Accountability 102 (Part III):Retrospective on Finger Lakes Times 305 Coverage

This is the last installment in a series of posts aimed at exploring the way in which media coverage of a public issue shapes decision-making, and the perception of decision-making, in government. We have used the 305 Main Street issue as a ‘case study’ which reveals how poor coverage can actually lead to bad decisions. In our view, the 305 issue could have been resolved-- long time ago, with far less controversy-- had there been full public disclosure by Council, and independent, objective reporting by the local paper.

In particular, the intentions of the various parties and the costs associated with the various options for the building were not given adequate coverage. If the paper had pursued even somewhat more thorough explanations of Council actions in taking on such a potentially costly project, the public might have become aware of the potential liability much sooner. This could have resulted in a creative solution presenting itself earlier. Now, it’s long after the fact and the public feels ripped off and let down by local government.

Furthermore, in not disclosing the preference the paper’s publisher (and editorial board member) Phil Beckley had for demolition of the property, the public would also remain unaware that there was more information on 305 to be found elsewhere. As a result, the paper ran only what Council said, and then Council repeated what the paper ran, in a self-fulfilling manner. That’s a real problem when what’s being said and what’s being printed are not the whole story!

Since Part 1 and Part 2 focused on recent coverage of the issue, we now take you back to the archives and look at stories printed in the paper shortly after the acquisition of the property and the performing arts center plans were made public. All of the articles referenced are available here:

In a March 17, 2005 article, former City Councilor Paul Schroeder characterized the City Council vote to approve the City's acquisition of the former gas station at 305 Main Street, "a favor to the arts council." However, the extent and underlying significance of that ‘favor’ was not discussed. The Times article gave the public the 'who' and the 'what' of the story, but not the 'when,' 'where,' 'how,' and 'why.' No mention was made of the fact that the City went out of its way to take ownership of a potentially contaminated site simply because the Arts Council requested it.

A few weeks later (April 8, 2005), the Finger Lakes Times returned to the 305 story and reported that the arts group had reduced its purchase offer price from $200,000 to $50,000, because "it could be some time before the project [performing arts center] could actually move forward." The Finger Lakes Times did not mention the several additional offers that others made to purchase the building and return it to the City tax rolls.

On June 20, 2005, the Finger Lakes Times reported on the costs of stabilization and cleanup of 305 versus the costs of demolition, as presented at a city council meeting. "According to an April 29 report, it would cost $190,000 to $235,000 to clean up the site and keep the building; or $120,000 to $160,000 to demolish it." However, once it was learned that the City was eligible for over $200,000 in federal funds to stabilize and clean up the building, the local paper ran an editorial stating that the cost was closer to $600,000, although no data was presented to support that claim.

On August 2, 2005, the Finger Lakes Times revealed that the arts council was unable to repay City loans for improvements to the Smith Opera House and negotiations were under way for a bail out repayment plan of only 50 cents on the dollar. "The regional arts council needed to make the adjustment 'in an attempt to get our debt down. There was no way we could make good on the loan,' said Carl Fribolin."

Ten days later, the paper reported "During an executive session Wednesday night, City Councilors met with the Smith’s treasurer Bob Schick and Carl Fribolin, vice president of its board of directors, to discuss terms of the arts council’s newest proposal and how the organization plans to develop the site." Not only did the newspaper not challenge this closed-door discussion (plans to develop a city-owned site are only a legitimate grounds for executive session if the information would substantially negatively impact the value of the land). But the paper also did not address the contradiction between the group’s inability to repay the full amount to the Revolving Loan fund, but ability to purchase a deteriorating building for a 'cultural center.'

When Capraro came on Council in December 2005, he was told at his orientation by then City Manager Rich Rising that it was “council policy” to preserve 305. Within six months, that policy changed, without explanation, until now.

Accountability 102 (Part II): Who's Pressing the Press?

A free press and democracy go hand-in-hand. That’s why the framers of the U.S. Constitution included freedom of the press at the very top of our Bill of Rights. It’s no different at the local level. In Geneva, the Finger Lakes Times (FLT) plays a vital role in everyday political life. Most of what most people know about City government comes from “the paper.” For that reason, accountability matters. The FLT has an awesome responsibility to get things right, for the sake of good government.

