Trouble
It has taken a bit for me to put fingers to keyboard. I am not sure why. After the couple of posts this AM, I think I have found the answer. It is that I am troubled. Not in a Mr. Brilliant/troll/diana sort of way. No, I am good about taking my meds. Instead, I am troubled by the confusion that reigns amongst these parties. It seems that they stir up confusion in an attempt to obfuscate the truth on important issues.
As the reader pointed out in the post from this morning, Diana was, according to her, given bad advice from the attorney when in fact the attorney was counseling them correctly about the open meeting issues. It would be interesting to try to figure out where the advice went wrong. Why have the other parties to the possible Open Meeting Law violation not cried "foul advice" like our fair mayor? Based on the way that the threesome/foursome has been interpreting the rules of law lately, could they have misinterpreted the law as it was put before them by our previous city attorney & city manager? I am not sure how they could have misinterpreted it. I am not a rocket scientist. I read thru it. It was pretty clear to me.
To the point of what is beginning to REALLY trouble me...
Item 1: The judge at the Banick trial made it very apparent that the city will lose the case with Banick if it continues down the path.
Item 2: We have the Police Civil Service Commission exercising their legal jurisdiction over the process, contradicting the wishes of the City -- well really not the City, more the wishes of the puppet city manager and the puppet's hand, the mayor. I have not read the legalese regarding the Civil Service Rules. However, it sounds like, very similar to the open meeting law, a pretty clear case.
The troubling part is that we now seem to have the city attorney (Kantrud) as well as another appointed attorney (Bethel) ignoring the storm that is at the doorstep. "We can beat it out" they say. Of course, that's what many said before Katrina.
So, at what point do said attorneys start "doing the right thing"? At what point do they quit wasting taxpayer/League dollars and make the City Manager/Mayor admit that the city has made a mistake? I thought we were paying the Kantrud & Bethel to be the voice of reason, not a couple of trouble making pot stirrers.
As the reader pointed out in the post from this morning, Diana was, according to her, given bad advice from the attorney when in fact the attorney was counseling them correctly about the open meeting issues. It would be interesting to try to figure out where the advice went wrong. Why have the other parties to the possible Open Meeting Law violation not cried "foul advice" like our fair mayor? Based on the way that the threesome/foursome has been interpreting the rules of law lately, could they have misinterpreted the law as it was put before them by our previous city attorney & city manager? I am not sure how they could have misinterpreted it. I am not a rocket scientist. I read thru it. It was pretty clear to me.
To the point of what is beginning to REALLY trouble me...
Item 1: The judge at the Banick trial made it very apparent that the city will lose the case with Banick if it continues down the path.
Item 2: We have the Police Civil Service Commission exercising their legal jurisdiction over the process, contradicting the wishes of the City -- well really not the City, more the wishes of the puppet city manager and the puppet's hand, the mayor. I have not read the legalese regarding the Civil Service Rules. However, it sounds like, very similar to the open meeting law, a pretty clear case.
The troubling part is that we now seem to have the city attorney (Kantrud) as well as another appointed attorney (Bethel) ignoring the storm that is at the doorstep. "We can beat it out" they say. Of course, that's what many said before Katrina.
So, at what point do said attorneys start "doing the right thing"? At what point do they quit wasting taxpayer/League dollars and make the City Manager/Mayor admit that the city has made a mistake? I thought we were paying the Kantrud & Bethel to be the voice of reason, not a couple of trouble making pot stirrers.
posted by LookingNorth @ 12:46 PM
5 Comments:
At 4:04 PM,
Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, many elected officials will forge ahead for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is promises made to constituents. If they finish a trial, they can say I tried, but the judge said no. That way they can keep the promise (albeit while wasting taxpayer money) even when they know they are wrong.
In this case it is the Mayor's ego. She has never admitted to being wrong yet, so why would she now? The lawyers can only advise the client to drop something. They cannot force them into it. They could quit, but their job ($$$) means they must do what the client wants as long as it is legal. The fine point being, fighting the illegality isn't illegal.
At 4:19 PM,
Anonymous said…
"I thought we were paying the Kantrud & Bethel to be the voice of reason, not a couple of trouble making pot stirrers."
You would assume that this would be the case but don't forget that Kantrud is not an unbiased attorney picked at random from the phonebook. He has close ties to diana's goofy wannabe reporter husband. I don't know of any ties to Bethel. If there are no ties, I'd be willing to bet that Bethel was the cheapest. You get what you pay for.
At 7:24 PM,
LookingNorth said…
Anonymous 4:04:
"The lawyers can only advise the client to drop something."
The thing I am truly having trouble with is that not only aren't Bethel & Kantrud advising agaist proceeding, but based on the byplay at the CSC meeting, they seem to be fanning the flames by recommending no attorney and no jurisdiction to the committee.
Basically, the city is fighting itself.
At 7:25 PM,
LookingNorth said…
Anonymous 4:19:
What are the ties? Do tell.
And you think that Bethel doesn't have ties somehow? That is the only way these people operate.
At 7:13 AM,
Anonymous said…
If I am remembering my Inside Insight days correctly, Knaak (Knaak & Kantrud) was a frequent guest of Berglund. He also guest hosted.
Post a Comment
<< Home