Links ... and ... Another Day, Another Allegation of Fraud in the County

A complaint of medicaid fraud has been filed with the state Attorney General's Office against San Juan Island Emergency Medical Services. The AG's office is investigating medicaid reimbursement claims for air ambulance services. Not much is available about this story yet, but there was a brief announcement in the San Juan Islander.

Regarding the mysterious lawsuit referred to in the previous post, some readers have been asking to see the actual court filings. Here is a link to the complaint. Here is a link to the first set of exhibits. Here is a link to the second set of exhibits. Here is a link to the third set of exhibits. Fascinating reading.

The county has said that it's all a big misunderstanding. Read and judge for yourself.

That Hole Is Getting Deeper!

On Friday, the Council came out with a memo regarding their investigation of the Portland Fair wetland affair. You can find the memo here.

Anyone who has been through the wetland process would think the memo is a late April Fools joke. No one ... and I mean, no one ... outside of the authors and their most blindly ardent supporters would fall for it. But that's not the worst part.

It was written and signed by the Council -- Jamie Stephens and Rick Hughes, with Jarman recusing himself -- without any apparent input from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. In fact, it is addressed to the Prosecuting Attorney, so the Council owns this one in its entirety. Given that the Prosecuting Attorney already found that Mike Thomas acted contrary to County ordinances and written policies, this Council memo suggests a significant rift between the Council and the Prosecuting Attorney over this matter. But that's not the worst part.

In the memo, the Council defends their man, Mike Thomas, to the hilt. We "learn" several surprising facts. We discover that Jennifer Thomas had no role in this wetland situation, despite documentary evidence in the form of emails from Sam Gibboney saying otherwise, and despite the fact that "JT"'s involvement was documented in the permit database.  Now we learn that "JT" never existed as far as this project goes ... a figment of everyone's imagination. But that's not the worst part.

The memo from the Council alleges that the determination of a non-wetland was made by Gibboney based on a review from Mike Thomas himself (is Mike Thomas a qualified wetland scientist?). Perhaps the most amusing lines in the whole memo are:

Although in this instance, the County was providing the wetlands review at no cost to citizens and paying for it from funds set aside in the CAO implementation plan, Mr. Thomas saved the County an unnecessary expense by his review, and Ms. Gibboney by her determination.

Saving money? They actually claim that Mike Thomas is saving taxpayers money, and the Council gives him a pat on the back as a result. But that's not the worst part.

The Council says there was no wrongdoing ... but there sure seems to have been a coverup. I guess we are supposed to believe that Annie Matsumoto-Grah wasn't ordered to rewrite her report? Chris Laws wasn't ordered to rewrite his report? Ecology wasn't prevented from providing a report, even after Ecology employee Doug Gresham went on the record about wetlands on the subject parcel? More shockingly, the official County enforcement file was redacted to remove all mention of Mike Thomas and Bob Jarman ... with all redactions ironically placed in a folder titled "Chris Laws Personal Information" -- ironic because Chris Laws refused to redact the file himself, and ironic because personal information is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, and ironic because they are hiding Thomas' and Jarman's involvement among the whistleblower's own "personal" information. But that's not the worst part.

The County Charter requires the Council to take action only by Resolution or Ordinance. Nowhere is the power of "investigation" given to the Council. The word "investigation" doesn't even appear in the Charter. Moreover, the County is currently being sued all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court regarding violations of the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA). The OPMA requires that all government actions be deliberated in public. Action is defined in the OPMA as (emphasis added):

"Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

The Friday memo is neither a Resolution nor an Ordinance, but it is clearly an action taken by the Council. It was not deliberated in public. It is a conspicuous violation of the Charter and the OPMA. The signature line says that Bob Jarman "recused" himself. Recused himself from what? It is obvious that the Council worked on this memo out of public view and came to conclusions and then signed their name to their final decision. On its face, this memo alone would appear to present enough evidence of procedural misconduct to justify its own separate whistleblower complaint ... which, if it were to occur, would be the fifth this year. But that's not the worst part.

