish the shit out of them for breaking the law.
Shut-up BITCH, and take it like a man.
Jock is about to hand the mayor his head on a platter. Yeah, I might be unhappy with Mr. Scott if I was a Jacques supporter.
"Jacques supporter" Sorry, but I actually laughed out loud when I typed that.
Yeah, take it like a man when the council breaks the law. It's really macho to let people get away with playing the race card over and over and over again.
Can someone put a link out to a video of todays COA meeting.
You have to see Central La. Politics or WeSawThat for the video.
Where is the mofukin VID-eeee-OOOOOH???
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3340071246477351547&hl=en
I hear Lawson is losing business.
Lawson made his millions years ago he could stand to lose some headaches.
It would be nice if someone would post a judicial ruling finding the Council guilty of violating a law. Most posters on here have no idea what the Charter says, what laws, if any, are applicable but just believe the race baiting bull shit put out by others.
It would seem thye Council is ready for a legal determination as to whether or not they can do what they done.
Just because Royboy and Chuckie Poo say somethinbg does not make it so. Chuckie Poo presented himself as the saviour of the Council from the Attorney General. His boss, the Mayor, is the one that caused the AG to get involved. Now with the Executive branch in a tiff with the Legislative branch who does Chucky Poo side with? He can't defend both.
Royboy and Chuckie Poo realized their attempt to cause a citizen uprising against the Council only attracted a former Klan member. That is the worst thing that could have happened. The City is governed by a Black majority. Black vs former Klansman. no brainer.
We need to have a candidate for the at large seat on the council to get rid of Myron who is really leading the pack of idiots. Louis Marshal tried to make a point of being in charge of the idiot meeting last night, but they are all following Myron in passing the illegal ordinace. Please someone please run for this office.
Let me validate my point by copying from the Town Talk:
"The issue was subsequently reviewed by the Attorney General's office, which decided not to file a suit against the council on the alleged violation. But council members maintained they still want legal advice on other issues."
The AG's office did not file suit, they have not been convicted of anything and Johnson could not give the Council asurance they would not be sued. All Chuckie Poo could do is respond, disrespectfully, with lawyer speak. Chuckie Poo has a problem in that he has yet to realize he has no authority or power. He is merly an advisor and taker of orders.
You mean you can actually respond disrespectfully to Myron. I did not think that was possible. Is Myron an attorney or does he just play one on TV?
Somebody with some sense please run for the city council. what a bunch of dumbasses
Watch the progress the City will make in the next 30 days now that we have the show-stoppers out of the way. Let the GROWTH began!
All I can say is "dat dey done slapped de tar baby an he jes sat dere".
If you folks remember, Br'er Rabbit did not fair too well after yielding to the temptation to slap Tar Baby. The city council needs to forget reading the law books and turn the pages of Uncle Remus for a while to understand the fundamentals of human nature.
Just to make sure that I have this right, the city council has refused wise and legal counsel from the city attorney, who shares the same racial background as the majority of the city council, and somehow in the council's infinite wisdom, they have divined that Mr. Johnson's advice and admonishments are racist and have no legal bearing. Furthermore, they are insistent upon spending even more of our citizen green (please note that our tax dollars are not divided by race) to create an issue that should not be an issue instead of using their time to create a more harmonious city in which people of all ethnic backgrounds can live and prosper.
While playing the hand that was dealt, it appears that we have a group of city council members that will act in unison regardless of the issue. This alone has the appearance of prior discussion and organization outside the vision of the public in violation of public meeting laws.(Are you paying attention Mr. Foti?) At worst, the appearance is that this cohesiveness is driven by ethnic background which is not good for folks that now find themselves in the minority in this community and should be afforded certain protections under Federal law as minority citizens.
I have always heard peoples say that when the oppressed people of our nation achieved equality, there would be a greater degree of justice. I just did not believe that it would be selective justice. The kind that allows a group of people to pick and choose the laws they will abide by. Like our city charter.
To our brothers and sisters in the black community. The ball is in your court and you must decide whether the example that is being set represents your stated will and desire for justice. If it does, then you just proved a lot of old dead white men correct. If not, then we have a chance to live together in prosperity and peace as you will push for the right and legal thing to be done.
The spotlight is on you. What will it be?
Spanky I have to disagree with your posting. First I am a white person, a believer in following the law, a believer in the majority rules and a very strong believer in the meaning of the written word. I am not a fan of the Council nor of the Mayor.
First Roy and Chuck Johnson have constantly addressed the City Council in a disrespectful manner. Now I don't care if the majority of the Council is a bunch of illeterate nappy heady cotton pickers they are the democratically elected choices of the people and should be treated with respect.
Chuck Johnson's remark yesterday as to "there are 3 lawyers here advising you" is condescending and can be interpreted to indicate a superior mental ego. Chuck Johnson and Roy have not shown any respect to the Council. Roy lectures with his lawyer speak and, as shown yesterday, Chuck Johnson interrupts a democratic proceding. It is a City Council meeting not a Mayor/City Attorney meeting.
In my opinion the Council treats the Mayor with the respect due. Chuck has no authority, is not an elected representative of the people and is merly a city employee. He has visions of being an authority figure. Past experience with his office has shown this attitude permeates the City Attorney Office. The Council treats him with the same respect he shows them.
Roy has from day one approached governing the City as combat with the Council. The pre-election hype had everyone stirred up as to the Council being a group of conspricy minded criminals. The Council may well be but at this time from a City Council standpoint no member has been proven guilty of anything by a Court of Law.
Then Roy stirs the fire and wants the citizens to file a formal compliant with the AG against the Council. Out of all the citizens of Alexandria only an ex-klansman lawyer operating his business out of a Plumbing shop answers the call. Now today this lawyer post a tirade on his blog against a Council member threatening all sorts of legal matters because he - the ex-klansman- has been defamed (remember the trite military intelligence putdown.) Typical response on the part of the ex-klansman. Now we get to see Mr. Scott, a professional, do battle with Mr. ex-klansman.
The City Council is not comprised of Angels. It is comprised of the people the electorate desire to represent them. If a person suspects a council member has committed a crime file charges not bullshit.
It's really not all that bad.
Many of us have heard Jock opine that Bridgett's Cleco contract was illegal, unethical, and technically invalid. Certainly he realizes that he has an obligation to the public that pays his fee, to exercise sound legal judgment in the public interest, not just make the council happy.
Jock also was firmly convinced that the only proper way to select professional service contractors (like himself) was to state the need, publish the criteria (specifications), and have a neutral selection process. This was clearly not done in this case.
Jock also told many others that the councilmen's conduct in the Cleco transactions were far from legitimate as revealed in the discovery and deposititions in the case to which he had access. Jock says that you can't use public money for personal gain. I am sure he will keep that credo before his council clients.
I don't think that Jock would forsake all of his morals, principles, and ethical standards just for these fees. He must know that he is disappointing many of his long-time supporters that have stood by him thru party change and crushing political defeat. I only hope the cost to him and his family is not too great.
Will Trey Gist have a legitimate function now. Will his job be to spy on Jock for the administration or to spy on the administration for Jock? Is either of those functions worth the 12 grand we pay monthly for his now-undefined services?
I did. While Mr. Aymond is credited with calling upon our district attorney to investigate a violation of the open meeting law, the complaint was made with a larger number of signatories, I being one.
The complaint was not a lone act committed by an ex-klansman as characterized by the members of the city council. It was group effort by concerned citizens.
The point is that if our community is divided into two camps, one black and one white, and the black folks want to claim victory and power, then they have a responsibility to assure that justice prevails and the laws are followed, not only under the law, but to be able to claim the higher moral authority that is espoused by many in the Black community.
