The story CP broke yesterday morning about Acting City Attorney Stephen P. Kling has reverberated in the media and at city hall. On my way to the city council emergency session today, Mayor Moyer snidely remarked about how gleeful or satisfied I must be about all the publicity and notoriety I am getting. Okay Ellen. Riiiigggggghhhht--if that's what you think....(geeze I got a mention in the middle of the newspaper's story). This is what she said in today's paper:
Ms. Moyer said the "unfortunate incident" was being blown out of proportion by Mr. Foer and aldermen interested in publicity.
The beleauguered mayor bitterly complained, "But no, everyone wants to run to the press," she said.
Unfortunate Incident Indeed! Shades of Lemony Snicket. Run to the press indeed! Uhh...Capital Punishment is the press. The document is public information--at least to everyone but Mr. Kling and you the mayor. Hey Ellen--wake up and smell the coffee! This is what reporters do and we do it because politicians like you don't always do what they are supposed to do!!! And you call yourself a supporter of representative government?
At the emergency meeting (and there is even some question as to whether it was legally constituted as such....) Alderman Cordle and Moyer sparred over whether emails were received or phone calls were returned. A most humbled and apologetic Mr. Kling, clothed in boat moccasins and a ski sweater (was he expecting a wet and cold reception?), told the mayor and council that he acted immediately to get re-certified by filing the necessary papers, and the mayor seems to have acted quickly and properly by communicating with the Attorney General's Office. However, what impact this might have on legal work Kling has already provided, has yet to be determined. Alderman David Cordle called the meeting, and he and the mayor bristled at each other a couple of times
This calls into question not only the competence of Mr. Kling of course, but also the lack of action on the part of the state, namely the Client Protection Fund, the mandatory state bar which acted to de-certify Kling over two years ago. How could his continuing to practice law have gone unnoticed at their end? You'd think this would be pretty easy to do. Although he did not file the appropriate papers, Kling has been paying into that fund as required annually, according to City Public Information Officer Rhonda Warldaw.
Just as accountants crunch numbers, lawyers deal with papers. They read, write and file briefs, motions, opinions, notices, appeals, summons etc. It is more than a bit odd that a lawyer would fail to file a required document that all lawyers have to file or risk de-certification! He failed the "file-the-one-paper-you-have-to-file" test and it makes me wonder what other papers he might have misplaced, misfiled or forgot to file.
It gets worse. A lot worse. An email of legalese sent to aldermen and the mayor by Annapolis lawyer C. Christopher Ledoux, strongly argues that neither city nor state law even give the mayor and council authority to appoint an acting city attorney! Now, who do we turn to for an "official" opinion? And who is our "acting" city attorney now?
Alderman Ross Arnett may have said it best of all, "It's one more time we give the appearance we don't know what we are doing," said Mr. Arnett, arguing the incident further illustrates the need for a professional city manager in Annapolis.
See the newspaper story today at: Kling
The Sun weighed in on Friday morning saying "Kling filed the paperwork Wednesday after a blogger brought the issue to light in an online posting and in an e-mail sent to council members and to Moyer's office."
The AP picked it up and the story has now been covered by many other media.
Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee! in Eastport almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.
Bay Daily on Hiatus
-
Congratulations to Bay Daily creator, Tom Pelton, who has accepted a
position with another organization working to make the world a better
place. In his ab...
10 years ago
10 Comments:
"However, what impact this might have on legal work he has already provided, has yet to be determined."
This question should have a clear answer, albeit I don't have it. I don't know many lawyers--and I know many lawyers-- that would get themselves in the position this man has gotten himself into.
And for Moyer to suggest that you would gloat about this sort of thing....well..... I say gloat away.
[Someone ought to do a Comic Book featuring the Annapolis Government]
Hey Schmoe...Thanks as always, but please re-read the paragraph about whether or not we can even have an "acting" city attorney? How come the "acting" city attorney never read the quote to question whether his job was even legitimate? I know just the person for the comic book! Maybe you know the person too?
I read the part about the legitimacy problem, but have a gut level feeling that there is nothing wrong with having a City Attorney. If there were, a more brilliant one would have fired himself earlier on in Annapolis' history.
There is also ambiguity surrounding the word 'acting' in the phrase 'acting city attorney'.
I am not a lawyer....whew!...but the apparently well-argued opinion by Mr. Ledoux raises many questions about the authority to appoint an acting city attorney..that's acting and not "acting"...as in Paragraph 2 B...or not 2 B.....that is the question
Paul-- Kling may not be acting. According to the Capital article:
Mr. Kling was hired as an assistant city attorney in September and started entering his appearances in cases for the city that month. He was promoted to the top job last month.
John
He is still officially the "acting city attorney".
What is particularly galling is that Kling is now saying he had no idea he was decertified.
I'm an attorney, and let me tell you: you would know.
The rules state that Kling would have gotten notice twice: a default notice that you were about to be decertified, and then an official notice of decertification.
So either a. Kling is lying or b. Kling is incompetent. Just peachy.
And how is it the City hired two attorneys who don't have any government experience whatsoever or even tried a case involving the issues that the City would have to deal with?
The new assistant appears to be primarly a divorce lawyer. Lot of call for that in a city law office, I'm sure.
You are right--the state goes out of its way to notify but apparently does nothing to follow-up or enforce. A divorce lawyer? Maybe that's good-do you think we can all get a divorce from the mayor? Based on my experience in a lawsuit with Kling, I can tell you that he was unimpressive on every level. He somehow impressed the mayor. I think there is more going on....anything you can do to help is appreciated.
haven't seen mr. ledoux's opinion but city code says the mayor can appoint an acting director of a department if the director leaves the position. the city attorney is the director of the office of law so the mayor can appoint an "acting city atty". if 6 months pass, the council must confirm the person.
His piece addressed that because it is not a department, as you stated, but an office--a distinct legal difference.
Post a Comment