I recently read about two Dover City Council members raising concern about the city attorney (Nicholas Rodriguez) and him costing the city over $300,000 in legal fees, according to a budget review. As a taxpayer, I find it outrageous that the legal bill was that high and that we are paying for it out of our taxpayer dollars. I truly hope the residents of Dover understand that we, the taxpayers, are paying for these extravagant legal fees.
As I read the contents of the two news articles pertaining to the city attorney escalating the city legal fees, I took note that it was because he is substituting out the legal work and cases to other lawyers. I am curious why the city leaders would allow this practice, knowing it costs more money because other lawyers charge a higher rate than what was negotiated with the city lawyer.
If the city attorney is unable to fulfill his duties under the code and represent the city and appear in court for cases, therefore having to substitute the work out to other lawyers, then why is he still representing the city? This practice of substituting out is unnecessarily costing tax dollars.
There was also some dismay about a potential conflict of interest through one of the law firms that was substituted out because it was both representing and suing the city. It appears to me an obvious conflict.
As one of the taxpaying residents of the city of Dover — and I am sure I speak for others — I have no confidence in the city attorney, as a result of him overspending our tax dollars.
Rosemary Zacher
Dover
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
