#1 2009-10-27 09:19:18
I'm reading many great comments on the blog this morning, but no one is mentioning the fact that K and P is getting paid to sit on stage and to represent us in all legal issues associated with town and doing a bad job of it.
It has been my experience that K and P simply give the selectmen whatever opinion they want. Notice that the attorney was silent on the legality of the deed restriction lawfully filed in Plymouth. Notice that the attorney did not stop the dissolution motion. Remember the previous town meeting when we voted to continue the meeting, Donahue "miscalculated" the vote tally, and the K and P lawyer didn't have the ethical standards to do the right thing. So, TM was dismissed with unheard articles (Dan, I think that is against the rules too, but not sure).
K and P was wrong to say that only a majority vote was needed to "convey" the property (as the original Westfield article was written). That was their "opinion." Then note that the word "convey" mysteriously disappeared from the final article. K and P knew their "opinion" was wrong but not until another attorney challenged them at their love fest move W. forward session, did they change their tune. Oh, and guess who got paid to write both articles??$$$
Since K and P represented the town in the library litigation, I have plenty of horror stories to tell you about K and P and their handling of the case. That's for a later time.
Right now, I ask that you watch and keep track of the behavior and actions of the K and P attorney. I believe we need to finally rid this town of K and P and their cushy job here. Do what the bos want, and cash the checks. Taxpayer's money. YOUR money.
Remember, if we did not have so many exorbitant legal bills, other town services would benefit from those funds.
Offline
#2 2009-10-27 09:31:15
I enjoyed the look on Atty. Bowen's face when a speaker asked a question of Town Counsel, and John Donahue said he would handle it! Think about that.... Priceless! I guess it doesn't matter either way.
Offline
#3 2009-10-27 09:35:52
maybe k&p are confused??? they are hired to work for a boss. that boss is NOT the bos it is the residents of wareham...
Offline
#4 2009-10-27 09:44:57
Right you are, Liz. WE pay K and P with our tax dollars. That makes US the boss. But I don't want them simply "ruling" the way we would like. I want them to rule or make their "opinions" based on law and not what the employer wants. A good attorney sometimes has to give bad news to their clients. The law is the law.
These tax dollars could be better spent on a community that is in fiscal crises.
I'd like to see the bill for the Westfield work.
I'd like to see the bill for the Charter Review work.
I'd like to see the bill for the library litigation work.
I could go on, but I think it is clear that we are spending way too much money on legal bills in this town. It is time to get rid of K and P as many other towns have done and hire a full time attorney who only contracts out for specific bills and cases. This is another example of irresponsible fiscal management on the part of the selectmen. Please add this to the list for recall in April
Offline
#5 2009-10-27 10:07:00
One thing that the K & P lawyer said caught my attention. He mentioned that there had been an eminent domain proceeding subsequent to the original deed recording(s), due to a defect (not defined) in the title. further, that the property having been 'taken' by eminent domain, that all prior restrictions were wiped out.
Well, this has always been my understanding of the eminent domain process. Mortgages, liens, easements, rights of others, restrictions - all gone. So, it may be that the intent of the 1977 Town Meeting, as well as the 1977 BoS, may be moot, in a legal sense.
Of course, the intent is still important in a moral sense, or ethical sense. but will that be enough to stop the process? Not with this BoS. All the more reason to sustain the vote on this article through to the end of the Town Meeting.
Offline
#6 2009-10-27 14:24:11
I would like to see the K and P bill for the Westfield work too. Jane Donahue said there was no cost to the taxpayer. But we get stuck with part of Heaton's bill since the trust, which is also our money, paid for part of it. So, I guess that means we paid for all of Heaton's bill one way or the other.
The lawyer's bill is probably listed under general legal bills and that way, it doesn't seem like it cost us for Westfield. But, dear Jane, we are not stupid. The Westfield fiasco cost us big bucks and that includes whatever K and P charged to give us their opinion on the deed and the 2/3 vote requirement. And whatever billable hours they could jerk the town of Wareham around on--of course, that is only my opinion.
This isn't the first time I've heard an untruth come out of Janie's mouth. She should join Brenda and resign immediately.