The worst part is the situation in toto. It is inconceivable how badly our County government has deteriorated, and it is time to publicly call for investigations. We, at the Trojan Heron, feel it is time for the State, or even the Federal government, to investigate corruption here in San Juan County government. As a friend of the Heron says, it is time to take the keys away.

Three Strikes And They're Not Out ...

As commenters have noted, the county was sued today (again). This time the issue is misuse of government funds ... permit fees specifically. In short, the suit alleges that the County has violated state law by misusing the monies collected for building permits by using them to subsidize general government. For example, building permit fees have been used to pay part of Sam Gibboney's salary even though she has not been directly involved in reviewing or approving building plans. The suit alleges that the misuse and diversion of funds has amounted to as much as $1.2 million over the past three years (statute of limitations).

Reportedly, this same general issue has been brought up repeatedly by the Building Advisory Council to no avail. It also was the impetus for the recent whistleblower claim by Building Official John Geniuch.

CD&P seems to be generating a lot of lawsuits for the County these days. In addition to this lawsuit, there is the OPMA lawsuit and the Friends/CSA lawsuit regarding the CAO ... all related in one way or another to alleged CD&P mismanagement, overreach, and bungling (and not counting ongoing as-applied lawsuits related to specific parcels/permits).

Three current lawsuits ... and counting ...

And The Walls Came Tumbling Down

The downfall of Oregon's four-term governor should be a cautionary tale to our Washington politicians, whether they hold office in Olympia or in our local rotten boroughs. It's quite the story, and the Washington Free Beacon has a good summary of the money and political relationships at work in Kitzhaber's downfall. If you read the linked article, imagine the howling there would be if you were to substitute "Koch" for "Steyer" in the report.

Shift WA summarized the situation by saying,

In June 2014, Shift exposed a series of emails that reveal how Jay Inslee’s green agenda is heavily influenced by outside extreme environmental organizations and paid-for political consultants. In fact, Shift discovered that the very environmental organizations caught in the Kitzhaber scandal—the Tom Steyer-fund Energy Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund—are at work in Inslee’s administration. Despite the scandal that unfolded in Oregon and the newfound relevance of Shift’s investigation, most media outlets in Washington State are still not paying attention. Austin Jenkins picked-up on the link between Kitzhaber and Inslee in a recent article for the Northwest News Network, but it’s not enough. Inslee is picking winners and losers, just as Kitzhaber was caught doing. Unfortunately, in our state, the winners are Inslee and the extreme environmental industry and the losers are hardworking Washington families. Inslee is a part of what has become an environmental political complex. Just like Kitzhaber, he is part of a system that runs on hypocrisy, corruption and selfishness wrapped in a veil of self-righteousness. 

This is the same circus, just different clowns.

Ditto at the local level. Same circus, different clowns. We have all seen our local political environmental complex divert public resources to its own advantage. Surely this is corruption of the political process, but what about genuine scandal ... the kind of corruption that makes headlines, ends careers, and takes down politicians and career bureaucrats? That doesn't happen here, does it?

Has there been any long-term misuse of funds, retaliation against whistleblowers, crony no-bid contracts, lame pretexts to try to get the sheriff's department to act as henchmen, or interference with the duties of an enforcement officer? That sort of thing doesn't happen here, does it? ... in one of the 50 places to see before you die? ... in one of the best coastal small towns?

But wait, there will be more ...

Our Fourth Councilman?

According to State law, our elected Prosecuting Attorney serves as a legal advisor to our Council while also representing the County in all criminal and civil proceedings where the County is a party. Under our Charter, the Council must use resolutions to declare policy or exercise its executive power.

When the County's CAO was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) in June 2013, our Prosecuting Attorney's (PA's) Office defended the ordinance in front of the GMHB. I want readers to take particular note of the date. The GMHB hearings occurred during June 2013 ... after our new three-person Council took office. Our PA's defense of the CAO ostensibly took place under the direction of a different Council from the one that rammed the CAOs down our throats in its waning days last December. Our current Council has not passed any resolutions declaring its policy stance towards the new CAO nor directed the PA to defend any particular position regarding the previous Council's CAO work product.

Then, when the GMHB ruling came down in September 2013, it was the PA who issued a press release declaring the GMHB outcome to be largely a victory for the County. Again, there was no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Even though the GMHB ruling struck down parts of the County's CAO, the County did not file to defend the new CAOs in Superior Court (CSA and the Friends have filed suit with Superior Court). Again, there has been no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Last week, the PA's office opposed a Motion to Stay brought by CSA regarding enactment of the new CAO. CSA seeks to stay the implementation of the new CAO until the legal issues can be fully resolved by the courts. Along with the Friends, our PA's office, on behalf of our County, is opposing the motion. Again, there has been no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Let's review ...

• New Council takes over in May 2013.  What do we hear from our Council about the CAO? ... crickets.
• The GMHB hearings occur in June 2013. What do we hear from our Council in terms of coordinating with the PA on a position regarding the CAO? ... crickets.
• The GMHB ruling is issued in September 2013. What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.
• CSA and the Friends file to take the GMHB ruling to Superior Court in October 2013. What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.
• Our PA files an opposition to CSA's Motion to Stay in October 2013 ... and so do the Friends.  What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.

No one knows how the new CAOs will affect wildlife in the San Juans, but the crickets are flourishing at the County Council chambers.

With last week's opposition to stay, this Council cannot hide from the CAOs anymore. We already knew of Stephens' advocacy for the CAOs, since he voted for them. Now, we have to put Hughes' and Jarman's names alongside those of Pratt, Miller, Fralick, and Rosenfeld as those who are forcing a dysfunctional CAO upon us. Not even Pratt, Miller, Fralick, and Rosenfeld took court action to have the CAOs enacted, but last week, this Council allowed our PA to do just that. While our Council does nothing, Gaylord is making up County policy out of thin air ... and our Council sits on its hands doing nothing to stop it.

The CAOs have acquired several nicknames over the past few years ... Crazy Asinine Ordinance, Critical Agenda (21) Ordinance, Can't Avoid Obedience ... but under this Council, it might as well stand for "Currently Absent Officials." Despite the fact that the CAOs were a major election issue, this Council has done nothing about them, and in the resulting policy vacuum, our PA has been happy to act in their place.

Who is directing our PA regarding the CAOs?  Answer: Not our Council.

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #7

I'm sure you're familiar with the Dos Equis commercial? Well, judging by the doors that fly open for Lyshall, Rosenkotter, and Zee, I'm really beginning to wonder if they might qualify as the most interesting people in the world? Consider the following:

• Their organ donation cards also list their grants.
• Salmon list them as their emergency contacts.
• They've brought in over $12 million in grants, which used to be a lot of money.
• Orca and sand lances live vicariously through them.
• Our Prosecuting Attorney questions them, just because they're interesting.

Okay, let's expand upon that last point a bit further.  It's not so much that our Prosecuting Attorney questions the Conservation District, it's that he seems to be eager to provide them with free legal advice even though the Conservation District is not part of our County government. As a State agency, the Conservation District is supposed to go to the Attorney General for advice, or hire their own attorney.

Our Prosecuting Attorney doesn't even provide legal advice to the average taxpaying San Juan County citizen, but somehow Zee and Lyshall have been able to get Gaylord to act as the Conservation District legal advisor on occasion (see emails below). How do they do that? How is it that taxpayers can't get legal advice from our Prosecuting Attorney, but the Conservation District is able to get free legal help? Talk about a sweet deal ... the Conservation District doesn't even pay taxes; in fact, they get taxes. The Conservation District meddles in our County affairs; they receive tax money from us; and then on top of that, they get free legal advice from our Prosecuting Attorney too.

It's ... just ... mind ... boggling.

Below are some emails from the Conservation District regarding their involvement with Gaylord. The first email describes the critical assistance the Conservation District received from Gaylord regarding CD plans for an increased tax assessment. The second email is interesting for what it doesn't say. It was redacted because the County claimed attorney-client privilege between the Prosecuting Attorney and the Conservation District. The only trouble with that excuse is that it isn't true. As mentioned, the Conservation District is definitely not the client of our Prosecuting Attorney.

