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?

Council unconcerned about pool issues

It does not appear that the Council will address the pool issues anytime soon, if ever. Perhaps they consider $200 a month to be fair market value for private swim teams practice at our pool, even tho the facts indicate otherwise. Perhaps they feel that, after having the pool for forty years, not presently having good, verifiable controls and accounting methods in place is too much to ask. It is also possible that they are perfectly okay with handshake agreements as a method for conducting City business, even tho they havent authorized any to be made and they arent legally enforcable if nobody knows what the agreements are. They are also unconcerned when the City Manager sends them a memo that says an Optimist connection exists that makes sales taxes on concession sales unnecessary; however there is no verifiable or confirmed basis for that claim and could leave the city liable for back sales taxes. Perhaps they are not concerned because, compared to other city fiascos, this is small potatoes. Perhaps they dont want to address these issues because it could be embarrassing to them in a campaign season. Or perhaps they just dont care what happens at the pool. Any or all of those possibilities exist, and we may never find the TRUTH if somebody in a position to do something about it doesnt investigate and shed some light on these issues. The people have a right to know where their money is going and for what. Transparency is a good thing in a democratic society.

handshakes legally binding?

How in the world can the city Attorney 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 did and agreements, and under what conditions, did they witness? Were the witnesses of legal age? of sound mind? in possession of sound hearing? able to comprehend what was transpiring? 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 consumated? if so, where IS 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? Isnt 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?