Offline
#7 2009-10-28 08:14:49
The K and P attorney did not disappoint last night. We paid these clowns to write and review those articles and look what we got--confusion and plenty of wasted time. As an English prof. I'd be happy to review the warrant ahead of time for clarity and conciseness which even the freshmen composition students are required to include in the simplest of assignments!! Clearly K and P lawyers missed that class.
And when we pay one of them to come to town meeting, shouldn't he or she be the person with the knowledge of how to run a town meeting and when to use words like adjourn and dissolve etc.?
I'm tired of seeing my hard earned tax payer dollars go to K and P. I'd like to work together with people on this site to get rid of them as our town's attorneys. Any ideas?
(I will say one thing about the way last night's method of voting was changed--yeas and nays are iffy since loudness should not be the determining factor. Holding up cards is more accurate. I'm not sure who decided on that change, but it was a good one. I like to give credit due since I am not simply a hate-blogger!!!)
Great to see so many of you again last night working towards Taking Back Wareham!!
Offline
#8 2009-10-28 08:23:52
Nora, the easiest way to get rid of K&P is to get rid of the people that hired K&P. K&P goes in April when we get rid of all the selectmen!
Offline
#9 2009-10-28 08:38:16
I can't believe there are not some attorneys in Town that would welcome the opportunity of serving their community as Town counsel.
Offline
#10 2009-10-28 08:56:27
In the past a local attorney serving as town counsel made a mistake that cost the town over a million dollars in a lawsuit. Ask those who have been involved for several decades. Think carefully about this move. It is important to have someone, or a firm, with comprehensive municipal experience. Not just anyone can be town counsel... there are many different areas of law that are covered. Alcohol license hearings, contracts, personnel, grievances, land use, etc etc. There should be a proper RFP, AGAIN, and this time new board members will be doing the interviewing. We can get a smaller firm who will pay attention to our town's business and who has the experience needed. If the town hires only one person, it will probably be too much work, and we will have special counsels all over the place. This needs careful thought, in my opinion. While I do think we need a change, let's get a new board and a TA and talk about what the town needs for counsel and then go forward.
Offline
#11 2009-10-28 09:00:25
Voter...I agree. But, are there enough local attorneys to have a "pool" of attorneys, residents, known for their own specialities?
I think you are right about RFP if some can't be found.
Offline
#12 2009-10-28 10:03:51
Point well made. What I was really thinking was doing some detective work and seeing what has worked in those towns that have smaller firms, or you contract with a lawyer that subcontracts (I'm not sure that's the right way to put it) out to real estate lawyers, or land use, or civil service litigation etc. So you have the advantage of getting the best in their specific fields. I realize one person can't do everything.
My beef is that every time you need a little "opinion" by K and P, we get to pay big bucks. With an attorney on retainer, all that day to day stuff is not charged for separately. I know from experience, since I have the library correspondence files, that K and P sent so many letters, emails etc. that we (taxpayers) got stuck paying for in a case that the judge magistrate told us was "over-litigated" that the town could have saved a lot of money. Lawyers at big firms need billable hours, and K and P deserves the award for the number of billable hours.
Since I am not a legal expert, I would suggest a committee to study what other towns have done, what works best and what will save us the most money while getting good legal representation.
I know other towns have dumped K and P. Let's do some research and find out what we can do to benefit all of us.
Offline
#13 2009-10-28 10:26:56
Since my last posting two people have contacted me with K and P horror stories. I'll keep a file on these "problems" because I believe that the more evidence you have, the stronger your case. And if we want to remove K and P from getting our taxpayer dollars, we need to be convincing.
So, if anyone out there, in some town related capacity, has had some dealings with K and P that you were not satisfied with, please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
Offline
#14 2009-10-28 10:44:38
Maybe we should think about hiring that famous law firm in Harvard Square that the "Car Talk" guys use: Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
Offline
#15 2009-10-29 20:58:56
Nora,
My sister works for the Town of Kingston and they no longer employ K&P. Kingston pays a $6,000.00 per month retainer to a law firm (I can't remember the name) for all their legal neesds. They carefully weigh whether or not to pursue cases as to cost against what is to be gained. The attorney assigned to Kingston spends one day a month meeting with department heads, committees & boards to discuss and answer any questions they may have. Kingston's legal costs have greatly diminished.