Remember, the Conservation District doesn't always scam people, but when they do, they ... oh who am I kidding, they always scam people.
____________________________________________________________

From: Bruce Gregory <b.gregory@sanjuanislandscd.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re-writing the C.D. Assessment Ordinance!
To: Madrona Institute <ron@madrona.org>

Board,

OH Boy...I am glad I went.  It was Randy only.  Today was the 1st touch meeting. He grabbed me and we had a pre-testimony conference out side the C.C. chamber.  Thank goodness they were running late!
Randy gave the legal background on the issue.  I gave the overview of what we have accomplished already and need to do.

We have had:
Board discussion.  Mimic Island County, .05 per acre.  We have had meeting with Assessor & Treasurer.  They are happy because they will be able to pay for the needed changes in software and implementation with part of the funds collected (as per RCW).

Next steps:

Randy is writing the new C.D. Assessment Ordinance that will update and supersede Ord. # 23-2010.
We should set a date for a public meeting by this Friday.  (For a meeting in Nov.)  I suppose you could roll this into a board meeting but change the location of the meeting like we did in 2010 when this happened for the previous ordinance.  We need two weeks outreach based upon the RCW 89-00-040.  (Although Randy conceded this was out of the time line presented in the RCW which is set up for the usual approach and not a re-active re-authorizing so he was okay with working outside the stated timeline).

We need to make sure we have support in writing from Assessor & Treasurer that this will be a revenue neutral cost .i.e. the added income will pay for the process needed in assessment changes in Treasurer and Assessor office.  This would support Randy's work on the wording.

The second touch is Oct. 29, special Monday C.C. meeting.  I would suspect Randy will have his draft done by then and present it.

So, some timely decisions from the board or Chair, another discussion or two, a public meeting in Nov. 2012.  Remember we have to accomplish this before the end of Dec. 2012 for the 2013 tax year.
Whew....

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Conservation District Watch: Conservation District = Stewardship Network

The grand plan in the last election had several components, but in typical iceberg fashion, we only saw part of it. The plan included the following:

• Ron Zee, as head of the local Democratic Party, would endorse Stephens, Pratt, and Byers for County Council. Massive donations would pour in from party faithfuls, and the Zee-endorsed candidates would win handily.

• Ron Zee would become head of everything else (see email below). Zee would transform the Conservation District into a local amalgam of all State agencies and their non-profit allies operating in the county: PSP (AAOG/LIO, ECONet), Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (Rosenkotter), WDFW (Windrope), the tribes, Ecology, the Friends, and others.

• Stephens, Pratt, and Byers would increase the CD's special assessment in order to provide a local funding backstop against the possibility of diminished State funding.

• Having statutory authority (RCW 89.08.580) for administering water quality and habitat protection grants, the new amalgamated CD would be in a position to blackmail the County into following every outrageous State whim (e.g., Action Agenda of the PSP).  Do it, or else no State grants for you! 

• The Council would pass civility laws to stifle dissent at public meetings; a stacked MRC and Planning Commission would ram through a draconian SMP even easier than they rammed through the CAOs. "Everyone" would appear to line up behind fierce new anti-citizen regulations.

• The County would upgrade its GIS system. High-resolution aerial photographs (Pictometry) would merge with the TACT grant activities of the MRC/Friends to provide über enforcement opportunities. Open season would begin once the SMP was in place.

• Our Prosecuting Attorney's (PA's) Office would stand by and watch it all happen, if not facilitate it. The Friends would file their usual lawsuits against everyone (except other Friends) and citizens would receive no help from the PA.

Effectively, the net result of the above would have been direct control of San Juan County by hostile State bureaucrats and their non-profit allies (i.e., direct control by the amalgamated CD).

To get an inkling of what that might be like, have a look again at the email from Martha Kongsgaard. You can see echoes of the PSP Targeted Awareness Grants (i.e., Puget Sound is in trouble, our environment is our economy, and locals don't matter).

