Reconnecting to a successful past … or devil in disguise?
There are four, fresh applications on the East Ridge City Manager’s desk for our new City Attorney. Depending on who’s whispers you’re hearing, at least one of those applications has been labeled by some as either a link to our successful past or a devil in disguise.
The need for a new City Attorney began back in December when Hal North resigned the position. Mayor Brent Lambert pushed for North’s successor to be Mark Litchford, an attorney with the firm Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison.
The rub, as they say, comes from the fact that former city attorney John Anderson is a partner in the firm of Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison. Many say the direct link between Litchford and Anderson taints Litchford in some way.
You see, Anderson, the city’s attorney from 2008 to 2012, was dismissed after a majority of the council believed the fees he and the firm were charging were too high. Subsequent to his departure it was discovered that a a deed restriction on the fire hall property on Camp Jordan Parkway was never removed. ultimately resulting in the city paying the state $600,000 to lift the restriction.
Of course, the counter argument is that Anderson was fired before the sale of the the property was complete to Exit 1, LLC, so who could say for sure that he wouldn’t have negotiated the lifting of the deed restriction to the property. Also, he along with his law firm is given much credit in getting East Ridge included in the Border Region Act and ultimately for the arrival of Bass Pro Shops.
Of course, there is the fact that Litchford, while he does work at Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, is not Anderson.
There is also the fact that Anderson and lawyers from his firm have done legal work on behalf of the developers of Jordan Crossing.
However, finding an attorney or law firm free of any conflict is practically impossible. Which is why through the use of what’s called a “Chinese Wall” and simply acknowledging and waiving any conflict Litchford could serve as our next city attorney.
What seems to me to be most practical is that we wipe the slate clean for Litchford and quit worrying about the matter of his association with Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison. We stop fretting over the past and allow Litchford to be judged based on his own merits.
As such I think it’s also important to dispel the notion that somehow reconnecting with Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison will give us a possible advantage going forward. We should not hold past mistakes against Litchford and we should not give him credit for past successes.
Let’s take a hard look at each of the attorneys who have applied and review the best proposal in terms of costs and list of qualifications and letters of recommendation.
We should judge each of these candidates on their own merits, prudently factoring in each attorney’s proposed fees and choose the attorney who is willing to give us the best bang for our buck. This is no different than the fiduciary responsibility and reasonable, sound course of action demanded by the council on every matter of city business before them.
If the attorney hired displays that they are not up to the job, makes costly mistakes, or has billings that are costing the taxpayers more than they should then we can always switch attorneys in the future.
Ultimately, we need to stop letting the ghosts of our past – those either remembered fondly or feared – shackle the city from moving forward. It’s one thing to remember your past mistakes and prevent them; it’s quite another to allow them to paralyze you from progressing.
It’s definitely time for our community to come together and find a fresh way forward.