Where is the leadership from the Black community? Where is the outcry as the public is being fouled? Is race such a component that the majority will not stand against clearly illegal and wrong actions. Will the majority not speak out against blatant racial bias as esposued by several councilmen? Does the Black community have a racist agenda as the white community has often been accused of?
Clearly we have a black majority population in our area. Clearly racial issues have not been settled. Clearly the majority has a responsibility to ensure that justice prevails and laws are obeyed. What is not clear is the intent for all good people to unite in an effort to claim good government. Is it as plain as black and white? Or can law abiding, tax paying citizens demand that their elected officials serve in their best interest and is that best interest served by abiding the law and working for the common good?
While I have an abiding faith in the Black community to do the right thing, I am patiently waiting to see the proof.
I have often wondered what Trey's position is. Is he an Assistant City Attorney? What is he supposed to do? If he is supposed to be the Council's attorney he seems to be unsure of which bunch is the Legislative Branch and which bunch is the Executive. He appears to consort with the enemy.
Spanky I was unaware you had signed. My complments on exercising your right as a citizens. Wonder why just the controversial characters get the fame? It is presented as only the ex-klansman done anything.
What is needed is to put black/white power issues aside and the Mayor and Council, treating each other with respect due, work together for the betterment of our Community. It hasn't been done. Since Roy assumed Command it has been one confrontation after another.
Yesterday Myron Lawson asked Chuck one simple question to the effect is there still a possibility of the Council being sued over the open meeting deal. Chuck never did directly answer the question - took off on a tangent when the AG gets this resolution, etc, etc. Who knows what the AG is going to do. The answer is simple - at that time as far as facts are known there is that possibility.
Chuck comes off as being offended because he is being disrespected. He attempted to potray himself as the hero that saved the Council from the AG. His boss is the one that started the deal. Maybe he should have advised Roy to figure out who actually has operational control over what is shown on the Government Channel instead of advising him to ask the citizens to file a compliant.
From what I gathered from Gist and Johnson, Jock Scott drafted the ordinance to hire Jock Scott, without any input, review, or approval from Gist. My impression of Gist's efforts this past meeting was to save his job and prevent being squeezed out by Jock Scott. It is obvious from council action that they do not have confidence in either Gist's ability or his loyalty. Now the question is does he go over to the enemy (Roy) or go home.
Roy was conspicuously silent at this meeting. What an uncomfortable situation for all parties.
And poor Chuck and Harry - once they've led the pledge of allegiance they are essentially thru with their useful function.
Listening to Harry's off the cuff remarks make one think he is suffering from senile dementia. Fowler's off the cuff sexist remarks are going too haunt him.
Harry lied he has no credibility. Fowler used his position for personal gain - printing for cleco. They are both doing as all of the Council members are doing -looking out for themselves. Other than color and a facitious play to the white folks they are no different then the rest.
Mayor Roy only vocalized in the instant what was painfully obvious. I needed no further request to file or be a party to filing a complaint on my own if necessary as what I witnessed was very obvious and blatant.
There was a letter admitting to a decison that was made outside the view of the public and an admission on videotape that it had indeed occurred.
Instantly it was obvious.
The AG's office has decided to handle this matter in a gracious manner so that it would go away and give all concerned a gentleman's way out.
Myron and his cohorts refusal to submit to an educational meeting and to sign a statement that they understand the law and will not break it in the future in lieu of prosecution is a very clear statement that when caught with their own admission, they will not do the right thing and will continue to hide behind a tax-payer funded shield until driven into the last corner.
They have given the ball back to the AG's office and it will be interesting to witness what Mr. Foti's actions will be. Is this possibly the opportunity that he has been waiting for to prove that he has the interest of the states citizens at heart?
It may soon be obvious that he can walk back into office using the Alexandria City Council as a doormat to clean his dirty shoes, if he plays his cards right.
Where is "The Joker" in the deck?