Unfortunately, limitations in space, staff, and ideology prevent the FLT from giving its readers complete and objective coverage of what goes on in the City. FLT headlines (and photo captions, as pointed out in a recent letter to the editor) are not only often sensational, but downright misleading in so far as they do not accurately reflect the content of the story or picture they accompany. Getting the story ‘right’ means that the content must be accurate and complete. In our opinion, the FLT seldom gets the story right, and even their editorial slant is sometimes disconnected from the facts as presented in their own paper. The need for a fact-based point of view on local government, and a fact-based point of view on the local media’s failure to present a fact-based point of view, is the main reason for launching this blog.

Granted, managing editor Anne Schuhle has a tough job. By her own admission, she is frequently overwhelmed by a never ending series of decisions and challenges that come with running a small-town, monopolistic newspaper. That’s the basis of her column in the Sunday paper, From Where I Sit, which features anecdotes about keeping readers happy, balancing work and family, keeping up with changing technology, and the like. Between those realities and the advertising pressures in a small market (as discussed in our most recent interview with Ted Baker), the world of the FLT editorial board is a highly pragmatic one.

At www.nostringsgeneva.com we’ve had our share of run-ins with the paper. They will occasionally run a story on the blog, usually quoting someone who says the blog contains false information. Yet never has anyone at the paper or anyone quoted given any evidence to substantiate such claims. No one-- not a reporter, not an editor-- not even anyone quoted, ever brought forward a valid example of a false statement or something presented as fact in the blog that was not actually true. Shouldn’t follow-up questions and independent fact-checking be the rule and not the exception? Instead, reporters are allowed to repeat, uncritically, what critics have said about the blog, leaving the impression that what had been said was true.

Looking at the local paper in a broader perspective, consider this recent piece in USA Today: ( click here for article). It describes the role of the media (newspapers, in particular) as the “fourth branch of government.” Newspapers must first get the facts straight and then provide a larger context for their readers: “Accuracy, fairness and timeliness are the most important aspects of sound, credible journalism. Journalists are fact finders. They need to get the facts that make a story relevant and interesting to readers. Having said that, a story must also be compelling. It must let readers know why this event is important to them now.”

With regard to the gas station debate, we believe the Finger Lakes Times failed on all three counts. Every substantive article on the topic appeared after a vote was already taken. This leaves residents reacting to decisions, rather than really providing them the tools to be full participants in the process. As shown in Part I, the articles have not been accurate and in the past we believe that was due to a fundamental unfairness in the coverage. After all, the publisher and member of the editorial board was, himself, the biggest proponent of demolition (and due to the closed-door discussions about the topic, very few members of the public would have known that at the time). So, while the FLT requires people who write letters to the editor to disclose any affiliations that might bear on the opinion expressed, the same standard did not hold in their own work.

In a previous post, we stated that a ‘he said/she said’ approach to reporting is not in the public interest. That’s because there’s a difference between being a reporter and being a journalist. Anyone can report what they heard. For instance, take kids on the playground. Johnny tells Jill that school is cancelled on Friday. Jill doesn’t remember hearing that, but she tells Kim. Jill has reported what Johnny said. But if Jill were a journalist, she might have asked the teacher (an presumed authority) if what Johnny said was true. Then, she could tell Kim “Johnny said there’s no school on Friday, but I checked with Mrs. Smith and it's not true,” that’s journalism!

But this is not playground talk, it’s public policy and more journalism is needed. It is not disrespectful, distrusting, or in any way wrong to dig a little deeper and fact-check. It’s the old adage, “trust, but verify.” In the case of Tuesday night’s meeting, we believe an honest mistake was made, but the pattern of reporting, and lack of journalism on this issue in general is simply not acceptable.

Stay tuned for our fact-based point of view on what happened at the meetings!

Accountability 102 (Part I): Maybe No News is Good News When It Comes to the Local Paper

Instead of helping the public sort out an admittedly complex set of issues, including environmental awareness, historic preservation, and economic development, our local paper has been adding to the confusion surrounding the “305” debate. Inaccurate reporting, sloppy editing, and an editorial bias about the matter has done the public a great disservice. We post a lot about accountability in government and part and parcel of that is having an accurate and accountable press.

Last Wednesday, the paper ran a story on a public hearing on 305. The hearing was held because federal law requires such a hearing before the City draws down any federal grants for the environmental clean up of the site with a “demolition” approach. “Section 106” of the National Historic Preservation Act says the City must demonstrate that they have created a plan with the least “adverse impact” on the historical properties on or surrounding the site. The City must also demonstrate they have considered all feasible alternatives to demolition. (For complete provisions of the act, click here).

