Suppose you owned a business that sometimes required knowledge or competence outside your personal level of expertise. Wouldn’t you hire a person with the specific skillset and experience you needed? Well, apparently that’s NOT what is happening with the City of Prescott’s legal department.
Prescott City Attorney Jon Paladini announced last month he was resigning effective July 31, 2021, to join the Phoenix law firm, Pierce Coleman, a firm that specializes in employment law. A short time later, Prescott City Council discussed the following item at its July 20, 2021 Executive Session: “Consideration/Direction for Retention of Pierce Coleman law firm for General Legal Services.”
To date, there’s been no public job announcement to attract prospective applicants for City Attorney. And rather than City Council acting quickly to find a replacement for Mr. Paladini, it is first discussing whether to retain the outgoing city attorney’s new firm! There are several problems with Council’s approach.
First, Article IV, Section 4 of the Prescott City Charter clearly states “the council SHALL appoint the city attorney who shall be the chief legal advisor….” This same city charter article establishes the “Legal Department” and stipulates that the City Attorney will be responsible for its operation. In a nutshell, under our charter, Council must hire a city attorney. It’s one of three required administrative positions. The other two are the city manager and the city clerk. (As a reminder, the City Charter is voted on by the people and can only be changed by a majority of the voters.)
Secondly, provisions in the City Code, including the Administrative Code and the Procurement Code, enable the city to contract for outside legal services. However, the type of legal service which may be contracted is limited to “…retaining outside counsel to represent the City in a particular matter…” (City Code 2-9-6). Moreover, the city’s Procurement Code permits contracting for personal services on an “as-needed basis or for a particular project” (City Code 1-27-16).
Thirdly, City Council’s executive session agenda indicates the Pierce Coleman law firm will be hired for “general legal services.” This is a far broader scope than a “particular matter,” “particular project,” or “on an as-need basis” as specified by the City Code. It is further problematic in that, as stated above, Pierce Coleman’s specialty is employment law.
There are several questions and issues which need clarification:
- If the charter requires Council to hire a city attorney, and then Council also hires another outside law firm for general legal services, aren’t we duplicating legal bills and unnecessarily increasing expenses for Prescott taxpayers?
- And why choose Pierce Coleman anyway? Does the City foresee ongoing employment issues? In any event, the city already has access to this firm through its membership in the Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool (AMRRP). No special contract is needed. Most importantly, the city will surely encounter problems outside the expertise of Pierce Coleman. So why put this particular firm under retainer at this time?
The City’s Legal Department handled its responsibilities for 10 months while Mr. Paladini was on military deployment in 2019-20. But the City Council must honor the city charter and begin recruiting for a new City Attorney immediately. After that, if outside counsel is still required, the City Council can select a legal firm with the expertise to match a particular issue or project on an as-needed basis. Just as the Charter and City Code intended.
Hold Prescott City Council accountable.