Where are the leaders of the Black Community?
The question posed by Myron to Chuck could not be answered. In short, the "ethics complaint" against Bridgett & Myron must run its course and the city is prohibited from using tax dollars (city attorneys) in defending either of them. If there is a successful resolution on behalf of Myron - he can ask that his attorney's fees be reimbursed (as did Herbert Dixon - recently). Neither the City ATTY nor J. Scott can provide pre-disposition legal advice on an ethics complaint against a councilperson on the taxpayers account.
All of that should have been discussed in executive session and not as Myron tried to do. Chuck was very classy for not making a fool of Myron regarding the ethics complaints in open session.
To Anonymous 8/15/07 @9:37am,
You have provided a most accurate, balanced and factual answer to a racially biased and charged question.
It is my hope that people in our community, regardless of ethnic background, that have proven to be intelligent and professional in their personal lives will rise to the occasion to provide leadership to our city that is so desperately needed.
We are very fortunate as a small city to be blessed with the variety of talent that comprises our population.
And cursed with the attitude that "it is not my job".
You pick the color.
The only response I can make is Chuck, in public session, referred to his mediation and the fact he, not Trey, solved the situation with the AG. He even stated that Trey was aware of all the actions he (Chuck) had taken. Did Chuck not open the door for Myron to question him?
The public is now sitting here wondering what went on and, in my opinion, further confused. It seems Foti issued his "opinion" based upon interaction with Chuck. It would appear Chuck should have said nothing.
I do not understand that "logic", but, OK.
It is difficult of get one's head around the administration intentionally provoking the complaint against the council with open and pointed accusations and a call for public action and then coming to the council's rescue with the agencies investigating the complaint.
If you were the council, how comfortable and confident would you be with the city attorney?
The city attorney for all only seems to work if the executive and legislative branches are not at war.
The logic is if Myron should not have referred to the situation in public neither should Chuck. A simple answer to Myron's question would be I don't know.
Chuck, in my opinion, wanted the glory for him (Chuck) saving the Council not Treey. Then when Myron asks whether the situation was over and done with Check goes lawyer-speak.
Connect the dots, please.
How can Chuck speak for the AG's office?
Myron should be asking the AG's office.
When Chuck was left out of the loop in forming a consensus of opinion as the city council did, how can he be included in any action that springs from those actions?
He would not be involved.
Why would Myron ask the question in public?
Yes, Myron, the boogey man is still out there.
My logic is simple - it is not legal speak it is just what I saw and heard.
Chuck Johnson, prior to Myron asking him anything, in objecting to the need to hire additional attorneys, stated how great a job he was doing for the Council. He went on to explain that he had handled and settled the AG involvement himself. He opened the door for Myron to ask him about whether that issue was a dead issue or not to which Chuck mumnbled some bullshit that the AG was faxed a copy of the Resolution read at the beginning of the meeting and when the nAG signs off it will be a dead issue, etc.
Now you can't have it both ways. Either Chuck should have not used the compliant as part of his objection or, when he did, he should have answered the question.
His lawyer speak bullshit answered the question for Myron - at that time it was not a settled issue.
Chuck says "I took care of this for you".
Myron asks "Is it over?"
What would the honest answer that a lawyer owes a client, be to that question?
Then when Marshall says you never talked to me about this case, Chuck announces that he talked to everybody that "mattered".
My wife and kids may talk to me that way but NOT MY LAWYER.
My lawyer would tell me no it is not over until...
Your lawyer owes you an honest answer supported by facts not emotions. Your lawyer goes to telling youy what you want to hear instead of fact hire another.
Chuck, like this blog, operates on emotions, not fact. "I handled it" could mean many, many things. Did he handle it underhandedly?
It might be wise for Myron and company to understand that Chuck is the CITY attorney.
Any problems that they have created by their actions call for their PERSONAL attorney to address those items.