As a consequence, the consultants hired by the City-- Dovetail Consulting and Brownfield Redevelopment Solutions, Inc.-- conducted a public hearing on 305 Main Street. Over 40 people attended the hearing. It was not a City Council meeting and the City Council was not conducting business. At one point during the hearing, Mayor Einstein himself stated clearly to the public that the gathering was not a Council meeting. He was emphatic that no Council business would or could be transacted that night.

True, five members of Council were present for most of the hearing (Mayor Einstein and Councilors O’Malley, Augustine, Valentino, Hagerman, with Councilor D’Amico making a brief appearance). But the consultants running the meeting were quick to point out that the purpose of the meeting was not to revisit the previous Council’s vote to demolish the building. The purpose, they declared, was to look at how to “mitigate” the adverse impact of demolition.

Next day in the paper, to our great surprise, we read that the hearing was a “special City Council session” and that its purpose was for “the City Council to reconsider its 2007 vote to demolish.” The headline and the story’s lead sentence portrayed the whole event as “deja vu.” On the contrary, Council made its decision two years ago. Grant givers were now trying to determine if that decision can be carried out with federal tax dollars.

The local paper’s story contains several other inaccuracies regarding both the scope and the content of the meeting. While we’ve expressed our ongoing concerns about that, in today’s post we want to express our grave concern about the role of the local paper in shaping, or mis-shaping, public policy in the City. What they say does matter. And the latest round of articles about the gas station dramatizes the problem.

First of all, how could the paper be so far off on the facts? In fairness to the reporter assigned to cover the hearing, he’s new on the beat and was not the reporter who has covered the 305 story over the past few years. It’s hard to fault him for making mistakes in covering such a detailed and technical set of arguments, especially when everything he writes is reviewed, edited, and approved by the paper’s editorial staff. Regardless of who covered the event and drafted the story, it is up to the editors to make sure reporting is accurate, all facts are checked, and the news, including the headline and opening ‘hook’ is free of bias.

Ideological bias is a special, more serious case of inaccuracy in reporting. In our point of view, at every step of the way in the 305 fiasco, the Finger Lakes Times has conveyed the idea that saving the building is ‘doing nothing’ about it, as if anyone who wants to save the building simply wants to keep an old, abandoned building just sitting there for the heck of it. So, too, the paper has never critically examined the dollar amounts used to justify the argument that it is cheaper to demolish the building than to clean it up. They just keep re-printing numbers given to them by city officials. Their presentation of the hearing is the latest installment of their bias, leaving the suggestion that a special Council meeting was called to put 305 up for grabs, with certain members of Council seeking a flip-flop on the vote to demolish.

That’s been since former Finger Lakes Times publisher Phil Beckley himself changed his mind about 305. As we’ve previously posted, Beckley was a key originator of the idea to preserve 305. He and his group later flip-flopped and sought the demolition of 305 at all costs, and now demolition is a good idea in the eyes of the paper.

All of this was brought to the editorial board’s attention through letters and direct contact, but no meaningful follow up was undertaken. In fact, the newspaper took the misinformation a step further by composing an ‘our opinion’ piece that took the city’s figures and ran straight to the wrecking ball, no questions asked.

The paper has yet to hold the City Council accountable for bad decision-making regarding 305.

The City had undertaken a fundamentally flawed process, and in clear violation of the open meetings laws. The proposal to acquire the building for a performing arts center, for example, was presented to Council in Executive Session--not a legitimate topic for such sessions. The former City Manager then sought consensus on a variety of issues related to acquiring and transferring the building via e-mail, which, again, is not playing by the rules.

What did come out at the hearing on 305, and what went unreported by the Finger Lakes Times, was confirmation of how the City acquired 305. Former Councilor Espenscheid and Carl Fribolin, two key players in that development, were on hand at the hearing to refresh the public’s memory, confirming the www.nostringsgeneva.com account. Part III of this post will discuss in more detail what transpired at the hearing, but first stay tuned to Part II in which we discuss the importance of good journalism to good government.

Accountability 101: The City Has Itself to Blame for the "305" Fiasco

City and state officials will be on hand to discuss the fate of the former service station at 305 Main Street, at the Sons of Italy, 7;00 p.m.,Tuesday night (4/8), and at North Street School, 7:00 p.m. Wednesday night (4/9). Why should you care about 305?

