It's official: Rogers taxpayers will pay City Attorney Ben Lipscomb a six-figure salary next year -- including a scheduled pay increase -- for a job that now lacks any major responsibilities.
Lipscomb is trying to retake some of the job's duties by suing the city he was elected to represent. Rogers' aldermen and mayor stripped Lipscomb's office of many duties, having lost confidence in the man who has been city attorney since 1997. He claims they don't have the legal authority to transfer those duties from the elected city attorney to a hired staff attorney. It looks like that one's going to have to play out in court.
What’s The Point?
In the continuing controversy over the Rogers city attorney, the Benton County prosecutor-elect’s move to limit damage to the judicial system gets high marks.
He didn't just sue. Lipscomb also concocted a vindictive approach to his remaining primary duty, the prosecution of misdemeanors in Rogers District Court. Maintaining he could not handle the prosecutions as the sole attorney budgeted for his office -- two non-attorney assistants were also funded by the City Council -- Lipscomb notified the judge and city he would end the longstanding practice of plea bargains with those charged with everything from speeding to DWIs. His approach created two options: Those charged could plead guilty to whatever charges they faced, or they could go to trial.
Plea bargains are a primary lubricant in the machinery of the judicial system. In the case of Rogers District Court, the system isn't built for every case to go to trial. Lipscomb didn't want to try the new arrangement. He's deepening a crisis that serves no worthwhile purpose for the public he works for. He clearly believes it serves his purposes, but a public official should set higher expectations for himself.
Our kudos go to Nathan Smith, the prosecutor-elect for Benton County, who recognized Lipscomb's self-serving actions did not support the ends of justice. Lipscomb's prosecutorial authority in most cases comes from his commission through the county prosecutor.
This week, Smith said he would not extend a commission to Lipscomb come Jan. 1, when Smith takes office.
"[Lipscomb's] policy will create an untenable situation in the Rogers District Court," Smith said. "It will undoubtedly result in a chaotic court docket and a large number of police officers waiting in court for potential trials rather than serving the community."
One of these two public officials made a decision mindful of the community he's elected to serve, and the other didn't. Smith took the decision out of Lipscomb's hands. He decided to commission two attorneys hired by the city to perform functions formerly done by Lipscomb's office.
Lipscomb's term expires in 2016, which isn't soon enough given the spiraling circumstances surrounding the office. With only minuscule duties, he's still getting paid $148,257 annually. That's scheduled to grow to $159,619 in 2015.
He's on the losing end of a fight sparked by several self-inflicted incidents that led to a breakdown in trust and confidence in his abilities. He has served the city for 17 years in the office, but his capacity to repair the relationships necessary for that office to function has been irreparably harmed. He is no longer serving the people of Rogers.
The electoral decisions of the public should be jealously protected, but when an occupant of public office contributes to dismantling its capacity to serve the public, government shouldn't be stuck with him. Perhaps some state legislators can develop a reasonable way to balance the needs of the many against the desires of the one.
--
Commentary on 12/19/2014