Interim City Attorney Everett Jenkins’ request for City Council approval of $50,000 to hire a contract attorney who has already been working for over a week was rejected last night by a unanimous vote, and Jenkins was requested to provide the City Council with additional information to justify the position.

 

Although the City Attorney routinely retains outside counsel with special expertise to handle individual cases, this proposal was unique in that the contract attorney would handle a diverse caseload on a full-time basis, including taking over abatement proceedings involving drug houses previously handled by a staff attorney. The timing was also seen as suspicious because the proposal came amid a festering dispute within the City Attorney’s Office between the Interim City Attorney and one of the assistant city attorneys involving charges of breaching administrative procedures and countercharges of harassment.

 

Jenkins argued that the office was short handed and overwhelmed with work that needed to be done. Several public speakers condemned the proposed hire and questioned the wisdom of paying the contract attorney more than the cost of wages and benefits for existing staff attorneys. Councilmember Rogers also sparred with Jenkins over the cost of the contract attorney.

 

During Reports of Officers. Jenkins apologized to City staff members allegedly maligned by the E-FORUM but has so far failed to respond to an invitation to point out exactly how the E-FORUM piece was erroneous.