We’ve posted a fair amount about “305”. In an early post, one year ago, “Putting the 305 Main Street Decision on a Solid Foundation”, we called for fact-based decision making about 305. In a more recent post, just a few days ago, “Fat Cats and Starving Artists,” we discussed the how the building figures into attempts at arts based economic development in the City. Why do we keep posting on 305?

Simply put, 305 is a piece of the larger whole-- the larger whole of how government works, or does not work, in the City of Geneva. 305 is a case study of private interests shaping public policy, and the consequences—and costs, for taxpayers and citizens. In our fact-based point of view, at every turn in the saga of 305, the common good was abandoned in favor of perceived private gain, while the public, many public officials, and the local paper, have not been paying attention.

Let’s go back to the year 2000. A small group of local investors and developers are interested in some sort of large, downtown project, bolstered by lots of taxpayer dollars. A feature article about Phil Beckley, appearing in the local newspaper then headed by Phil Beckley, sets the stage: (Read the whole story by clicking here).

Beckley, the paper reports, spent time “talking and smoking cigars” with Rob Gladden, head of the local Chamber of Commerce. Philanthropist and businessman Carl Fribolin then called upon Beckley “when Smith Opera House officials decided to pursue building an arts and cultural center behind some downtown buildings.” The article describes how Beckley and Fribolin would sometimes discuss the project, and other topics, on the deck at Fribolin’s home, noting they would “drink Absolut and tonics and look down at a pond and pasture on the property.”

Our “Fat Cats and Starving Artists” post explains in great detail the plan that emerged from those and other conversations. Basically, it calls for the restoration of the 305 property which would then serve as the entrance to a new performing arts/convention facility between the Smith and 305. However, the “Hutton Report,” drafted by Hutton and Philip Morris, concluded that Geneva is not ready for the large performing arts/convention facility. (Read the full report here). It appears to us that, despite clear recommendations to the contrary, local developers, pushed on with project, and approached the City about the City’s acquiring the 305 property, rehabilitating it, and eventually transferring it to an arts group for further development.

305 was vacant and deteriorating. But it was also a historically significant structure on Main Street. City Council, rightly, was interested in helping to preserve it. And the plan seemed to have merit. But there was a problem: The City did not, then, own 305. Normally, when a property is behind in its taxes, as 305 was, the City would, by law, take ownership of properties. Not so with 305, for two reasons.

First, there were federal liens on the property, which means that the federal government was first in line to acquire the property. Second, and perhaps most important in the long run, because of the building’s history as a service station, there was a strong likelihood of environmental contamination on the property.

Whoever assumed title to the property (federal government or local government) would also take on any liability for cleaning it up. Because municipal governments are not required, under law, to take responsibility for contaminated private property, it was not only legally difficult but practically unsound for the City to petition for discharge of the federal lien and take ownership.

Unfortunately, the discussions about the City taking possession of 305 and buying into the arts development plan were never public, and the City was went ahead with the plan, with disastrous results. In our view, Open Meetings Law would require a public discussion, and if there had been one, the public likely would have demanded the City not take on the liability, and let developers acquire the property on their own.

In 2004, the City of Geneva’s petition to the federal government to forgive the lien and allow the City to take ownership (and environmental responsibility) of the building was granted. In a strange twist, former Mayor Cass—who voted to take possession of 305 and former mayoral candidate Phil Beckley—who proposed the City take possession of 305, both campaigned to demolish. Where is the accountability?

Fat Cats and Starving Artists: Keep Arts-Based Development Arts-Based

Last week, arts development expert Philip Morris was in town at the request of the Geneva Arts Development Council (GADC) to revisit a six-year-old plan for arts development in the City.

The GADC, headed by former newspaper man and current PR pro, Phil Beckley, states their vision and mission is to advocate for the arts in Geneva and to bring about downtown revitalization. The GADC board’s membership includes many familiar names: local bankers Steve DeRaddo and Bob Schick, businessman and philanthropist Carl Fribolin, Chamber head Rob Gladden, attorney and former City Councilor Alaine Espenscheid, current City councilors Ron Alcock and Jason Hagerman, and Gorham developer Chris Iversen. The board also includes some arts-related members: Murray Heaton, Geneva arts advocate and attorney; the Rev. Jim Adams, founder of the St. Peter’s Arts Academy; and Eleanor Stearns, long time member of the Geneva Theatre Guild. Jan Regan, Capraro’s wife, is on the board representing the Boys and Girls Club, where she is also a board member.

