I did not say anything about McNally. I happen to believe that if McNally is replaced, it will cost more for legal fees for the county and they will get lower quality representation from an in-house attorney. Especially if any one of the several names I have heard as a possible county attorney are put in place. Everyone that I have heard is putting their hat in the ring because they cannot make a living otherwise. McNally's firm will in not benefit from this budget but the county will suffer from their absence.

Especially if any one of the several names I have heard as a possible county attorney are put in place. Everyone that I have heard is putting their hat in the ring because they cannot make a living otherwise.

Wow, I didn't realize they were taking bids already. I mean, they are taking bids aren't they? After all, wasn't the whole point of this to bid out the work and see if the county could get a better price? Surely, no one's dumb enough to engage in the illegal practice of bid rigging.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Depends on your definition of "bid" at this stage. It probably falls more into the area of "payback" for political support. As far I am aware, there is no RFP unless that stands for Referral From Politicos.

The "selection" of a county attorney is up to the Board of Commissioners. They can solicit bids all day long. The decision to accept the bid is still up to them. If you want to see how it works, ask them about the development of Kenwood Park. It was NOT awarded to the lowest bidder. It was awarded to a Fayette County company that was not (by far) the lowest bidder. I am not implying that the company that got the bid was doing anything wrong. They probably never knew where they stood on the bid. The point is that the bid process can be, at the discretion of the board, overridden.

I will say again, I think that the removal of McNally from his role would be a major mistake. I hope that reason prevails and they continue with the current situation.

However, if that is not the case, then do not be surprised if the new county attorney is someone to whom the two recently elected commissioners and their little buddy Frady are obligated in some subtle, but tangible way.

Questions for Lawaboveall on County Attorney… You sound like a lawyer "in the know".....

(1) You state that we should keep the County Attorney--- is it because you believe, as you stated above, that the costs will go up? If so, what do we pay the County Attorney and what will the costs go up to ? Has anyone ever identified those numbers? Why are the Commissioners unwilling/unable to answer this question?

(2) Have bids been solicited for this position? Does anyone have a copy of the RFP?

(3) Is it true that the County Attorney has never had to submit a bid ?

(4) Have you compared what Fayette County does to other Counties?

(5) Do you work for the County Attorney?

Last question first, I do not now, nor have I ever worked for the County attorney. I am neither an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

The cost comparison question is difficult to answer simply because there are so many factors that go into the cost structure. For example, a growing county would have many more issues regarding zoning, volations of county ordinance and the like. More populous counties (ie Fulton) would have people being paid just to handle the litigation instigated by citizens as well as the other typical issues.

The costs for the attorney here has been exaggerated both by the litigation (instigatged by the sheriff for which the county had to pay, but I digress)and the normal growing pains issues that a county that is transitioning from rural to ex-urban has to deal with today.

My concern on the costs is simple. Maxwell et al ASSUME that they can provide the same level of service and expertise for a lower cost with absolutely nothing (at least during the budget discussions) to back up that assumption. They are simply following through on the one thing that got him elected. Honesty compells me to mention that the other issues (the push in eliminating the marshals office etc. have died a quiet death). So much for campaign rhetoric.

As far as bids are concerned, I do not believe that bids have been taken before because previous boards of commmissioners looked at the successful 25 year relationship that has been established with the McNally firm and adopted the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset. It has only become an issue recently because it was a problem for our sheriff and a way to get someone elected. Ah, politics!

My understanding of the assumed costs are that there will be $100k in the budget to hire a full time county attorney. My first concern would be the quality and capability of an attorney that can be had for $100k (all expenses included). If you assume that benefits are about 30% of that number then the salary would be about $70k. What kind of experience/quality can you get for $70k?

That is only part of the issue however. Let's assume this new attorney has expertise is some but not all of the areas that are presently available in a full service firm like McNally Fox. That means that some portion of the work would have to be sub contracted out to other private attorneys who would charge some unknown rate.

It is misleading at best to purport that the county legal issues can be handled by one person being paid 100K. How much more, no one knows, but it is reasonable to think that it would be the same amount of total dollars as was spent on average for the last five years. That number approaches $350k. So what do we save? Nothing, what do we gain, another full time employee (and secretary, and office space etc.)

Lastly, let me say that I do not care if another outside firm were to be hired through a bid process. My problem is rooted in all the assumptions being made that ostensibly will reduce the cost of legal fees to the county. This is more about getting rid of McNally than saving money, and that is the wrong reason for doing it.

I do not know, but I do not believe that and RFP has been developed simply because, until the budget is approved, there would be no money to fund such an effort. I presume that all of this will be concluded at the last meeting of June when the budget has to be approved.

You've really hit the nail on the head. The logic to this is based upon faulty assumptions and numbers that include inappropriate information.

But watch out, my friend. Git Real is going to swear from now on that you're a trial lawyer.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Most often, the less expensive the lightbulb the less bright it is. Same for attorneys.