The three councilmembers are NOT releasing a statement today. Why? According to their attorney, they still need to verify accusations and perform due diligence in backing up their “evidence” and “charges” against the Chief!!!!
So, they did not verify any allegations or perform due diligence before deciding to terminate Chief King??? And we are supposed to have faith in our council? Bob, Tom, and Ed attacked the Chief, the police department, and this community without evidence?
How hard is it to list their “reasons” in a statement? (Which was supposed to be public). Have they been going down the “no comment” road for TWO WEEKS because they can’t substantiate their “secret charges”?? It looks more and more like his absence while fighting our country was in fact their primary reasons – as Mr. Hart has said Chief’s absence was his “biggest concern” and they have yet to truly identify and explain any other valid reasons.
Absolutely unbelievable. See the related AJC article:
Who’s picking up the tab for the 3 council members lawyer?
I sure hope the City Of Doraville isn’t picking up the tab.
As a matter of fact, I think the three should be personally sued for defemation of character by the Police Chief if they can’t produce evidence of why they fired him. Hopefully, that would teach the other councilmen to follow the laws, rules, ordinances and such formed by the Federal, State and City government. The just can’t do whatever they want and get away with it.
Also, many thanks to the citizens who have stood up and are doing something about this situation, LEGALLY.
Yes— it is absolutely unbelievable. Everyone on this blog knows John King is the savior of the world. He can walk on water and is not capable of telling a lie. He truly is Jesus Christ reincarnated and his department heads are the apostles.
Any legal fees on behalf of anyone involved in this should be paid for by the person hiring the attorney. I am curious though, is Karen getting paid any fees for all the research she has done, etc. and if so who is paying those fees?
Eleanor,
My concern is the public is paying to represent these officials. However, I’m not sure if the City has an obligation to provide legal representation to them against allegations that concern their actions while conducting official business.
Although the AJC reports that a Mr. Willard represents these people, it also seems to me that Ms Pachuta’s complaint is an effort to excuse or legally void the alleged wrongdoings of the council members, and maintain the removal of Chief King. (Note points C, E and I) And what are the “reprimands” against what “Planning Commission” (Point H). What does a planning commission have to do with this anyway?
a. Declare that a committee member is not a “public officer” as defined under the Open Meetings Act;
b. Declare that any discussions regarding members of the City’s ethics or planning commission held in a closed executive session were in violation of the Open Meetings Act;
c. Declare that any votes cast in a closed executive session were in violation of the Open Meetings Act;
d. Declare that the receipt of any testimony, evidence, or argument regarding the potential discipline or dismissal of a public officer or employee during a closed executive session was in violation of the Open Meetings Act;
e. Declare that any action taken as the result of an improper closed executive session is non-binding and void;
f. Declare that the City Council’s actions in closing portions of the meeting, which was contrary to the legal advice from its attorney, was without substantial justification;
g. Enjoin the City of Doraville from removing Mr. Alan Malcolm from the City’s ethics committee unless and until proper procedures are followed;
h. Enjoin the City of Doraville from enforcing its reprimand against members of the City’s planning commission unless and until proper procedures are followed;
i. Enjoin the City of Doraville from removing John F. King as its Chief of Police unless and until proper procedures are followed;
j. Award Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in having to bring this action;
k. Award any and all other Relief this Court deems just and proper.
Clarification PLEASE.
The city council convened three (3) closed executive sessions during the Aug. 6th meeting. Each executive session violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to comply with the exceptions and/or provisions for conducting a closed meeting. Although people are most concerned about the actions regarding Chief King, the council also violated the Act in regards to their closed session on the ethics committee and closed session on the planning committee. The statute permits me, as a citizen, to file a complaint for any violations of the Act. Joseph has put a link on this site to a PDF of the full complaint which outlines the violations.
Eleanor – I’m not sure what client you are talking about?? I don’t have any clients in this matter – I am my own client. In a sense, I’m losing money because its time spent not billing other clients. However, I have kept track of my time in preparing and filing the complaint as the statute requires the city to reimburse a Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees if the court finds they acted without substantial justification in violating the Act.
I know all of the details of the complaint and have read also the alleged violations behind the complain. I read it all several times. I just was curious as to who was paying Karen’s fees and the fees of everyone else. That was my only question. And if I referred to Karen as having a client, then I apologize because I know she is the one who filed suit. I was just curious how her time was being paid for.
If I were receiving fees from anyone, I assure you they would be my client and my client would have been the Plaintiff (with me as their legal counsel).
