.jpg)
Yesterday I had a meeting with County Executive Rick Pollitt and Mr. Jim Finneran. My concern was perhaps we hadn't given them a better opportunity to express their side of recent events, especially the Ed Baker issue.
I mentioned long ago my concern referencing Ed Baker advising the County Executive and the County Council, both of which actually turned one against the other, advice wise. It was a rocky situation and I personally felt they needed a separate attorney in cases like that and obviously they agreed.
However, the big topic was whether or not Ed Baker would answer to the County Council and or the County Executive? Clearly, in Mr. Pollitt's opinion he felt Ed Baker would in fact be working directly for the Executive and answer only to the County Executive.
After the meeting I did more research and called Mr. Finneran back and asked hm to open up the Charter to section 507, "Department of Law." Mr. Finneran answered with an e-mail he felt would answer all of my questions. It went as follows:
"The process of appointment of the County Attorney and other department heads was explained and it was noted that the Executive has the power to terminate department heads. So I explained that in laymen’s terms the County attorney “works for the executive.” However the Charter requires the attorney to provide legal advice to the Council and to draft legislation if requested. I explained that ethically the corporate entity, Wicomico County, is the attorney’s client and if a conflict exists or even may exist on a particular matter the attorney is bound to advise the Council to seek advice from a separate counsel. While it might seem strange, based on my conversations with the county attorneys in the other counties, major conflicts are extremely rare."
I then received a message from Mr. Pollitt explaining the following:
"I apologize for any confusion I may have contributed here. From our earlier conversations, I was under the impression that, as a department head, the attorney was responsible only for the county executive and that any support for the council was through the cooperation of the exec. I think I finally have it in my thick head and appreciate your diligence in keeping me on the right track.
Rick Pollitt"
You just have to appreciate and respect a man for coming forward and admitting something was wrong. This is something never seen within the City of Salisbury, yet Barrie Tilghman always takes full responsibility. She never admits they did anything wrong, just that she'll take the heat. RIGHT!
That being said, it will take some time to re think the Ed Baker situation on my behalf anyway. I'll be back.
" . . . based on my conversations with the county attorneys in the other counties, major conflicts are extremely rare."
ReplyDeleteWHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO SAY?
In fact, there is an inherent conflict whenever anyone tries to serve two masters in the same matter. The fact is that traditionally (even if not longer)there has been little serious debate and dissent by elected officials in local government, and despite popular belief that has not always been a good thing -- you need look no farther than Salibsury.
The problem is exacerbated if the executive can fire the City Attorney -- as Barrie Tilghman did when she was elected -- but the Council cannot, and there is bona-fide disagreement with the administration's outrageous conduct by a minority on the Council. Once again, Salisbury is the poster child for that scenario.
As recently as the last meeting of the Salisbury City Council, we saw the mayor almost putting one over on the public -- trying to amend the budget by a resolution, when an ordinance is needed -- and being called on it by Ms. Campbell (the City Attorney very reluctantly had to concede she was correct, knowing that Barrie can fire him in a heartbeat). Things are really unbalanced when the Council does not have its separate legal council, even if "major conflicts are extremely rare."
ReplyDeleteIm sorry for this ,im sorry for that.
ReplyDeletewho cares, there going to keep the good ole boys club alive and well in wicomico county.
And as far as answering to anyone they wont.
More to the point, if Pollitt thought Baker was "just for him," then where in the budget was the counsel for the County Council?
ReplyDeleteEven if Pollitt "loaned" them Baker, if Baker had to say, "Go outside, I can't help you because I serve the Exec," where in the budget was the Council's counsel?
As for the City, my God, that be any more a disaster? Barrie Tilghman using taxpayer money for legal expenses to carry out her personal vendettas against citizens and political foes? And the Three Bumblers just say, "Ok, have another check!"
Thank goodness Cohen and Campbell stood up to that nonsense. The other three just don't get it that just because the mayor asks for it, you don't give it, especially after she's squandered it!
Beam me up, Scotty!
And the City Attorney -- who is supposed to review all this stuff in advance -- didn't say a word until Campbell and Cohen called it.
ReplyDeleteBut C and C were expected to vote to pay him MORE of OUR money?
I say, give it to THEM! Both of them nailed the mall issue Wilber blew. Campbell nailed Hearn, which Wilber blew. Cohen caught the resolution vs. ordinance issue another time.
Both those ladies are more on top of it than Wilber is.
REPENT RICK . . . FIRE FINERAN!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteREPENT RICK . . . FIRE FINERAN!
5:00 PM
I've got a better one:
REPENT CITIZENS . . . FIRE POLLITT!
I've got a better one:
ReplyDeleteREPENT CITIZENS . . . FIRE POLLITT!
7:40 PM
And replace him with who? Gail Bartkovich? Not in this lifetime.
It's good that Rick admits mistakes, but this is a rather large point to have missed. It is not some tiny, tiny point of law with no real significance. How does the county leader not know this stuff?
ReplyDeleteHail C & C, without them the city would also be morally bankrupt~!
ReplyDelete