A report in today's News and Record indicated that the attorney for a couple of police officers has filed a request with the city. It is to pay the legal costs on behalf of these officers that they will incur in defending against a suit in connection with the GPD matter.
The city should assume these legal costs for several reasons. It is only fair and just. These officers were trying to do the right thing. And the circumstances leading to the suit being filed were largely created by the city in the first place.
This is further proof that no one that works in the managers office or was working in the city attorneys office realized the ramifications of all the unsustanciated charges that they were throwing at these officers. Now they have a lawsuit from an "allegedly corrupt " officer that they will have to pay for him to sue the city and now they will have to pay for the police officers defense who was investigating the "allegedly" corrupt officer. So they will have to pay the plaintiff's as well as the defendants legal fees. Is this not enough proof that the managers and city attorneys office need to be overhauled?
Posted by: RMelton | December 21, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Well the way I read it I think the law requires the City to handle the legal costs of City employees who are charged while in the commission of City business.
In private companies when an employee makes a mistake that in some way injures the public then the company gets sued. If someone working in your medical practice does harm while on the job then you get sued. Why should government be held to a lesser standard?
And if they are found guilty of crimes then they can go to jail. But to pick and choose which City employees will be given the best representation the City can provide is simply wrong.
After all, if Mitch Johnson were to be charged with a crime while in the commission of City business he would no doubt draw on the full resources of the City in his defense.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | December 21, 2007 at 11:48 AM
RMelton said, "s this not enough proof that the managers and city attorneys office need to be overhauled?"
You are 100% correct.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | December 21, 2007 at 11:50 AM
RMelton, thanks for commenting. I cannot help but agree with you.
And thank you also, Billy. It is only right that the city pay for all the legal defense for the men defending themselves in the various legal actions in which they are involved. Indeed, it is surprising that this should even have to be debated. And you are right-- this is what would usually happen in the private sector with respect to any work-related liabilities.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 21, 2007 at 01:00 PM
I guess Wray and the others will have to sue Mitch Johnson to get him to provide legal defense for them as city employees. What a Catch 22. Johnson has created a monumental mess in tis city. He manages a city like you would expect a person trained as a computer programmer to do.
Posted by: Stormy | December 21, 2007 at 04:50 PM
It is a mess, Stormy. And perhaps they should apply more legal pressure to get their defense covered.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 21, 2007 at 06:20 PM
The new City Council may have to put this topic on its January retreat agenda. No one, either the city manager or legal department, is capable or sufficiently credibile to act on the Wray issue. Hopefully the city won't have to resort to outside legal counsel for guidance. Let's hope for prompt affirmative action by the council.
Posted by: Bill Knight | December 23, 2007 at 04:27 PM