Whatever – I just had a legitimate question. I know all about fees, etc. – I know you are the plaintiff – but thought perhaps you were being paid to file it in your name – that does happen you know.
Partners don’t usually like their associates working on non-producing fee cases even though pro bono work is required in larger firms.
I asked and received permission from my firm before proceeding. It would be unethical for me to do as you suggest and I resent the implication.
I absolutely made NO implication that you did anything illegal or unethical. I merely stated what most law firms require – I know that all the top firms I worked for asked for pro bono work from their associates but would not allow them to work on other things without permission. I am sorry you feel I implied that you did anything illegal or unethical – I don’t feel that I did – I feel I had a legitimate question. Therefore, I stand by my question. I firmly believe you read wrong – no accusations or implications were made against you.
Thank you Ms Pachuta for your effort on behalf of all honest and concerned citizens. I thoroughly read your complaint and researched the facts and I believe that you know when and how to apply the laws. If the court rules in your favor; that there were no exceptions to the Open Meetings Act, what do you think the penalty will be for Mr.’s Hart, Lowe and Spangler? Could there be any other legal action brought against them personally, and since the City of Doraville is the Defendant, are we all paying for their legal defense AND prosecution?
I firmly believe you are “standing by your question” all by yourself, Eleanor. rofl!
rolling on the floor laughing – at least I stand and am not ashamed to use my real name – what’s your excuse? And if I am standing alone then I’m in good company – what about you?
Guess the only ones allowed to ask questions are the “chosen few” – sure glad I’m not one of them.
Oh and by the way – hope you had your shots since you are roffing away. You know these are bad days of summer for the roffers.
Thanks for your comments Karen and Troy.
It’s great two people at least have reading and interpretitive skills.
And I don’t understand why the citizens of Doraville have to pay the legal fees for the three city councilmen? They should have to pay the fees themselves. Lose their jobs, for the one who has one, and sell their houses if they have to. They tried to ruin another persons life, turn the table on them.
I’m no lawyer, but isn’t it innocent until proven guilty? If the councilmen have proof Chief King is guilty of something, PROVE IT and take it from there!! It’s that simple!! Case closed!!
rolling on the floor laughing and laughing and laughing – don’t even have to watch comedy shows tonight – guess you think other people can’t read – like I said laughing and laughing and laughing. Why don’t you reveal your real name since archives and many posts show that you say people who don’t reveal themselves are cocroaches among other things. Oh and it is okay for you and others to ruin other people’s lives with your name calling, dirt throwing mud slinging? Gotta laugh -
Whoops – meant cockroaches.
Eleanor, I don’t know what kind of LSD you are on, but it must be some premo stuff!!
Don’t do drugs – never done drugs – have no desire to do drugs. Us common folks aren’t as dumb as you think we are. The only premo stuff I do is good old sweetened ice tea, good fresh ground coffee and good old diet coke. Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not a druggie.
Same Ol’:
I’ve been thinking (about legal defense, not about the particular drugs any poster uses), and I think that the city should have the presumption of paying the legal defense fees of any employee doing
the duties of their city job. The city could recover legal expenses,
or possibly refuse to pay them with evidence of intentional
malfeasance. I’m including city council members as employees.
I’m open to other ideas, or evidence that this policy won’t work for some reason. But I’d like to see a policy that would help people like Chief King not have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars just because Mr. Hart decides to try to get rid of him. Of course, that’s probably a bad example, since I think a lot of money was raised from the community for his defense.
I know there’s a chance for abuse of the city money by an incompetent employee or city council member, but I think that’s probably covered well enough by allowing the city to recover funds in the case of intentional malfeasance or intentionally not following the policies of his/her office.
I have seen too many families destroyed by drug use over the years and I assure you that I do not use drugs – never have – never will. Whether anyone else does or not – I could care less – it is their life and their health but I DO NOT USE DRUGS AND ANY IMPLICATIONS OR ACCUSATIONS THAT I DO ARE FALSE.
Eleanor, nobody thinks you use drugs (except for the three you named, of course). Many of us consider the answers to some of your questions to be either obvious or already answered. I don’t disagree with your right to ask the questions, either because you are not familiar with the answers, or for rhetorical purposes. However, asking them in a way that is insulting either directly or by implication (as your questions about Karen above were taken) is less likely to earn you the benefit of the doubt in discussion.
For example, in this thread, I consider your questions about funding of Karen’s lawsuit to be an appropriate subject, but asked in an inappropriately belligerent way.
However, I don’t have much of a strong position to criticize belligerence. It’s kind of a natural approach to the world for me and Same Ol’.