TennesseeTicket.com

Re: Response to question of hiring outside legal counsel to defend issues involving Councilwoman Rutherford

Date: October 24, 2007

I draw the line at the spending of potentially large amounts of
taxpayer's dollars on expensive outside attorneys - and I certainly hope
that the City Council has not contracted for more than a single hour of
their lawyer's $250 per hour consultation fee.

As this issue began to unfold a few weeks ago, there were a number of
individuals - myself included - who attempted to work between the
various interests to try and resolve things with a minimum of
confrontation. Unfortunately, when the Council acted preemptively,
matters accelerated and the desire to minimize conflict and confusion
became more problematic.

The issue of legal residence is rather common in jurisdictional
elections and court decisions have been mixed. We have seen it come up
from time to time here locally. A very similar situation involving the
recent election of a new Mayor in Birmingham, Alabama is currently
working its way through the system. I have always maintained that I was
fully aware of Ms. Rutherford's claim of a voting address for purposes
of her council service and assumed since she had adequate legal advice
on the matter that it met the necessary tests. Although I respect our
city attorney's recent opinion regarding the characteristics of Ms.
Rutherford's situation, the fact remains that the courts might still
have ruled in her favor. In any event, the deciding of the issue would
have involved a protracted and expensive legal battle which would have
been at best a diversion from what we were elected to do. Court costs
would quickly exceed any cost of employee benefits for Ms. Rutherford.
For this reason (and perhaps ill-advisedly for my personal well-being) I
injected myself into the fray and attempted to find a compromise to
settle the matter so that we could move on.

Most importantly, Ms. Rutherford's legal residence has been open public
knowledge since before the last election. It has been the subject of
conversations both serious and not so serious throughout the term of
this administration. It was well known by members of the City Council,
the city attorney, some representatives of the media and (I can say with
particular knowledge since I live in District 6) by a wide swath of her
constituents. Ms. Rutherford even had a Christmas party at her Hemphill
address last year and everyone was invited - so the evidence is clear.

I can understand that it may not have been a matter of particular
interest in other parts of the city, but to claim that Ms. Rutherford's
residential arrangement was in any way a secret is simply not true.
Again, it was open public knowledge.

Perhaps more significantly, the legality or illegality of Ms.
Rutherford's voting residence situation has never been determined -
although almost everyone has an opinion.

The point is that for the Council to react with mock horror at this
stage and pretend to have just discovered the issue is a bit
disingenuous, to put it kindly. For the Council to reject all
compromise solutions and act in a preemptive fashion to strip Ms.
Rutherford of a common retirement benefit three days short of an
important anniversary is, at best, spiteful, small and mean. At worst,
it is personal and vindictive.

Once again, let me state that I have often clashed with Ms. Rutherford,
but fair is fair. She has been a very busy member of the council and -
like her or not - no one should say that she didn't work hard and
attempt to represent her district. Her attendance record at committee
meetings and council meetings (better than many of her critics) bears
witness to her serious intent to serve. She is also constantly meeting
with neighborhood groups and special interests within the Brainerd
community. With apologies to pet lovers and to Ms. Rutherford, I
confess that I have sometimes used the term "pit bull" to describe her
approach to the job - and not in a totally complimentary fashion.

Having attempted to resolve the Council's family feud in a less
confrontational manner, I have been pummeled in the process. Political
life imitates real life. So be it. Even though I do not believe that
the Council's action to isolate a single individual and withhold
benefits that have been earned by ten years of service - except for
three days - would pass legal muster, I will not hire expensive outside
legal council to defend the issue.

Ron Littlefield