City Manager Requests Legal Review of 444 Sycamore
Decatur Metro | February 9, 2010 | 9:12 amDave reports over on recently resurrected Decatur Heights blog…
Prior to last evening’s Zoning Board of Appeals, City Manager Peggy Merriss (in the absence of Planning Director Amanda Thompson) submitted a memo requesting the ZBA request the City Commission to authorize a legal review of the Peer Support and Recovery Respite Center at 444 Sycamore Drive by an outside attorney specializing in zoning and land use law.
The request was approved.
Why is a vote by the commission required before the city manager can ask the city attorney for an opinion?
I’m surprised that there is this barrier between the city manager accessing the expertise of another city official. That seems like a recipe for expensive mistakes.
“to authorize a legal review of the Peer Support and Recovery Respite Center at 444 Sycamore Drive by an outside attorney specializing in zoning and land use law.”
Thanks. I totally read that incorrectly for some reason.
But this begets even more questions…
I wonder why the city attorney doesn’t have autonomous authority to aquire expert advice to form HIS legal findings (within a budgeted limit).
It also implies that either no advice was sought from him initially on this matter or he gave an informal finding that is no longer inspiring confidence.
I’m really not trying to pin something down on someone but it seems a process could be improved here to prevent costly legal mistakes.
I love you for writing “begets even more questions” and not the incorrect “begs more questions”. You are my hero of the day.
I feel you. I usually confer hero status upon anyone who uses the word “comprise” correctly.
How many postings comprise a blog? Am I right? Do I win? What do I win? Do I get to pick where 5th Avenue should be placed? Or at least the community bookshelves?
Aren’t they having the city attorney do this? Can the city attorney be considered an “outside attorney?” Shouldn’t it be an attorney who is arms length from the city officials? And, as the city attorney, why didn’t Peggy Merriss ask him to review this facility’s request BEFORE it was allowed to come into Decatur Heights and cost all this confusion and anger? And is there any way to ensure that the city manager has to go to the city attorney in the future for something that obviously requires a person with legal expertise?
Lots of questions.
As noted, the City Attorney is not the one doing the review. Note DM’s response to Ridgelandistan.
Steve, I think you may be wrong on this. I believe the “outside attorney” is the City Attorney. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am.
The City Manager’s memo is posted at DecaturHeights.com:
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/decatur_heights/2010/02/city-staff-requests-legal-opinion-on-use-of-444-sycamore-drive.html
In the last paragraph, it states the city attorney will select the outside attorney.
The question posed above is insightful: Why didn’t the staff go to the city attorney when they first learned about this operation?
“Why didn’t the staff go to the city attorney when they first learned about this operation?”
They may have, Dave, and perhaps were relying on his advice initially. But the City attorney practices general and governmental law and they now wish to engage one who specializes in a very esoteric area of law, to wit: planning and zoning law.
PS: I could be mistaken about this, but as I recall the City Manager stated (when asked) she still had not consulted with the city attorney before issuing her position letter in January.
Can someone in attendance please confirm or refute this.
If I’m mistaken, I’ll apologize profusely. If I’m not, I like to understand why. Is it a cost thing, or a feeling no such consultation was necessary? I’m just trying to understand.
I believe the city manager was asked if the city attorney had reviewed this case prior to her decision and the city manager said the city attorney had not reviewed it.
Ounce of pain, pound of prevention.
Correct: In the city council meeting one resident asked if the city manager has sought legal council prior to making a decision and the answer was no. It was also confirmed that the city manager was not required to seek legal council before making a decision. The same resident tried later to make a point of the lack of legal council again and the mayor said it was irrelevant (presumably because the city manager was not required to seek legal council).
I agree with JC: I think legal council is now being sought because the residents in attendance at the city meeting were extremely upset and stated that they absolutely would not let this go and if they had to hire a lawyer of their own, they would do so (presumably to help them bring about a different decision).
Well, Dave and Friend, better late than never, I guess.
Let’s not jump to conclusions. Who knows how the decision making process unfolded. It’s entirely possible that an outside attorney is being used because the city manager’s judgement and the city attorney’s judgement is simply not enough to satisfy upset residents. Perhaps they’re just going the extra mile, as any Decatur resident would want them to do if it impacted something in their own backyard.
Why is our city attorney not knowledgeable of zoning and land use law?
Geez … that would seem to be a pretty basic specialty for someone being the attorney for the city.
I’m wondering that too. It’s very strange.
The legal opinion of the city government is his purview.
Should he need some expert advice on a narrow topic he should be able to hire an expert on the matter. What does it say that the manager wants to go outside for a finding? There could be legitimate reasons but none has been disclosed. Since the reasoning is open to conjecture, I’ll throw out a few guesses…
The city attorney has an interest in outcome and is recused
The city is trying to pass off liability to a third party
The manager has no confidence in the city attorney
The city manager is shopping for the “right” answer on this matter and the city attorney is not playing along
I think if you do some inquiries among attorneys, you would find that zoning and land use is a very specialized area with few experts, as are other areas of the law. I wouldn’t expect the City attorney to have a high level of expertise in that, since he also has to be concerned with criminal law, civil law, contract law, governmental law, human resources law, and probably a few others. Let’s give the City credit for wanting to get an expert opinion.
The City attorney is not recused. What interest does he have in the outcome?
The City cannot pass off liability to a third party; the City is ultimately responsible anyway.
The City attorney apparently, rightly or wrongly, was not previously consulted, so he has not offered an opinion.
Let’s stand back, let go of the conspiracy theories, and let the City do the right thing and consult an expert.
Still doesn’t answer the question.
Why go around the appointed official responsible for providing the expert legal advice?
Whether he needs to consult with an expert or has specialized knowledge himself is irrelevant.
Why does he need permission to seek expert consultation?
Also, there are more types of liability to avoid than legal. Political liability for instance.
The city attorney is an outside consultant on retainer. Typically, city consultants are not authorized to subcontract services, meaning the city needs to contract with someone else. Contracts are entered into at the behest and authorization of the city commission. It’s not rocket science.
Thank you for clearing up the city attorney’s role and relationship to the commission.
Decaturga and other web resources gave me the impression this position was a public office by political appointment.
I can tell you from personal experience. Zoning and planning law is very, very complicated, and lawyers build entire practices specializing in it. To get a general city attorney to handle this is sort of like getting a family doctor to do your heart bypass surgery.
Thanks for your support, grackle. Good analogy.