Our economy should really hum along after we've all been gotten rid of.

The email below was sent out by Ron Zee this past week. The election may not have turned out as planned, but they're still executing the grand plan.

______________________________________________________

Greetings All,

The Steering Committee is pleased to announce the selection of Julia Vouri as our new Stewardship Network Coordinator/ECO Net Coordinator, per the unanimous recommendation of the Search Committee at a special Network meeting held yesterday.  Contracting with the Puget Sound Partnership will proceed next week for the ECO Net Coordination grant under the umbrella of the San Juan Islands Conservation District.

Please welcome Julia to the Network when you see her.  With her help, we'll continue to move the stewardship ethic ever forward!

Cheers!

Ron

Stewardship Network of the San Juans

Website: www.stewardshipsanjuans.org

Email: stewardshipnetwork@gmail.com

A coalition of organizations who envision
a healthy, thriving ecosystem in the
San Juan archipelago, from land to sea

4.34_v?

In lawsuit news, the suit regarding the CRC ballot propositions continues with some new revelations over the past week. This lawsuit seeks to overturn Propositions 1, 2, and 3 approved by voters last November. Those propositions are the reason we are having new elections right now.

The main points of that suit have been covered well by other media, but the sanjuanislander.com had to issue three versions of the same story over the past few days because of confusion (by our Prosecuting Attorney's Office) over what was actually approved by voters. It all has to do with Section 4.34 of the Charter, which sets forth rules for changing residency districts.

All along, one of the arguments made by plaintiffs in the CRC suit has been that the propositions separately modified overlapping sections of the Charter in a potentially conflicting and confusing way. Plaintiffs argue that the propositions presented at least the theoretical risk that a voter could have simultaneously approved and rejected the same Charter language. While appearing to deal with separate and mutually exclusive issues, the three propositions actually amended identical secondary provisions of the Charter.

Now, it appears that such a possibility may no longer just be theoretical. At the moment, it looks like we actually may have multiple versions of Section 4.34 of the Charter. Last Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a new petition asking the Court:

The citizens of San Juan County are left completely in the dark as to which version of 4.34 controls, if any. Is it the 4.34 amended by Proposition 1? Or the 4.34 amended by Proposition 2? Or the 4.34 amended by Proposition 3? There is simply no way to know.

The controversy over Section 4.34 arose because the Winter Council is discussing whether to ask voters to entertain yet another change to the number of districts and representatives on the Council. Some versions of Section 4.34 say this can be done only by the CRC, whereas other versions of Section 4.34 leave this question open and allow for change by initiative and ordinance.

As stated by the plaintiffs in their petition this week:

Perplexingly, the voters have seemingly amended three different versions of Section 4.34 - two versions of which are in direct conflict with each other. That is, one version (the Proposition 1 version) now evidently prohibits the alteration of the boundaries of districts by both County Council ordinance and popular initiative, and two versions (Propositions 2 and 3) remain silent on this change and evidently keep section 4.34 in effect with no substantial (although somewhat differing) alterations.

The plaintiffs go on to say:

Also setting aside for the moment the constitutional propriety of whether the power to both amend by ordinance or by initiative can be so suspended in such a manner, it defies explanation that the County can exist with the state of the law in such contradiction. Petitioners pray that this conflict impresses upon the Court the need for an expedited hearing schedule and, a preliminary injunction staying the election scheduled for April 23, 2013 until this matter can be dealt with rationally.

No matter how you feel about this latest turn of events, I think many of us can agree with the following assertion in the plaintiffs petition.

In sum, political chaos reigns in San Juan County.

Legal chaos too!

Another Fine Mess On Orcas

Imagine you are a couple living on Orcas. You file a complaint against a commercial property owner who you feel is in violation of the County Code. You sign forms promising your confidentiality.

Let's leave aside the merits of the complaint against the commercial property owner for the moment because that is quite a yarn unto its own. We hope to tell that story from the standpoint of the commercial property developer at some time in the not-too-distant future too.

