3 thoughts on “Lew Benton Exposes The Extensive Violations At The Heart Of the On-Call Scandal”

  1. Lew, you were as a commissioner and remain as a concerned citizen an honorable and heroic voice for the public. You’re vote on the exit 14 debacle saved the entrance to our fair city from commercial development and your insight into the current debacle on the city council is greatly appreciated.

    Also, thank you John for the most reliable source of information regarding the rather bizarre goings on in city hall.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The City owes him a debt of gratitude not only for his direct service, but his continued counsel. Someone better pull in the reins on these rogue commissioners before they destroy all trust and integrity.

      SLB

      Like

      Reply

  2. Thanks Lew Benton for all your research on this. The practice that we followed and that I thought had always been in place was to seek guidance from the City attorney to establish the need to retain outside counsel. Once this step had been completed, then the City Council would have to approve the contract with that law firm including a description of the required services, the hourly rates and an estimated total cost. Only after the Council had approved the contract could the hired attorney begin representing the City employee or City official. If costs began to approach initial total estimate, the Council would have to approve a revised contract.

    Lew’s explanation that Deputies are public officers, not public employees, makes sense. It is one reason why the On Call Pay legislation, approved by the previous Council, should never have been initiated. Of course, another reason was the blatant distortion of the definition of the term ‘on call pay’ by three deputy commissioners.

    It is my opinion that the City Council should have a policy of offering to pay for outside counsel when necessary for any of our current public officers regarding matters related to their official duties. This should be the practice whether the offense is deemed to be civil or criminal in nature. I state this based on my experience on the Council when a misguided assistant attorney general was apparently fed misinformation about our attempts to acquire land for a third fire/EMS station. It is a convoluted story filled with intrigue and probable influence peddling on the part of certain political rivals that eventually went nowhere. Thankfully, the Council covered our legal bills including those of a criminal attorney.

    If a City Council member is found guilty of a criminal offense related to their official duties, they should be removed from office by an act of the Governor. Any future legal expenses associated with appeals would be the responsibility of that individual.

    Obviously, the City should not be responsible for legal bills of City officials accused of criminal activities not associated with their official duties. Council members and their deputies who enacted the ‘On Call’ legislation may have been wrong to do so and there may have been an additional error committed with the wording of the recorded legislation but there should be no doubt that all of this pertained to official City business.

    Most City residents understand that Council members and their deputies should not be put into a situation where they might face financial consequences while trying to serve the community. The only objections that I have heard about covering the legal defense of those being investigated by the DA and the state police are directly related to the fees that Commissioner Moran expects the City to pay for his attorney. The $1,250 per hour fee is far more than that which would be charged by regional lawyers and he has failed to adequately explain to the public why he is entitled to a Manhattan attorney while others are not.

    Chris Mathiesen

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment