City Hires Outside Legal Counsel for Jail Fight

[DowntownNow]

The Tulsa World today reported this http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_16_A9_TheTul431110&archive=yes&allcom=1

And I follow it up with an open letter to the Council, looking for an answer but jump in on and all...

Dear Councilors,

I read in the Tulsa World today that the City of Tulsa has retained the outside legal services of Norman, Wohlgemuth, Chandler and Dowdell in its dispute with Tulsa County over the jail contract.  I have heard of this firm through Mr. Norman's numerous representations before the TMAPC and BOA.  I have also heard that Mr. Wohlgemuth represents the Mayor in many of her personal endeavours.  In addition, I have always heard that this firm is no where near to being considered cost-effective in its billing.  They may deserve it given their expertise but certainly not cost-effective when you put it in context of the City of Tulsa having its own legal staff.

My question is this - why does the City of Tulsa employ a large legal department that is charged with providing "ethical, trustworthy, competent, and cost-effective legal services to the City of Tulsa and its elected officials, officers, employees, agencies, boards and authorities"?  If the role of the legal department is to provide knowledgeable and "cost-effective" legal services on behalf of the tax paying citizens of Tulsa, why must the City engage outside high priced counsel for representation on what are clearly public matters?  

If in fact we do not have knowledgeable and experienced legal staff in the taxpayer funded Legal Department then perhaps you and the rest of the council should look at firing them all and hiring only outside legal representation and help protect the taxpayer interests in where their money is spent.  Why have need for double dipping of the public's tax dollars?

Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Tax Paying Citizen

[RecycleMichael]

There are hundreds of legal documents needing proper legal review each month for the city legal staff. That is their job...to be experts in civil laws, public bidding, and interpretation of sometimes incomplete and confusing regulations.

Sometimes, the city needs a legal specialist. This is one of those times. My public dollars are at stake, just like yours, and I want the city to do what it takes to protect my interest.

The County hired outside counsel (attorney Clark Brewster)to represent the sheriff. You didn't post anything then. Is it wrong for the City to hire outside help, but not the County?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Is it wrong for the City to hire outside help, but not the County?

It seems that there is a contingent on this forum who think it's wrong for the mayor to do anything, except perhaps to die.

[cannon_fodder]

I am not that familiar with the legal side of things from a municipality, but there are instances in which a corporation must hire outside counsel.  Since a municipality is a form of incorporation perhaps they must hire outside counsel?   Not sure, just a notion.

[pmcalk]

It should be noted that the City's legal office is understaffed right now.  They could hire someone, but I am sure that will take some time, and they need legal counsel now.

[DowntownNow]

Thanks for the info Inteller and RecycleMichael...I was not aware of the County also hiring outside legal council.  I am aware that the City retains its own legal staff and department with a specific mission in mind.  Does the County do the same for all else besides traffic and criminal prosecutions?  

If so, then the same question is asked, if we have qualified and competent counsel in the County why must taxpayer dollars be used for outside counsel?  And who determines how this work is handed out?  Is there a revolving pool of outside firms on constant retainer that, like district judges, is assigned at random so no firm is favored or award all the business?

I concede there may be times when a specific expertise is required given the situation with regards to knowledge but in contract negotiations or legal representation of city staff, officers, etc...should the legal departments not be able to handle this as it is a common necessity within municipal and county governments?

Especially in times such as these, should we not be looking to save every penny we can to ensure there are no layoffs, shortages in public utilities and services, etc?  Just my thoughts on this.

[RecycleMichael]

I think all lawyers are unnecessary, so I am the wrong one to ask.

But lawsuits, like surgery, are usually best handled by a specialist.

I have been reading some chapters on surgery...in case you are interested.

[citizen72]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Is it wrong for the City to hire outside help, but not the County?

It seems that there is a contingent on this forum who think it's wrong for the mayor to do anything, except perhaps to die.

Well one would be hard pressed to deny that she is a high flier and a high roller. Was that her private jet she got off of when she returned from Washington this week? Does the city pay for that. If so what is wrong with a private carrier. Wow, one for the masses for sure.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72


Well one would be hard pressed to deny that she is a high flier and a high roller. Was that her private jet she got off of when she returned from Washington this week? Does the city pay for that. If so what is wrong with a private carrier. Wow, one for the masses for sure.

Is there any indication whatsoever that the private plane was paid for by public funds? If so, did the city pay more than the normal cost of a commercial flight?

Maybe I'm weird in that I don't have some automatic problem with folks who choose to spend their money on private planes. Nor do I have a problem with the city paying what it would have for a commercial ticket towards the cost of the private plane.

Good for them, I say. I hate flying commercial. If I had the personal funds to spend, I'd never fly commercial. I can't afford the $1800 an hour it costs to charter a Learjet, though. If she can, wonderful.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm


It seems that there is a contingent on this forum who think it's wrong for the mayor to do anything, except perhaps to die.

I'd settle for her taking a one way trip back home to Florida.

[citizen72]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by citizen72


Well one would be hard pressed to deny that she is a high flier and a high roller. Was that her private jet she got off of when she returned from Washington this week? Does the city pay for that. If so what is wrong with a private carrier. Wow, one for the masses for sure.

Is there any indication whatsoever that the private plane was paid for by public funds? If so, did the city pay more than the normal cost of a commercial flight?

Maybe I'm weird in that I don't have some automatic problem with folks who choose to spend their money on private planes. Nor do I have a problem with the city paying what it would have for a commercial ticket towards the cost of the private plane.

Good for them, I say. I hate flying commercial. If I had the personal funds to spend, I'd never fly commercial. I can't afford the $1800 an hour it costs to charter a Learjet, though. If she can, wonderful.

Looks like you may be one of those status quo people which is okay I guess.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

Looks like you may be one of those status quo people which is okay I guess.

No, I'm a person who focuses on the issues, not how someone chooses to travel. Again, why does it matter if a public servant wants to spend their personal funds on a more convenient mode of transportation? Should we be calling for her to walk to work or take the bus or drive to DC?

Neither money nor choice of transportation is any indicator whatsoever of anything about a person other than now much money they have and how they choose to get around.

[shadows]

She has a right and a necessity to hire outside help.   I understand she is an attorney herself.   If one has ever dealt with the city legal department it can be assumed all such cases are settled in the judges chambers and then taken out in court to record their decisions.  

The Big boys in Washington told the city the Airlines deal was illegal and no one paid attention except the 7.1 M dollars paid by the city on revenue bonds issued by a trust that was not to encumber the city.  Now the big boys are going to look into the operations of the city operations.

There may be a new day coming once the dark clouds are seated.

[DowntownNow]

HAHA!  Wow, love those last two posts!  And here I thought I'd have to wait until next Christmas to get the gifts I've been asking for.  No more writing Santa, I'll just write the Feds.

[shadows]

Lets not write to the fed's in hast.  State of Tulsa is the fair headed child.  Remember when the county commissioners were being investigated around the state but when they got to the State of Tulsa they packed up and went home.

Now  it is a near million dollars for a no-bid contract to study to see if we need to make a study on the meandering Arkansas river's low water dams that the voter said by a majority of votes they didn't want.  One would expect that Trust  issued non-obligation bonds, that become general obligation bonds, like the airline 7.1 M trust bonds would be questioned by the fed's instead of a small whiff of smoke on a passing breeze.

Oh it is only paper that the working poor is using to hold their homes, if they can afford one, are held in escrow until the non-obligation bonds are paid off..