Back to the couple who complained (and by the way, they were not the only complainants) ... shortly after filing their complaint, the couple themselves come under suspicion for code violations about their home. Armed with a Polaris photo and suspicions of potential violations suggested by the photo, a "third party" notifies CDPD of alleged violations on the couple's property. No one files a formal complaint but an "activity report" is completed by CDPD based on a conversation with the "third party." With this activity report as justification, a CDPD staffer (not a Code Enforcement Officer) begins an investigation of the couple, including a drive-by look-see of the couple's property from a public right-of-way. No buildings can be seen from the public-right-of-way, but nevertheless, the "case" is turned over to a Code Enforcement Officer.

Four days before Christmas in 2011, the couple is traveling for the holidays. Unbeknownst to them, they receive a notice at their home stating that CDPD suspects that they might have an illegal building on their property. They are given 14 days to respond, and it just so happens that the couple returns from their travels on the 14th day. They find that their front gate has been tagged with a notice of violation and a "Stop Work" order.

After a discussion with the Enforcement Officer, the couple is quickly shifted to dealing with Deputy Prosecutor Amy Vera. Also, the alleged code violation shape-shifts a bit too ... from having to do with an illegal building to having to do with something about a trailer as well.

While this is happening, the commercial property developer submits a public records request to the County for all public records related to his situation, including the names of complainants. The County notifies the couple that their names will be revealed to fulfill the public records request. The couple objects via their attorney, stating that they were assured of anonymity and have signed confidentiality agreements to that effect, but the County releases their names anyway.

Needless to say, by this point the couple is feeling rather picked on by the County and by CDPD especially. They ask their local Councilman for help, and complain about two CDPD staff in particular.  The Councilman relays the couple's concerns to Administrator Pete Rose.

Shortly after this, and despite having an attorney willing to accept service of court papers, the couple is served with notice at their home that the County intends to sue them for code violations. The couple's lawyer responds to the lawsuit notice and offers to CDPD that they come to the property to view the building/trailer in question in the hope of pursuing a resolution to the matter. Six months go by ... the County doesn't respond.

While giving the couple the silent treatment, the County (for some reason) decides to pursue a criminal case against the couple.  On October 16, 2012, the Sheriff and the CDPD Enforcement Officer appear before Judge Andrews to say that they have probable cause to search the couple's private property for evidence of  crimes. They get a warrant to enter the couple's property, and they proceed directly to the property with the intent to search it. When the County arrives at the property, they find a locked gate and no one home. So, the Sheriff calls the wife at her place of business and tells her to come to unlock the gate immediately, otherwise the Sheriff will cut the lock on the gate to gain entry to the property. The couple (together) rush home to find a County vehicle, a Sheriff's vehicle, two deputies, the CDPD Enforcement Officer, and the Deputy Building Inspector all waiting to enter their property. Of particular note to the couple is that the two CDPD employees present were the same employees that the couple had recently complained about to their Councilman.

A month later (November 2012), the couple are issued a summons to appear in District Court as they were being charged with four criminal misdemeanors  and threatened with possible fines of $5,000 plus and a year in jail.  And not once has the couple received a notice of correction, compliance plan, or even a phone call simply asking how the matter could be resolved more amicably.

And as far as we understand the situation, the entire matter involves an alleged owner-builder agricultural building of approximately 1,000 square feet and an associated trailer ... not visible from the road ... not hurting anyone ... a victimless "crime" if it is a crime at all.

If you want to find out more, or if you want to support this couple, then please attend their hearing on March 20 (Wednesday) at 1:45 pm at the Courthouse in Friday Harbor.

Is this really how we want our County to treat us ... or our neighbors? Do we really want to create laws (like the CAOs) that encourage this sort of thing? Also, think about this case when you read the proposed new enforcement ordinance.

Enigma Wrapped Inside a Conflict

Today the new Council convenes for the first time. Congratulations to all of the newcomers on their election victories and for confronting what are surely the strangest circumstances ever to be faced by a new Council.

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.