Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2015-43

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Amending Chapter 2.123 of the Pierce County Code, "County Indemnification of Limited Legal Expenses of County Attorneys in Professional Disciplinary Proceedings," Relating to the County's Duty to Indemnify County Attorneys in Professional Disciplinary Proceedings.

Effective: November 20, 2015

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Douglas G. Richardson, Dan Roach

Final votes

October 28, 2015
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Barbara Corey 10/20/15 4:42 PM This proposal should be voted down. Given what is presently occurring in the prosecutor's office, why on earth should the elected prosecutor have the authority to approve who represents deputy prosecutors against whom attorneys in his own office have filed bar complaints, or for that matter, any county attorneys responding to bar complaints? In the current situation, some of the "whistleblowers" are responding to bar complaints filed by individuals in the prosecutor's office. Is application of this proposal fair and reasonable? I think not. Further, the elected prosecutor also responds to bat complaints. Who is going to decide whether the elected prosecutor has chosen an "appropriate" or "approved" attorney for his own representation and how much $$ he should be limited to in defending a bar complaint? He is known to be free with the county's money as it is. This proposal came from a deputy in that office who is now known to oppose the whistleblowers' action. Perhaps you should consider the motivation and timing behind this proposal. This proposal is vindictive, unfair, and does a disservice to county employees. it is nothing more than an attempt to prevent county attorneys from making legitimate meritorious responses to to bar complaints rather than having their responses controlled by a prosecutor who in essence choses their lawyers and limits the ability to defend against such bar complaints. Simply put, it puts county attorneys under the thumb of the prosecutor in matters that affect peoples' bar licenses and thus their ability to practice law. There is little doubt that an appellate court would find this to violate fundamental fairness, equal protection, etc. It is an affront to dozens of your employees who work very hard for the County and yet have to defend bar complaints. It compromises the ability of county attorneys to defend themselves in bar complaints. Put another way, where the prosecutor files bar complaints against its own deputies, should the prosecutor be empowered to approve their representation and limit their attorneys fees? This proposal is a transparent attempt to do just that. Shame on you if you pass this. I regret that I will be unable to attend the hearing in this matter. It is a significant matter. You owe it to all county attorneys to do the right thing. I will be attentive to your decision as I know most county attorneys will. Thank you for your consideration my rather long-winded comment. The gravity of this matter cannot be overstated. Barbara Corey
Judith Randisi 10/25/15 11:15 PM I am calling on the Pierce County Council to protect the taxpayers and not pass this ordinance. It is obvious that it is being proposed specifically to support Mr. Lindquist. In light of the recent investigative report results regarding Mr Lindquist and the pending recall, to burden the taxpayers further in protecting Mr. Lindquist would not further the public good or trust in Pierce County.