It is clear that they must hire their own PERSONAL attorney until any matters that arise from their PERSONAL actions are settled. Upon settlement and finding of no wrongdoing, they may petition for reimbursement of legal costs from the city. Not until there is a resolution to the matter may they recieve reimbursement for legal costs.
If they care to violate the law in that area also, I will gladly oblige their transgressions with a further ethics complaint.
That's the bad thing about the Tar Baby. Once you whack him the first time, he just don't let go. And the more you whack him, the more he gets all over you.
I invite the city council to dig the hole a little deeper. It only makes a suit for removal even more likely and the possibility of success on the removal issue even greater.
Carry on, you guys are doing a great job - of hanging yourselves.
Spanky - what does this mean?
"(D) No special legal counsel shall be employed by the city except by written contract and approval of the city council."
ya gotta listen up -
Special counsel employed by the city must be employed by the city attorney, by contract, with consent of the counsel;
Special counsel (as explained by Gist last nite) anticipates specialized expertise such as labor law or environmental law where a narrow field of legal specialization is required.
As an aside, I don't think that using Uncle Remus analagies does much to calm the waters here.
Agree with the Uncle Remos statement. Making Spanky appear racist in that the 4 council members he has difficulty with are black..
Disagree with must be employed by the City Attorney. Where does it say that?
Charter says any assistant City Attorney works for the City Attorney. Doesn't say who a special counsel works ofr.
Sec. 4-02. Legal division.
(A) The head of the legal division shall be the city attorney who shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the council, and shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor. He shall be an attorney licensed to practice in the courts of Louisiana with at least five (5) years' experience in the practice of law.
(B) The city attorney shall serve as chief legal adviser to the mayor, city council and all divisions or departments, offices and agencies, shall represent the city in all legal proceedings and shall perform any other duties prescribed by this charter or by ordinance.
(C) Any assistant city attorneys authorized by the city council shall be appointed by the city attorney and serve at his pleasure.
(D) No special legal counsel shall be employed by the city except by written contract and approval of the city council.
Sure would be nice for the blog meister to start a new thread
The Charter says that the Mayor appoints the city attorney with the consent of the council and the city attorney names, appoints, and hires all other attorneys for the city. You can't just forget about the basic charter provision. The charter anticipates the need for other attorneys but not competing non-cooperating opposing attorneys - but rather attorneys under the direction of the mayor thru the city attorney. Nothing else would make sense.
The only possible scenario wherein you have opposing lawyers would be in the council's investigative function where they might need special counsel to advise them during hearings that look into administrative conduct - that would be the sort of extraordinary situation that requires special counsel to the hearing function.
I extracted what the charter says and it does not say: "city attorney names, appoints, and hires all other attorneys for the city. You can't just forget about the basic charter provision."
Then going back to Mabel Hawthorene if Special Council fell under the previous provisions there would be either reference to that or no need for a special paragraph.
As to my reference to Mabel - read what the words say not what you want thekm to say.
Best one-eyed English teacher in Rapides Parish.
So you think that the way to circumvent the charter provision is to call them a "special" counsel or "deputy" city attorney or assistant city lawyer. Perhaps that view has merit but I certainly fucking doubt it.
Perhaps Mabel wanted you to understand concepts and words. The city attorney represents the city. Those who are not the city attorney but lawyers working for the city would be assisting the city attorney. Mabel would try to explain that those who assist the city attorney on city business are assistant city attorneys.
Can the city hire lawyers to work against the city attorney? I don't think so.
You gotta get past the name tag....
For the purposes of the Charter, special counsel means attorneys who are needed because of their expertise in a certain field. As Gist said yesterday, this could include environmental lawyers, lawyers with expertise in utilities litigation, etc. In any case, these attorneys are still under the direction and supervision of the city attorney's office. They are not independent attorneys who do not have to account to the legal department. The only case in which the council can hire their own attorney is in an extreme situation when the mayor and the council are suing one another. This is not happening right now.
