Their expected term is just over 4 months long. Among the many issues they will face in that short period of time, the County is dealing with two lawsuits. The lawsuit regarding the propositions may or may not result in this Council serving longer than 4 months. Time will tell. In addition to that lawsuit, there is yet another lawsuit, involving secret meetings on the CAO, and that suit directly involves two former Council members and one sitting Council woman from the current short-term Council. Depositions were taken recently in the "secret meetings" lawsuit. No details are yet available; however, in that case, the County Prosecutor ostensibly is representing the two former Council members, one of whom (Lovel Pratt) is a current election opponent of two sitting Council members (Bob Jarman and Marc Forlenza). In addition, a Deputy County Prosecutor, Jon Cain, is encompassed by that suit too (since he participated in the "secret meetings"), and Cain could be deposed as well. I guess if that were to ever happen, we'd have the spectacle of Randy Gaylord sitting there in the deposition "defending" Jon Cain of his own office while Cain was deposed.
Does any of this seem crazy to anyone else? Why don't these people have their own attorneys? They are individual litigants. New Council member Rick Hughes went so far as to offer to purchase his own computer so that he doesn't impinge on County resources (bravo btw), and yet we have ex-Council woman Pratt being defended by the County, which is now officially comprised of her election opponents.
I'm probably old-fashioned, but I thought that when attorneys were contemplating representation of multiple clients, they were obligated to conduct due diligence to evaluate whether the collective individual interests might be in potential conflict. I am not sure everyone's interests are aligned here. Depending on the evidence and how this sorts itself out, could not the County have (at least the potential) for claims against the individual litigants (e.g., Pratt, Miller, Fralick, Cain, Hale, etc.)? Could not the individual litigants have potential cross claims against one another? As just a hypothetical, even I can imagine situations where, for instance, evidence emerges from some litigants that suggests another litigant may have perjured themselves, or where testimony from one litigant incriminates another. I am sure there are many other potential misalignments among the parties involved.
Like so many County matters, this whole affair seems rather messy. Seems like the potential for a classic Prisoner's Dilemma to me.