Offline
#16 2009-10-29 21:12:42
I agree that gathering information about K & P and seeing what other towns are doing is the best way to plan for this needed change.
Last edited by voter (2009-10-29 21:13:40)
Offline
#17 2009-10-30 07:05:13
Of course, this is something our bos should have done when we had our first year of outrageous over-budgeted costs in the legal bills category. Another example of their fiscal irresponsibility. They use K and P as if it were their own personal attorneys on retainer. K and P should represent the people who pay for them--US, the taxpayers.
The Kingston example is interesting--a base of $72,000. Imagine that. I'm wondering what that includes exactly? And to they need to contract outside attorneys for land use issues etc.?
Let's add this to our TO DO list. Get rid of K and P.
Offline
#18 2009-10-30 07:24:58
Molly, While I agree with your comments on K&P, don't forget the rest of them. The selectbozos have hired others to take on missions of distruction that even K&P would not take on. How much have we spent on Younutz? We now have Torres representing Sweet Brucie and the butt monkey on the DA grand jury investigation. You would think there would be no need to represent Sweet Brucie and butt monkey if they did not undertake what will end up to be a $100,000 effort to either have a witch hunt for bloggers or people who use Amazon as the Cript Keeper now wants you to believe.
Offline
#19 2009-10-30 07:51:57
Those of you new to the blog--a while back it was reported that K and P had sent a letter to the bos that is called a "cover your ass" letter in lawyer-lingo. In other words, when the client is not following the advice of his/her/their lawyer, the lawyer "warns" the client so the lawyers will not be held libel for the crazy actions of the client--in this case the bos.
The person who told me about it, knew the person who found the letter. I trust both of those people. However, for obvious reasons, that person did not want to come forward. Still, it sounds like something K and P would have to do with these clowns giving orders.
In my opinion, K and P are such whores for the money that even if their clients--the bos--go rogue and ignore their advice, they will still work for them and keep up those billable hours. Doesn't sound very ethical to me. But I've never heard anyone accuse K and P of being too ethical. Look at Bowen's behavior at town meeting. Allowing Brenda's illegal motion to dissolve be both accepted by the moderator and voted on was totally negligent behavior on his part. Yet he gets to bill for two night's worth of worthless advice. And he never really answered the question about the Westfield deed mentioned by Bob Brady.
But think about it--what lawyer in his or her right mind would have said it was ok to do the computer audit the way it was done? And the reason we have that other lawyer for the grand jury/computer audit investigation has to be because K and P was a "party" of the seizure of the hard drives. So we get to pay legal fees twice for that debacle. I'm with the rest of you who want to get rid of K and P.
Offline
#20 2009-10-30 10:13:53
danoconnell wrote:
Voter...I agree. But, are there enough local attorneys to have a "pool" of attorneys, residents, known for their own specialities?
I think you are right about RFP if some can't be found.
It has been obvious that K&P represents the politicians (they make the decisions to sue, appeal, etc.) who get the Town into trouble. The taxpayers - including the seasonal residents - go unrepresented.
Years ago I had business in the tiny Town of Plympton. A very capable local young female Attorney sat in on every hearing and meeting to answer questions on the spot or confer with petitioners or their Attorney - if the Town officials or taxpayer had questions. Everything was on the table. There is a place for Executive Sessions and politics, but the present BOS violate the Open Meeting and Public Records Laws on a weekly basis - a very expensive practice.
Offline
#21 2009-10-30 10:41:05
Nora Bicki wrote:
Since my last posting two people have contacted me with K and P horror stories. I'll keep a file on these "problems" because I believe that the more evidence you have, the stronger your case. And if we want to remove K and P from getting our taxpayer dollars, we need to be convincing.
So, if anyone out there, in some town related capacity, has had some dealings with K and P that you were not satisfied with, please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
I have a bucket full of horor stories and one that is still active - The Road (Wankinquoah Ave.) Name Change where K&P is bleeding the Town - At least 40 billable hours so far. The latest response to the Judge's request for Town records about the signs - who and when? - was WE HAVE NOTHING, KNOW NOTHING. The neighbors are footing the bill to exercise their rights with a private Attorney. For What? The desire of Bruce's wife and family to memorialize the name - Oceanside - of the failed business and Pizza Shop!
Last edited by waterview (2009-10-30 10:42:33)
Offline
