A chance for citizens to meet prospective City Attorney: Lighthouse Law Group

175
13

Jeffrey Taraday from the Lighthouse Law Group will be joining Citizen Harry this Friday, Feb. 18 at 3 p.m. at Chanterelle Restaurant, 316 Main St., downtown Edmonds to meet citizens, answer questions and explain Lighthouse’s approach for working with the city if the firm were chosen to be Edmonds’ new City Attorney.

As usual, Chanterelle will be providing free coffee for involved citizens who join us. Other items will need to be paid for. Remember the rules at Coffee with Harry: You can say anything you want but you must be respectful of other people’s opinions.

Join us this coming Friday for an hour or so of conversation.

13 COMMENTS

  1. Harry, what will you and others do with the info gained from the discussion? Will folks then try to persuade the Council to see things their way regarding Lighthouse? Will you provide the same opportunity for the incumbent firm? Within the framework of the Council’s recent process, information was obtained that will help the members decide. If new information/data is introduced to them outside of their process (the ‘coffee’) then I believe the process is tainted. I’d like to assume this won’t happen, but that darn Internet let’s things happen that shouldn’t. Thanks

  2. An invitation has been extended to Ogden Murphy Wallace to have a coffee if they would like. Not sure why you think it is somehow a bad thing to provide citizens the opportunity to meet Mr. Taraday, If you read my previous post I suggested that his firm was not suited for the job. I think it only fair to offer him the opportunity to tell me how I was wrong.

  3. Harry, thanks for providing a better understanding behind the coffee meeting. I didn’t know what to make of the article @ first.

  4. Chanterelle is happy to provide the venue for Coffee with Harry. We do want to make it clear that we do not support one side or the other. We do recognize Harry’s effort to get the public engaged in open conversation about important local topics, and it is in that spirit that we offer up a portion of our dining room along with free coffee for a couple of hours every so often. We look forward to seeing you join in.

  5. Thank you Harry for taking the time to help all of us understand this prospective candidate. I have spent hours on the phone with Jeff and each lawyer in his team as well as others. In regards to the survey, the levy committee decided not to do a survey unless it was scientific as while it can provide “trend of thoughts”, it is difficult to identify the survey base to ensure that it is totally random. So, maybe a disclaimer could be made that this survey is for “thought provoking conversation only”.

  6. Diane, will you be sharing the questions and info from your discussion with the other Councilmembers? Is there agreeement that Councilmembers should contact the candidates outside of the scheduled interview session held recently? Were your questions, posed on the phone, new questions, ones not asked during the interview? Thanks

  7. to Ron B comment 8 above.

    No pretense is made of this being a scientific poll. It is just an opportunity for readers to express their own choices, If a decision for the City is based solely on the results of our poll, then we have far worse problems than I imagine. It is, however, one more source of information to get the feel of the thoughts of a segment of the citizenry.

    However, I do feel it was appropriate to list the third option. I had received comments from several citizens about this and felt it was a legitimate question. From the fact that several people chose that option, I think the decision to include it was correct.

    While the City Council may have chosen to limit to two finalists, they have changed their mind on many things in the recent past after hearing from the citizens. For an example just look at Tuesday’s meeting and the decision regarding home based businesses. Their decisions do not limit my options as to what to discuss.

  8. I highly recommend all citizens make an effort to watch the February 15, City Council meeting currently being rebroadcast daily at Noon and 7 pm on Comcast channel 21 and Verizon channel 39.

    In particular, approximately 75 minutes into the meeting, the City Council discusses Agenda Item 7. –

    Confirmation of Mayor’s Appointment and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services

    If you can’t record the meeting, try and tune in around 8:15 this evening. I believe many citizens will find this discussion very interesting.

  9. Jim, there was discussion of the decision to convert to an hourly rate with a monthly maximum….a wise choice and I believe far better than the old contract under which the former Hearing Examiner was paid roughly $3,500 per month whether there were Hearings or not. As far as scope of work, the duties of the Hearing Examiner are pretty well defined, so I don’t recall alot of discussion along those lines. Please try and watch….it provides an interesting perspective on the procurement process of our City and the related roles of staff, the Mayor, the City Attorney and the City Council.

    By watching this segment of the City Council Meeting, the average Edmond’s citizen could see an example of how things work at the City. Actually,following the entire procurement process for both the Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney would prove to be quite educational.

    Both processes commenced on August 24, 2010 when the City Council voted to put out Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) for both the Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney with all Deliberate Speed.

    The Hearing Examiner process nearly reached its conclusion on February 15th. I would love to hear other citizen’s opinions on how successful the Hearing Examiner procurement process was.

LEAVE A REPLY