comments

How many other handshake deals has the City Attorney approved? On what legal basis were those approved? What has he done regarding the legal status and proceedings in the taping incident? Where does that stand currently? What was his legal opinion of THAT situation and the basis behind that opinion? What steps need to be taken, or has he recommended be taken, to prevent any legal liabilities to the City in the future? Any? If he hasnt made ANY change suggestions for the future, does that mean he feels that taping peoples conversations without their knowledge or approval is legally and ethically okay? Is it his legal opinion that taping city employees without their knowledge or approval is okay? What changes in city policies has he recommended to avoid having this situation arise again? Any? If none, why not? What has he done to resolve and remedy the current situation? What legal suggestions to the Mayor and Council has he made regarding this situation, and others with the same potential legal liability? Any?

legal questions

It will be interesting to see what the City Attorney's position is on these handshake deals- does he approve of them? Did he approve of them in the past? If so, on what legal grounds? When did he know there were NO contracts and NO use agreements? Was he aware that there IS NOT now, and never HAS been, a relationship with the Optimists to avoid sales taxes on concession sales? How does this absence of contracts affect the City's liability exposure? Now that he knows there ARE no contracts, why did he NOT suggest to the Mayor and Council that contracts be put into place NOW, or as soon as possible? Has he ever offerred a legal opinion regarding the validity and enforcability of these handshake deals? If so, what WAS that legal opinion? On what legal basis was it formed? When did that happen? By doing nothing, or NOT suggesting any changes, he seems to be in tacit legal approval of the handshake process already in place, right?