The council does not like Chuck Johnson because he took Bridgett Brown off of the Cleco case. She was not an expert in utilities litigation, and her contingency fee contract would have awarded her 10% of the settlement. She refused to sign a confidentiality agreement and has been known to openly say disparaging and insulting things about one of her clients-- the mayor. If you had a lawyer who was sneeking behind your back and insulting you, I doubt you would want to have her represent you anymore.
The judge removed her from the case. She hired her own lawyer who filed to intervene and then her lawyer filed a related class action suit against the city.
Then, Brown had the nerve to convince five councilmen to sign a letter inviting her to participate in an executive session about the Cleco case AFTER she was removed by the judge and AFTER she filed to intervene and her lawyer filed the class action suit. The city's other attorneys and the lawyers from Baton Rouge refused to participate in the meeting, and by requirement, they had to enter into a special meeting to discuss the results of the executive session. The special meeting on June 12 was banned from being rebroadcast, and if you have seen the meeting on the internet, you understand why. Brown was out of order, and the council could not backpeddle from its potentially illegal decision to include an adverse attorney in a meeting that was supposed to discuss legal strategy. To make matters worse, Hobbs wrote a letter claiming the majority of the council decided not to rebroadcast the meeting, and because a decision of the majority of the council on a policy decision was made outside of a public meeting, a local attorney wrote the Attorney General, who decided to keep the case open and to force the council to participate in an educational presentation on the open meetings law.
The council has been trying to save face in all of the wrong ways. They tried to hire their own auditor, which was against the Charter, and then they tried to give themselves the power to oversee every single lawsuit the city is involved with, which would have been a disaster given how many small lawsuits are filed against the city. These ordinances were vetoed, and the council let the vetoes stand.
The decision to hire Jock Scott and Toni Martin is not to protect the council. It is power play, explicitly prohibited by the charter, that will only cost taxpayers more money and impede the progress of the city by creating yet another wall between the council and the city attorney. It is just more bureaucracy created by a council that refuses to acknowledge the authority of the mayor.
A bad precedent was set up during the last few years of the Randolph administration, and the council started to think of the mayor as more of a figurehead than as the chief executive of the city. The council can fight this as much as they want to, but the Charter is very clear. Alexandria is not a strong council form of government, as some of them have said. It is a council/mayor form of government.
I guess I can't see the forest for the trees: "In any case, these attorneys are still under the direction and supervision of the city attorney's office. They are not independent attorneys who do not have to account to the legal department."
Where is this stated. I cannot find anything relative to special counsel except the City Counsel hires them. Jock could be a specialist in branches of government.
Sure with we had a new thread
It is my vision and goal to get the waters so hot that they boil. With that, I hope that the public in Alexandria see the folks we have on the city council for what they are.
It is also my intent to make them so uncomfortable that they either;
1) Do the right thing.
2) Quit.
You are wrong in your remarks that I would have racist intent and actually the number would be six due to the fact that Mr. Silver has no compunction about twisting the truth and using his position for personal gain.
I am also quite sure that labeling other people racist makes it easy for you not to have to think things through. (By the way,in my family we have Choctaw Indian, German, Scotch-Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Japanese, African-American, Taiwanese, Philipino, English, French and God knows what else, but we are all proud to be AMERICANS.
You are also quite correct in your observation that I really do not care a whit about having the waters calm. I can swim.
I have one other question: How does anything having to do with John K Snyder have to do with the present situation and Corde of Ordances (City Charter?)
I wish we had a new thread
Thin skinned? No one called you a racist.
It is not that I care what anyone thinks of me, but that you would distort your argument by using the distortion in the form of insinuating that people you may disagree with are racist, like that somehow negates the truth.
Insults are words that vanish in the air.
Truth endures.
That was certainly some fine words - whatever in the hell they mean. No one said you are a racist. The statement was the tar baby comments give the impression of racism.
