HOW WE SEE IT: City Attorney Issue Needs Some Closure

Government, by its very nature, cannot always be as efficient as private enterprise. It is designed to give the people a chance to ofter their thoughts on proposals, to let advocates and opponents hash out an issue in a public setting, and give elected officials opportunities to gather details to help in their decision-making.

So we don’t expect any city government to move expediently in most cases. But come on, Lowell.

Really?

Lowell, home of seemingly perpetual clashes with a metal reclamation company, is bent out of shape over its city attorney. Well, at least we think he’s the city attorney.

He’s the guy the voters put into office. But he’s been suspended with pay since August 2012, courtesy of the town’s aldermen.

“It’s unfortunate that this has to take place,”Alderman Kendell Stucki in recent coverage of the dispute. “I would like to see some closure on this, but it’s a wait-and-see game right now.”

Yes, closure would be nice. It’s approaching six months since City Attorney Vaughn-Michael Cordes transitioned to collecting a paycheck from taxpayers while city leaders have forbidden him from working on Lowell’s behalf. His annual salary is $75,923.

Meanwhile, legal work for the city must continue.

Lowell is paying the Kieklak Firm for that work. In all of 2012, the firm received $67,688 from Lowell’s cofters. So it’s easy to see Lowell is costing Lowell some serious money.

What’s the controversy? It’s this simple: Does Cordes live in Lowell or not?

The answer, apparently, isn’t so simple. The City Council originally suspended Cordes hoping to get a clear answer about what Arkansas law says. Cordes says he maintains a home in Lowell but also has one elsewhere in Benton County. According to his interpretation, he meets the requirements for the job.

Others are not so sure. So the city sought an attorney general’s opinion, which didn’t really clarify his status. What the state agency did clear up is the fact the mayor and City Council don’t have any legal authority to suspend the elected city attorney.

We highly recommend cities and individuals abide by the law. But Lowell is gnashing its teeth unnecessarily, and costing taxpayer’s twice as much money as necessary while their doing it.

Faced with such conflicts, doesn’t it make sense to abide by the decision of voters until such time as the legal question is definitively answered? And if we’re trying to stay all legal about this, doesn’t it especially make sense if the mayor and City Council definitely lack legal authority for their actions?

The wrong decision is to just let this drag on, and on, and on out of uncertainty and indecision.

If the law doesn’t specifically demand removal, Cordes should be doing his job, which the mayor says he’s done just fine. Meanwhile, if the city needs some clarity, they should push for legislative changes that explicitly detail what they should do.

Mayor Eldon Long says it’s just wrong if the city attorney doesn’t live in the city when all other elected officials have to. He worries the city’s actions on other decisions might be challenged if Cordes is involved.

But who’s playing lawyer now? Lowell’s putting itself in a bind and conjuring up a lot of maybes and what ifs. Meanwhile, it’s only city leaders making a big deal out of this.

The answer is to put Cordes back to work, stop double-spending and calmly, professionally continue to search for a legal resolution. Meanwhile, let the city’s business move forward at whatever creeping pace it can muster.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/30/2013

Upcoming Events