|
|
Littlefield Rips City Council For Hiring Lawyer On Rutherford Benefits Will Not Hire Own Attorney, But Is Not Backing Off posted October 25, 2007 Mayor Ron Littlefield on Wednesday hit City Council members for going to battle against his plan to hire former Councilwoman Marti Rutherford for three days in November to make her eligible for city retirement medical benefits. The mayor said he does not plan to spend taxpayers' money to hire his own lawyer. But that does not mean he is backing off the special help to Ms. Rutherford, the mayor's spokesperson, Richard Beeland, said. Mayor Littlefield said, "I draw the line at the spending of potentially large amounts of taxpayers’ dollars on expensive outside attorneys – and I certainly hope that the City Council has not contracted for more than a single hour of their lawyer’s $250 per hour consultation fee." Mayor Littlefield, in a written statement, said the City Council's actions in regards to Ms. Rutherford have been "at best, spiteful, small and mean. At worst, personal and vindictive." The council voted unanimously on Tuesday night to hire attorney Roger Dickson to seek to block the Littlefield action. Ms. Rutherford resigned Oct. 1 from her District 6 post after an ouster lawsuit was filed against her by City Attorney Randy Nelson and the council voted to file charges against her on grounds she actually lives in District 5. Ms. Rutherford turns 62 on Nov. 3 and needed to be with the city that long to get on the medical insurance. Her current city coverage expires at the end of this month. Mayor Littlefield said: As this issue began to unfold a few weeks ago, there were a number of individuals – myself included – who attempted to work between the various interests to try and resolve things with a minimum of confrontation. Unfortunately, when the Council acted preemptively, matters accelerated and the desire to minimize conflict and confusion became more problematic. The issue of legal residence is rather common in jurisdictional elections and court decisions have been mixed. We have seen it come up from time to time here locally. A very similar situation involving the recent election of a new Mayor in Birmingham, Alabama is currently working its way through the system. I have always maintained that I was fully aware of Ms. Rutherford’s claim of a voting address for purposes of her council service and assumed since she had adequate legal advice on the matter that it met the necessary tests. Although I respect our city attorney’s recent opinion regarding the characteristics of Ms. Rutherford’s situation, the fact remains that the courts might still have ruled in her favor. In any event, the deciding of the issue would have involved a protracted and expensive legal battle which would have been at best a diversion from what we were elected to do. Court costs would quickly exceed any cost of employee benefits for Ms. Rutherford. For this reason (and perhaps ill-advisedly for my personal well-being) I injected myself into the fray and attempted to find a compromise to settle the matter so that we could move on. Most importantly, Ms. Rutherford’s legal residence has been open public knowledge since before the last election. It has been the subject of conversations both serious and not so serious throughout the term of this administration. It was well known by members of the City Council, the city attorney, some representatives of the media and (I can say with particular knowledge since I live in District 6) by a wide swath of her constituents. Ms. Rutherford even had a Christmas party at her Hemphill address last year and everyone was invited – so the evidence is clear. I can understand that it may not have been a matter of particular interest in other parts of the city, but to claim that Ms. Rutherford’s residential arrangement was in any way a secret is simply not true. Again, it was open public knowledge. Perhaps more significantly, the legality or illegality of Ms. Rutherford’s voting residence situation has never been determined – although almost everyone has an opinion. The point is that for the Council to react with mock horror at this stage and pretend to have just discovered the issue is a bit disingenuous, to put it kindly. For the Council to reject all compromise solutions and act in a preemptive fashion to strip Ms. Rutherford of a common retirement benefit three days short of an important anniversary is, at best, spiteful, small and mean. At worst, it is personal and vindictive. Once again, let me state that I have often clashed with Ms. Rutherford, but fair is fair. She has been a very busy member of the council and – like her or not – no one should say that she didn’t work hard and attempt to represent her district. Her attendance record at committee meetings and council meetings (better than many of her critics) bears witness to her serious intent to serve. She is also constantly meeting with neighborhood groups and special interests within the Brainerd community. With apologies to pet lovers and to Ms. Rutherford, I confess that I have sometimes used the term “pit bull” to describe her approach to the job – and not in a totally complimentary fashion. Having attempted to resolve the Council’s family feud in a less confrontational manner, I have been pummeled in the process. Political life imitates real life. So be it. Even though I do not believe that the Council’s action to isolate a single individual and withhold benefits that have been earned by ten years of service - except for three days - would pass legal muster, I will not hire expensive outside legal council to defend the issue. Ron Littlefield |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
|||||
|
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||||
|
| Breaking News | Sports | Opinion | Happenings | Classifieds | Obituaries | | Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us | | Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel | |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
|
news@chattanoogan.com (423) 266-2325 © 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by Three HD Privacy Policy |