Seems like you spin shit pretty good Spanky.
Pretty good, huh? How about damn good.
Spanky said...
All I can say is "dat dey done slapped de tar baby an he jes sat dere".
Spanky, how could anyone think you a racist. I know, some of your best friends are Negros. You are what the Roy administration promised me.
You are trasparent. Perhaps you could jump down, spin around, and pick a bail uh cotton?? Do Da, do da.
After watching the Alexandrias city council meeting on lastnight,I am convinced that we have the most ignorant "coons" in the nation.First of all what Chuck said is true, the top 3 people in the administration ARE lawyers.They are not stupid enough to go out on a limb regarding the issue of hiring J.Scott. and T.Martin(whoever she is) and not know what they are talking about.I am not an attorney,but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the next move.Jacques vetoes law.Coons override it.Lawsuit:Administration vs coons.(BY THE WAY YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE PAYING FOR THIS NONSENSE)Administration wins!!Louis Marshall is so stupid that he could not conduct the meeting without the help of the city clerk.Now,he tries to debate with Chuck.What a fool.Chuck handle himself very professionally,considering he was dealing with an absolute jerk of a jackass.Marshall stick to your day job of sweeping and mopping the floors at the Holiday Inn.It seems more your style you convicted felon!It seems the same case(Roy vs Humphries)the coons used as an example for their reasoning to hire Scott and Martin will be the the same one to take a chunk out of their assses.C.Fowler told them that he consulted with Humphries and that Humphries agreed with the ADMINISTRATION!!I don't think Chuck has a superior attitude as someone previously stated,someone needs to put those nappyheaded fools in place.The city attorney they said they don't trust is the same guy that defended their dumbasses against the AG's office.Result:No charges filed regarding that particular instances.What pisses them off is that he is black and he doesn't agree with the tactics that they are pulling.They don't have him on a leash.I don't find the need to discuss fatboy Lawson,the more he opens his mouth the more stupid we know he is!! I know the black community is embarassed by having such "WANNA BE LAWYERS" as their elected officials.Keep up the good work Chuck maybe we'll get a few of them goodole boys outta there before it's time for them to be re-elected.We pulling for you buddy!!
All of the people may not agree with the way Chuck conducts his office,but at least he stands up for what he believes.He doesn't stir the pot to get things boiling then takeoff running like the mayor has done on a few occasions.I don't know the guy but I respect him.
Can someone tell me why Clarence Fields is at a groundbreaking at LSUA???? This guy has nothing to do. I guess its easier to show up for stuff like that than actually be the Mayor .
Cause Rich tries to run the City and therefore Cla Ray can go to baton rouge and lsua and anywhere else to cut somebodys ribbon
Spanky stupidly said:
-Any problems that they have created by their actions call for their PERSONAL attorney to address those items.-
Wrong! All 7 council members have said from the outset that no illegal meeting was held. And unlike the Dixon's individual case, ALL members were charged in the ethics complaint.
So why should each member get a personal attorney when legal action is and might still be brought against the WHOLE body?
So if someone sues the US Congress, you really expect 435 lawyers to be hired?
Pull your head out of RoyBoys A**. He started this fight, and he's about to get beat down. And you are becoming the mayor's towel boy. It's embarassing.
What is so embarrassing is that you would so publicly display your ignorance of the events and attempt to be insulting in the process while not quite pulling it off.
My pity to your family for releasing such a fine example of social defectiveness upon us as you so proudly display and the embarrassment they must suffer.
Yo Mama.
"Wrong! All 7 council members have said from the outset that no illegal meeting was held. And unlike the Dixon's individual case, ALL members were charged in the ethics complaint.
So why should each member get a personal attorney when legal action is and might still be brought against the WHOLE body?"
That is a lie.
