Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2000 Meeting I LAW DEPARTMENT SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - March 20, 2000 4:00 P.M. PRESENT: B. Young, Mayor, 1. Beard, Chairman, W. Mays, Mayor Pro Tern, S. Shepard, M. Williams, members, 1. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. ALSO PRESENT: H. Brigham and A. Cheek, Commissioners. MEDIA: T. Cox, Augusta Focus. Overview: I As you know, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern established this committee to look into the possibility of whether we are going to have in-house staff counselor outside counsel. In our last meeting we came to the conclusion that we would get information from other cities and see what they were doing. We have received information from those cities and we have since added to that list of cities. We also requested information from GMA and ACCG. We have received that information and have received packets that included that information. I think, today we'll review all the models that we have received. I hope that we'll keep in mind that at this meeting and the next meetings that we have, we have until July to come up with something that we can present to the full Commission. I hope we can have that worked out prior that time. I hope that in the next meeting that we'll be in a position to know the direction in which we're going. Af1:e,r reviewing this, we should come to a conclusion. We have a couple of options here that we can come up with. We can have an in-house staff counsel. We can have outside counsel. I understand that if we do that we would possibly have to change the bill. Or we could have a hybrid type situation, in-house staff counsel and outside counsel. And I think this would give us the opportunity to satisfy the bill. I hope at the next meeting we'll know where we're going and which direction and possibly bringing in some help and assistance to set this up. We have communicated with Ed Sumner, at GMA and he has agreed to assist us whenever we made a decision as to which way we want to go. He also mentioned that his wife had been in-house counsel at one time and that she would possibly be able to give us some assistance. He also asked us to call on the city of Roswell because they have just completed something in their legal section. At this time the floor is open for discussion. Review submitted models: Mr. Shepard: I just want to say that we are not the only players in this game. There is a bill in the Legislature that was introduced that would change "shall to may" and would do some other things. We may be acting without a full schedule or information at this time. I Mr. Beard: It's my opinion that the best thing to have here is a combination, in- house counsel and outside counsel. I think that's workable. I think it would still satisfy the bill and everybody. ~'4 Mr. Williams: If we go back to what our consolidation bill calls for and it has not been changed. What I'm looking at is what we're paying out versus what the bill says that we should have an in-house attorney. My reason for wanting an in-house attorney is because he would be on a salary, plus we would have to probably get other outside sources to assist and that would be more money. But if we were doing what the bill called for us to do and that's to have an in-house attorney. Mr. Wall is a fine attorney and I have nothing against him. But when we talk to Mr. Wall and when we get something done, it's an on-going basis. This is tax based money we're talking about spending. As a governing body of this city we need to be into utilizing every cent and that means we want the most bang for our buck. I think we need to go ahead and do what the law has required us to do. And we have been negligent in doing that for some time. This should have been done years ago. I think we should go ahead and move for an in- house attorney. I talked with several other Commissioners and Councilmen in Washington, DC from all over the country whose cities are working fine who think we have spent entirely too much with an outside source. They have an in-house attorney that they can go to at any time. They are on a salary base where the salary runs from eighty to one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars a year. But when we talk about one million sixty-eight thousand, versus the in-house attorney, we will save a lot of money. I Mr. Beard: In all fairness, I think we have to look at the financial aspect and some documentation that this is what we paid out. If we have that documentation that we spent over a million dollars in law fees, that should be documented and substantiated before we start throwing those figures out because it can create a problem; especially with the I public. Secondly, I've always said that we need two things when we're looking at this. We need the level 0 f service that is being presented to us. We need to look at the financial aspect, not in a suggestive manner but in a concrete manner that this is what we paid out. And the last point is diversity. The in-house staff counsel plus an outside one, a hybrid effect of the two would, I believe, satisfy the bill. I have no concrete evidence on that but I feel with that you could satisfy the bill. Mr. Wall: Rev. Williams, I would like to respond to the issue about cost, because I think there has been a misunderstanding. According to my 1999 permanent budget, the 1999 actual budget and the 2000 permanent budget, I came in under budget. My budget was $420,000. I came in at $419,798. As far as the million dollars is concerned, maybe this was a mistake in hindsight but I did this for a reason. We were involved in the sludge litigation. We were employing experts, we were doing a lot of testing, we had until roughly sometime in June to disclose our experts. We wanted to be able to do the testing and find out if we had a problem. Have consulting experts that would consult with us and advise us about the test that needed to be done, etc. I talked with Randy and I said lets run the money through a trust account and we'll send a bill. I'll have a