pool ponderings 3

How is it that the City Attorney can approve a handshake deal as a legally sound method of doing City business? How would the terms of that handshake be enforced? Who were the witnesses? What terms and agreements, and under what conditions, did they witness? Were the witnesses of legal age, of sound mind, and in possession of sound hearing? Were the witnesses able to comprehend what was transpiring? How does a handshake deal meet any of the requirements for a legally binding contract? Was the City Attorney present at any of these handshake agreements? If so, what did HE witness? Was he consulted before these agreements were made? If so, did he offer a legal opinion of the said agreements before they were consummated? If so, where ARE those legal opinions? Now that he KNOWS there ARE no contracts OR use agreements in place, only handshake agreements, what is his legal opinion of the status of these aforementioned handshake agreements? Is he going to recommend to the Mayor and Council that formal contracts be put into place, or is he comfortable legally that the handshakes are defensible and enforceable, if needed? Is he going to wait for the Mayor and the Council to ask him his legal opinion first? Why would he wait, now that he is aware of a potential problem? Isn’t a large part of his job to anticipate potential legal problems and proactively advise and warn the Council BEFORE something adverse happens? Why is he NOT doing that in this case?