... or was that perpetrating
Unethical counsel facilitating intentional breach of positive statutory duty.
- 2004/5 City Attorney
- legitimizes illegal action with two opinions; first contradicting statute language and advocating conforming 'Use' is non-conforming 'Use', second(page 16) supporting the action for lack of timely appeal.
- 2007 Prosecuting Attorney/Attorney General (Accessory After the Fact)
- legitimizes illegal action with an opinion contradicting attorney general opinion (OAG#5724), supports action advocating the least time before a meeting does not immediately precede that meeting. Attorney General complaint and response. Both filings include Denied Due Process complaint.
- 2011 City Attorney
- legitimizes illegal process with an opinion advocating city board and commission policies inconsistent with statutes; legitimizes illegal action with participation.
- 2012 City Attorney
- legitimizes illegal actions without an opinion, supporting the actions by not addressing the absence of statutory authority.
- 2015 City Attorney
- legitimizes defective process and improper action without an opinion, misdirecting and misinforming board members to disregard both mandatory requirements and statute definitions.
With this caliber of professionalism city officials are free to conceitedly dismiss statutory obligation and the judgement of predecessors. Like federal government doing what's best for you in its own mind, more money please.
0 comments :
Post a Comment