cover sheet that shows the amount of the Kilpatrick, Stockton bill or the amount of the invoice that comes from ABC testing laboratory and mark that attorney client privilege and we'll say those bills are on tile in the office of the city attorney. So they are not laying around in Purchasing for open records request for people to go through. All of those records I'll more than willing bring over here, show you each and every invoice, show you each and I every invoice from the attorney's office. The checks were written to our firm and we got I a 1099 that shows more than a million dollars. You are absolutely correct that that check was written to our firm. But that money was paid, and I've done an update on a spreadsheet and I furnished this spreadsheet some months ago after you had taken a seat on the Commission. But our firm has been paid through March 20, $289,000, not a million dollars. You have paid out in expenses $739,000 through March 20. You've paid out attorney's fees to Kilpatrick and Stockton thus far $438,838. Those expenses are not a part of this budget. Were not deemed to be apart of this budget and those were paid outside. But we have not been paid a million dollars in attorney fees. And I don't know where that information has come from. I know it's on the 1099 form that was issued to our firm, again because the checks were issued to us. I will be more than happy to produce each and every statement that we have submitted for our attorney's fees. I'll be happy for you or anyone else to examine the invoices that are from testing laboratories. But I did that to protect Augusta. Perhaps I put myself in harms way in the process of for someone picking up that number and thinking that our law firm had been paid a million dollars. But I deemed it important to keep that information confidential and I think it's important that it remain confidential until this litigation is over with. And I have tried to furnish information to you as Commissioners to show what the expenses were to show whom the checks were issued to, etc. But in so far as the general legal work is concerned it came in under budget. In so far as the sludge litigation is concerned, that is an usual case that has lots oframifications. As you know it's under national discussion. We have spent an immense amount of time and effort in defending that case. But our firm has not been paid a million dollars. 'I After further discussion, Mr. Cheek: One of the things I've noticed and I've gotten a good deal of documents from finance and other sources. There are some arguments on both sides of this issue. But what we don't have that I've seen for our needs is a total snap shot of our financial cost for legal services. Jim, I know you have certain cost, we hire certain sp~cialist. There are other attorneys representing different boards within the city, Planning & Zoning is just one example. There are some other cost and there are awards for litigation. If we could see a spreadsheet with that information detailing the total legal cost for the city of Augusta. Not just your cost, but the total cost for the entire legal operations of the city. That would be a more accurate presentation as compared to some of these other cities. I will say that this has served us well until this point. I do notice that a lot of the cities that tend to be on the move and growing have gone towards a hybrid mix. That too is something I'm in favor of. Mr. Beard: Of the three things I thought we needed; we talked about level of services, finances and the last two items are questionable and will have to be ironed out before we go any further. But I do agree with the financial aspect of it. We're throwing out these figures and we need documentation that this actually happened. I think at the next meeting we need to ask finance to provide that information to us, exactly what was paid out. I also think we need to add to that what was paid out to Harry James. I Mr. Williams: I would like to include what was paid to Mr. Wall's firm in 1997 and 1998. Mr. Wall: Ask Finance to pull the statements otherwise you'll get a false number. After further discussion, Mr. Shepard: What I would like to know is if the in house people will be strong enough to'go into court. I think what I worry about mostly is that you create an in house bureaucracy that for one reason or another does not go to court. So then you end up with another whole set of going to court lawyers, whether you call them trial lawyers or plaintifflawyers or on the other side litigators. I would like specifically if we could find out, not just budget, not just bodies on organizational charts, find out who goes to court and how is that delineation between the people who are actually in the line of fire in the courtroom and I'll tell you our lawyer is. I think that's something gentlemen, in terms of results that you'll never really quantify. I think we enjoy a relationship now with a most senior member of the bar who is well respected in every court he goes into. And that has value. Mr. Wall: Something else that I would want to ask is; do these places have SPLOST or do they have capital budgets, to what extent is their condemning property. How much of their work is related to condemnation matters. After further discussion, Mr. Beard: I think we have things down to a factor here that we can look at. I think we should meet again sometime in April because we need to go ahead and get this out. I think what has been really effective here is that we have it down to three things: level of service, finance and diversity. With the finance, if we could get the cost that has been mentioned there. I think we also need to get from Mr. Wall some kind of outline on diversity. If you could tell us at the next meeting some of the things you could possibility do to become more diversified. I also think at the next meeting we need to select and come prepared to vote on whether we're going to have a hybrid, in house or outside. I think we need to settle that at the next meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission Ibb I to I 1