Six years ago, Philip Morris and his associate, Ernest Hutton were hired by an ad hoc steering committee, the Finger Lakes Cultural Committee, to review plans for a “cultural center,” which was to be, principally, a performing arts/convention center adjacent to the existing Smith Opera House. That steering committee included Beckley, Schick, Iversen, Heaton, Rich Rising, Don Cass and others (see full list on page 2).

The City’s preferred architect, Dan Mossien, designed the original plan (shown above) which included rehabilitation of 305 Main Street and demolition of other buildings between the gas station and the Smith. Needless to say, such a bold proposal was the source of controversy among community members generally and current small business and/or building owners, specifically.

To their credit, Morris and Hutton, despite having been hired to rally support for the project, questioned its viability. The conclusion they reached (contained in the summary on pages 5-7) was that there was not an “apparent...organizational or programmatic demand sufficient to justify a substantive investment in new cultural center performance facilities.” Therefore, they said, “our report, instead of answering the original question, asked a broader and more critical question: what would be the best next step for the arts of the community in the context of its downtown?”

Their report favored a more holistic approach to arts development. No big bang, just incremental growth. “Arts development” is an ambiguous term. For some, it means “development of the arts.” For others, it means “economic development with artistic themes.” The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Arts based economic development is, indeed, viable, and the best of both worlds—art for art’s sake and art for its economic benefits. However, the motivation and the emphasis of each perspective may be very different, with the one focused on quality of life and the other, on quantity of wealth.

We believe the steering committee, which has been reincarnated, it seems, as the GADC, and is dominated by the latter perspective, never really abandoned a large scale, arts-related facility. What the steering committee came to steer was actually the economic development of the City itself. If you compare the Morris and Hutton report with every major project undertaken by the city in the past few years-- especially those which required significant taxpayer investment or tax abatement— you’ll see the correlation.

In 2004, the steering committee petitioned City Council to take ownership of the former gas station at 305 Main Street. Page 13 of the report (and the abbreviated Mossien concept presentation) illustrates the building as the anchor of the to-be-constructed convention center/arts complex. Up to that point, and thanks to a federal tax lien on the property, the city was able to avoid taking ownership of the decrepit but historically valuable structure. It, thereby, avoided the expense of any clean up of the property, should that become necessary.

However, at the arts group’s urging, the City petitioned for ownership of 305 with the understanding that the arts group would purchase it for $1 and use grants and tax credits to rehabilitate it for their project. For a reason never explained to the public and unknown to us-- perhaps because it finally sunk in that Morris and Hutton were correct that the project was not viable-- the arts development group flip-flopped. The City was left holding the bag—leaving taxpayers first in line for clean up costs, and the ongoing fiasco which leaves the building neither rehabilitated nor demolished.

Several private developers submitted bids to take over the building, but they were turned away with no explanation. Now the City insists on spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to demolish the building to create an empty lot, a gap-toothed cityscape on Main Street. No plan has been publicly presented for reuse. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a plan in the works.

Could be that the premise of the 2002 study, the development of a convention center on that site, is still a shadow guiding principle. We can certainly understand why some people might want to build a convention center. As a not-for-profit entity, the project would be eligible for significant tax credits from the State. That means a big financial win for the group of investors in the property. And it’s location in the City’s Empire Zone means even more financial incentives. Another round of RESTORE NY grants should be coming out, meaning that there are a lot of taxpayer dollars that can be used to build this dream project. In other words, because of the funneling of taxpayer dollars into a convention center, it might be a profitable investment for some developers.

But the critical question is: Would it be the best way for long-term arts development, or long term economic development for the community? Convention centers are civic facilities which require a substantial investment of tax dollars but generally do not provide a significant return. Not only are they tax-exempt, but they must be consistently booked to support their ongoing operating costs. Convention centers, like sports stadiums, were held in the 1990s, as the answer to urban prayers for revitalization. But, studies have now shown that convention centers yield a net negative return for the public that must cover the costs of construction and operation of them.

Click here to read the Brookings Institute Report, “Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy.” Even the hotel industry, which is a convention centers’ biggest cheerleader, fired a warning shot in the late 1990s, discussing the cost-benefit ratio in not-so-sunny terms. You can read a summary of that report here.

Projects like the Ramada Inn and the Hampton Inn were public-private partnerships that, it is assumed, yield hefty returns for the local investors. The disclosure of private investors in such schemes is not required by law, even though public dollars are part of the business plan, so we’ll never know for sure.

