By Pauline Masson
Three months into her first term Mayor Debbie Kelley reached a crossroad of sorts. She rallied three aldermen to her view and was able to break a tie vote to move an issue forward.
The issue was an ordinance that was on the agenda to be read twice during the meeting. The ordinance approved the appointment of the law firm of Vogel, Cunningham and Rost, P. C. to serve as city attorney at a rate of $165 an hour and authorizing the mayor to sign a contract for legal services.
Aldermen James Cleeve and Scott Lesh weren’t having it.
The pair stood together obviously illustrating that aldermen should make the decisions that ordinances and past practices ceded to the mayor.
At the start of the meeting, Mr. Cleeve made a motion to remove the second reading of the ordinance from the agenda. He said he was against second readings in the same meeting of the first reading in general, unless there was an emergency.
Mr. Lesh said he opposed the second reading because he did not have enough information about the law firm. He said he contacted the firm and they were not able to give him the information he wanted. He said if he had a two-week delay he could do more research.
Alderman Michelle Bruns said reading the measure twice in one meeting would save the city money. If the issue was postponed until another meeting to delay the decision for two weeks – and the city would have to give the firms 30 days notice – and pay the firm the higher rate for two months.
Mayor Kelley said as mayor she and city administrator Lee Litterell had thoroughly reviewed the issue. She asked the board to support the measure and move the appointment of a city attorney forward.
“I am the mayor and I believe this needs to be done,” she said. “I’m asking for your support for a second reading to approve this appointment.”
On the roll call vote, Alderman Tyler Hoven joined Mr. Cleeve and Mr. Lesh to vote no. Aldermen David Nickelson, Ed Gass and Michelle Bruns voted yes, giving the mayor a tie breaker.
On the vote for the appointment, Mr. Hoven joined Aldermen Nickelson, Gass and Bruns to give the mayor a four to two victory. He said he had done some research and found the the firm of Vogel, Cunningham and Rost was experienced in representing cities.
This was a subtle victory for the mayor that smacked of behind the scene obfuscation.
Mayor Kelley had given voters notice of trust concerns she had with Attorney Karr as early as her candidacy. She said that attorney Stephanie Karr, with the law firm of Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O’Keefe P.C. in Clayton, needed to be replaced as Pacific city attorney after a cache of emails revealed that – without board of aldermen knowledge – Ms. Karr interacted with staff members and officials of Beltline the firm seeking to build a data center on the Crooked Creek farm south of the city. The taxpayers paid for the work Ms. Karr did relating to the then secret data center.
Attorney Karr’s law firm of Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O’Keefe P.C. charges the city $260 an hour as the basic rate with additional fees for other services.
Mr. Cleeve and Mr. Lesh were successful in blocking the appointment of Master Services Agreement with Shive Hattery Architecture and Engineering for professional services relating to engineered plan review, design review and consulting services.
Mr. Nickelson, Mr. Gass and Ms. Bruns voted yes to approve the appointment. Mr. Cleeve and Mr. Hoven voted no, but Mr. Lesh abstained leaving a three-two vote preventing a tie vote and the necessary four-votes required to pass an ordinance. And so it goes.
The firm of Vogel, Cunningham and Rost has a long history of Pacific. The firm represented the city for several terms in the early 2000s.
Why were there services no longer needed after serving the City for many years in the 2000’s? Why are they now needed? I don’t understand why reaching back into the past is the best decision for this City and this firm? Why not seek out new law firms with experience in representing municipalities? If history proves anything it shows we will repeat our mistakes over and over again. If they were so good for the City in the early 2000’s they would still be the cities law firm before this vote. It sounds to me that personalities on the prior city council wanted a change for some reason possibly nefarious reasons. Time will tell how long they last this time.