Someone commented on this blog that maybe it was time to find a new Town Attorney to provide better advice to the Town Manager. His record, pointed out in an earlier posting, is not good and the Town (read that as taxpayers) have literally paid the price. However, maybe it should be looked at from a different angle.
Is it possible that the Town Manager is looking for a particular outcome and instructs the Town Attorney to find the language, or interpret the language in the RSAs in a manner that supports this outcome? This seems plausible because the RSAs are pretty clear in the final analysis.
Since the Town Manager is responsible to the Board of Selectmen, it is incumbent on them to provide the proper oversight to avoid these inexplicable legal expenses. Perhaps they can be called upon to give him better counsel then his counselor.
Oh, and by the way, the RSAs are not guidelines or suggestions, they are the law.
It's not just the Town attorney that owes the taxpayer a refund. The SAU attorney also gave the wrong advice. The Town attorney needs to go because he lacks ethics. Publius is correct that the Town Manager tells the attorney the needed outcome and the attorney writes an opinion to back it up.
ReplyDeleteDon't find a new Town Attorney. Fire the current one, along with all the other people, including 100Kane and Russ Dean, who pretend to be "we the people."
ReplyDelete