The same model could be applied to Geneva’s convention center. But supporting the Smith Opera House, local artists, and small businesses related to the arts seems a much better investment of public money that will bring lasting returns. That is certainly preferable to the City spending taxpayer dollars for the administrative costs of a development corporation that sees the arts as the next investment opportunity.

A Fact-Based Point of View on the Total Cost of Legal Services

Back in February, when we posted on the City Attorney position, an ad hoc “legal services review committee” was interviewing staff and preparing a report on a model of legal services which would best serve the City and the taxpayers in the long run. We stressed the importance of comparing apples and apples-- the City’s total legal costs, not merely the cost of the City Attorney position itself— when Council considered the various models.

In 2004, the City Attorney salary was raised from part time to full time, as were the budget lines for his secretary and his general office expenses. In the previous year, 2003, the City Attorney had been paid a salary of $40,649. With his part time secretary’s salary and their full benefits packages included, the total cost for the office was $63,183. In 2007, the City Attorney’s salary was over $84,000 and the grand total spent on his “department” was $142,374. (See our December post on this for a complete analysis).

One of the rationalizations given to the public for the switch to a full time salary for the City Attorney was that “outside legal bills” would decrease. (Click here to read the official council minutes from that discussion in 2004). That made sense—in theory. Outside legal counsel-- for the City it’s usually the Rochester power house firm, Harris Beach-- comes with a hefty price tag. A full time municipal attorney would be able to handle more legal work and therefore less of it would have to be outsourced. “Outside legal services” would be required only when there was a conflict of interest (for example, if the City Attorney could not represent the City because he was already representing a client dealing with the City) or when there was a highly specialized legal task to be performed that was beyond the expertise of the City Attorney. So, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the total amount that the City would spend for legal services would actually decrease. Let’s test that theory.

The formula for calculating the City’s total legal expenses for any given year is straightforward. Let’s call all costs on the City Attorney budget line “inside costs”; and all billable hours from outside firms, “outside costs”. Here’s the equation:

[Inside Costs] + [Outside Costs] = [Total Legal Costs]

So, if the inside costs go up, by increasing the City Attorney position to full time, then the outside costs presumably would go down. That’s because more legal work would be handled in-house, and at a much lower rate. Ideally, total legal costs should go down, or certainly they should not increase.

As it happens, in response to our previous post on the topic, concerned citizen Ken Camera informed us that he had actually FOILed all invoices for all of the City’s outside legal expenses for the past six years. Camera received copies of all the invoices for outside legal fees paid out in the few years prior to the City Attorney position becoming full time and for all the years since then.

Here’s what the record shows.

In 2003, when the City Attorney served ‘part time,’ the “inside costs” for legal services were $65,640. That same year, the City paid out $23,969 for work done by other legal firms (“outside costs”). Plugging these numbers into the formula, here’s what you get:

2003 (PT City Attorney):
$65,640 + $23,969 = $89,609 Total City Legal Costs

In 2005, the first full year that the City Attorney received a full time salary, the “inside costs” for that year were $141,396 and the “outside costs” were $25,124.

2005 (FT City Attorney):
$141,396 + $25,124 = $166,520 Total City Legal Costs

In other words, total legal costs went up.

The next year, 2006, “Inside Costs” were $146,304 and “Outside Costs” were $24,346.

2006 (FT City Attorney):
$146,304 + $24,346 = $170,650 Total City Legal Costs

In other words, total legal costs went up again.

For the most recent year, 2007, “outside costs” did dip a bit below the 2002 and 2003 levels, but the total legal costs were still $161,468.

The total legal costs with a full time attorney have been almost double the total legal costs with a part time attorney. So while there may have been other reasons for changing the position in 2004, cost savings was not a realistic one.

Immediately following the change, the former City Manager Rich Rising was quick to point out that the ‘outside legal services’ line in the budget had decreased. This made us believe that the city was actually seeing a cost savings for legal services. But he did not point out that the outside legal fees were being charged to individual departmental budgets, and were therefore contained in several different budget line items. The FOILed records allow a lump sum approach and allow for an ‘apples to apples’ comparison.

As one of his first actions, Mayor Einstein appointed a legal services review committee to re-evaluate the various aspects of the City Attorney arrangement. It made good business sense for him to do so, and we believe this calculation is an important piece of data for the overall analysis. The committee must determine what is needed from both a service- and a cost-perspective, and the City Council should respect those findings. Of course, it is essential that everyone have the full set of data, to determine what the city has paid and might expect to pay in the future.