Chuck Fowler and Harry Silver were not even present when the decision to not rebroadcast the meeting was made. They have never claimed that an illegal meeting did not take place, because they were not present when the decision was made. Fowler even commented about this during the following council meeting. He claimed he had to return to work and missed the second portion of the special meeting. He said he was not informed or asked his opinion about whether or not the meeting should be rebroadcast. The decision was made without his knowledge or consent. He would have no idea whether or not a secret meeting took place, and because of this, he hired his own attorney, Judge Humphries.
The complaint was filed by a citizen against the council for violating the open meetings law. Much like in Congress, individual members are responsible for hiring their own counsel to defend themselves against a potential ethics violation. If the AG rules the violation did not occur, then the councilmen's legal fees are compensated by the city. However, the AG did not rule that the meeting did not exist, and the council AGREED with his decision when the passed the resolution yesterday to allow the AG to present an educational presentation on the open meetings law.
The argument that Scott needed to be hired to defend the council against potential ethics violations is now moot, because their resolution settled the matter conclusively.
When councilmen are accused by a citizen of violating a law, they cannot hire an attorney with our taxdollars to defend themselves, even if the law they allegedly broke was related to their duties as councilmen.
Really where is that written in LA law, especially when this is:
Civil penalties
Any member of a public body who knowingly and wilfully participates in a meeting conducted in violation of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:8, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars per violation. The member shall be personally liable for the payment of such penalty. A suit to collect such penalty must be instituted within sixty days of the violation.
$100, that's the penalty? And a member would need to rack up personal atty. fees for that?
Idiots
Yeah. So there.
-When councilmen are accused by a citizen of violating a law, they cannot hire an attorney with our taxdollars to defend themselves, even if the law they allegedly broke was related to their duties as councilmen.-
The only problem is the entire council was charged. So they can defend themselves at public expense as a body.
The Idiots comment was for you Spanky, because only idiots (or lawyers) would suggest someone hire a personal lawyer to fight a $100 fine (like a parking ticket).
What!
The mayor raised the F****** Roof over this, and the penalty would have been only $100.
Does he know how much he's set back this city over that stunt.
Recall his A**.
Wait, Wait, wait just a minute. Stop the train. Roy raised hell, enticed a KKK man to rush to his aide, which fanned the fuels of racism, all because he didn't get his way on showing a meeting on a channel nobody watches, all over a fine of $100????
I thought folks were going to jail, being forced from office, etc. This is some BS!!!
Roy's acting like a child. hell, I thought somebody ahd done something really bad.
You can minimize this all you want to, but the fact is that the AG concluded the council needed some schooling on the open meetings laws.
The fact that the fine is $100 is just another example of why this state needs comprehensive ethics reform.
Many of us have known for years the city council conducts the public business in back rooms and bar rooms.
It doesn't matter if the fine is $100 or $1,000,000. The council was elected to legislate public policy in public meetings.
Well, it is about time to request e-mails and other documents from individual members of the Alexandria city council.
I will give them some time to delete what they want before subpeonaing the provider server records for deletions.
That should keep them scratching for a few days.
Spanky, I would have to whole-heartedly agree w/you ref aquiring their (ACC) email accounts, etc... However, I'm not so sure you'd be able to obtain enuf info to be of significant assistance/insight due to the likely lack of utilization of email by this group of nimrods...
They are particularly quite helplessly, hopelessly, incompetant & unfortunately humorous...
Awaiting the next foot/gavel/joke to fall.
Mr Carriere, may we have a new thread please... please, please, please, pretty please???
Mic check...
I knew that attendance had been down, but.....
Cunnilingus Night at the ACES game????
I guess they could try Reach-Around Wednesdays next.
It sure is funny that Lynton Hester, a citizen of Alexandria, wants to view the emails of Pineville. Could it be this is because he is the husband of the atty Gay Coleman who is friends with Aymond? Is this the same Gay Coleman that ran for political office unsuccessfully? And isnt she the one that had some back taxes pastdue to the tune of 17K? Sure seems funny to me
Post a Comment