Let me get this straight - the Attorney General Marty Jackley threw the proverbial ball back to the City and the City Attorney and possibly the Ethics board to resolve the legality issue of whether the advocacy position of the Mayor regarding the Event Center violates state law?
Isn't it the City Attorney's position that the Mayor's Event Center presentations do not violate state law? So the Attorney General thinks the City should deal with their own legal opinion. What a joke.
You can call this whole thing political; the mayor did when he said, "there are some people out there who will use every tactic available to make this thing fail." Call it whatever you want, but when a question is asked regarding the legality of state law, the public deserves a legal response from it's highest legal officer in the state. All Jackley did was continue to fan the flames of political discourse in this community. He did not do his job.
This question deals with state law, it does not deal with city ordinances. As such, it deserves a response from state officials. It does not belong in the City Attorney's office or the Ethics Board which is overseen by the City Attorney. If somebody wants to take action, file with the states attorney's office. Don't go to the Ethics Board.
The attorney general legal opinion stated: Whether such expenditures are impliedly authorized requires close review of the initiated or referred measure and a review of those powers expressly granted under statute. The expenditures would have to be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. Why this attorney general did not chose to look at this current issue on an individual case by case basis is confusing.
How about the city council take this issue seriously and do the people's work. They could resolve the cloud of controversy one way or another by formally requesting a legal opinion of the Attorney General. I wouldn't hold my breath on that idea. There is no one down at Carnegie Hall to bring this group together into meaningful thoughtful discourse or action. Thank the mayor for leading them down the path of insignificance and indecision.
Maybe Citizen Barclay should put in a formal request to the mayor's office to have city staff help produce his handouts and give him the schedule of weekly city presentations so he could be present to offer a different "advocacy." The public is entitled to a pro/con discussion in order to make an informed decision at the voting booth. A one sided "communication/education/advocacy" approach to this major initiative does a disservice to the taxpayers of this community.
Nobody is guarding the hen house, least of all the attorney general.
Sounds like the "good ole boy network" is alive and well in city and state politics.
ReplyDeleteThe pro/con discussion should have been occuring all along in the citie's EC "educational meetings" I find it offensive that it hasn't been.
ReplyDelete