IN "BLEAK HOUSE," Charles Dickens wrote about an interminable legal case, Jarndyce and Jarndyce, which dragged on for many generations. In the end, the heirs to a once enormous fortune were left with little more than legal bills.
I thought about Dickens a bit Monday night as I watched City Attorney Ariel Calonne's presentation on affordable housing litigation involving Tolman and Wiker Insurance. He didn't hold back his feelings about wasted tax dollars as he relayed the details of lawsuits which have consumed the city's legal staff and outside counsel for many years.
Calonne blames the insurance company's out-of-town lawyers for stringing out a case which has cost the taxpayers nearly half a million dollars.
"I don't know where all the blame should be assessed but I do know the lawyers representing Tolman and Wiker deserve a big share of it. It's one of these multinational law firms that I think is only accountable to the profits they can make," Calonne said.
THE SUIT IS ONE of a series of lawsuits stemming from the claims of owners of affordable housing units on the city's west side that they were not told when purchasing the units that they were part of the city's affordable housing stock. The city's Housing Authority sent its claim over to Tolman and Wiker asking that the company tender its defense to an outside insurance carrier. But the claim was not tendered and a suit was filed by the city.
"We believe we are owed a substantial amount of money from the insurance companies which protect Tolman and Wiker from their professional negligence," Calonne said.
I think Calonne sometimes gets a bum rap. He started his time as our city attorney with a bit of bad press surrounding a dispute he had with a neighbor in his former city and received more negative publicity when it was revealed how much he is paid -- a lot.
But as a member of the media, I have to admire his honesty. He's highly quotable and always calls it as he sees it.
The case is scheduled to go to mediation on Aug. 19, but Calonne didn't seem at all hopeful that it would be resolved soon.
"We have encountered a very hostile response from the insurance defense lawyers representing Tolman and Wiker," Calonne said. "A response that is almost cavalier about any desire to meaningfully resolve the case."
COUNCIL MEMBER Neal Andrews, always watchful of how public money is spent, said the dragging out of the case "frosts" him. "This is all in the hopes ... that we'll drop the case and settle for less than we should."
The Council has been hearing about this in closed session for many years, but it was time to bring it out into the open, Council member Ed Summers said.
"When it has this level of financial consequences, I think we need to take it beyond the Council. The public has made this clear in the past," he pointed out.
Speaking on behalf of the taxpayers, I hope all the parties resolve this sooner, rather than later.
Is this the same city council and city attorney's office that has strung Helen Yunker's case out waiting for her to die?
We have bloggers that waste tax dollars too!
I think Helen will survive us all. She is immortal.
We also have bloggers that betray their allegiances and join the VCDCC to get even for being jilted by the party they say they belong to. What a joke!
Not knowing who Helen Yunker is I watched her on you tube. How is it Ventura has sooo many nut jobs? Do they sell aluminum foil hats at council meeting?
They lied-
You are an idiot...
Your friend,
gibby
I guess we should be thankful that someone is looking out for the interests of the taxpayers. It sure ain't the City Council. How on earth could they have allowed the City to get bilked for so long by such an unscrupulous company? Who's minding the store here?
I guess it took a new City Attorney to get this thing on the front burner. Pretty amazing...
It is my understanding that the City has won its arguments pretty consistently in all the litigation. It is owed money by the insurance company whose out-of-town lawyers are putting the settlement off and recently filed what Calonne termed "a frivolous appeal."
How do City Council members have any control over this? One thing they can do is bring it forward publicly and apply pressure.
Perhaps as good public citizens, Tolman and Wiker could be persuaded to call off their lawyers and get this settled.
CooCoo:
"Not knowing who Helen Yunker is I watched her on you tube. How is it Ventura has sooo many nut jobs?"
Way to go! You did just the correct amount of research on a topic before spouting off. What a perfect way to know the basis for her case.
Thank goodness there are readers like CooCoo who can sum up a case by watching YouTube.
While she may be a bit flamboyant at council meetings, Helen has received many awards from the community for her good works.
The City Council has a lot of say in how legal matters are pursued and is also very involved in developing the legal strategy for cases pending with the City when they meet in closed session with the City Attorney and City Manager on matters of litigation.
Now, granted, they often defer to the City Attorney's recommendations on legal matters because he is their "expert" on staff. But, it seems like, in this case, they could have exercised a little more muscle in how this was dealt with (since this darn thing has dragged on for so long, with the City losing money in the meantime). For instance, they could have decided to go public with it long ago to exert some additional pressure on Tolman and Wiker to settle.
But, no, they chose a safer route.
How do City Council members "muscle" multinational law firms? Please give specific examples of how this can be accomplished.
There are always specific reasons why litigation reports have to stay in closed session. Now they are about to go into mediation and may need a vote to authorize the Council to act as principals for mediation.
The attorneys for Tolman and Wiker canceled the last mediation.
They can use the media to make the case that these guys are ripping off the taxpayers. This is the Mayor and City Council of a reasonably large city. They can write op ed pieces in the local newspaper. People will listen to them because they are public officials. Once you get the public behind you it can have a very detrimental impact on a company's image. Do you think Tolman and Wiker can afford the negative publicity?
These guys have no game because they are afraid to act. They're a bunch of cowards...
What do you think they are doing now, Mongo? And notice that I am the only member of the media who felt it important enough to write about it.
Cowards? You're a fine one to talk. I'd like to see you post under your own name more often. But taking potshots at other people while crouching in the dark is much more your style.
You're one to talk also, Marie. You do the exact same thing with regard to taking pothshots while sitting safely behind your computer, not only on this blog but on Dennert's as well.
Why do you feel so compelled to protect these guys all the time, anyway? You should exercise a little journalistic objectivity and integrity once in a while by speaking out in opposition to something they're doing.
The difference is that I am factual and reasoned about my posts. I don't lie, call people names, allude to supposed drug habits, threaten and intimidate women (by asking them if they're "hot" or offering to dance nude on their lawns) like you do. I also have the courage to post under my own name. My picture is sitting out on the website.
I don't have a problem with how the council handled this particular topic, that's all. It's really beyond their reach. You are hypercritical of everything to suit your own political purposes.
Marie, Marie, Marie,
When will you ever get a sense of humor? All of the supposedly offensive comments you referenced here were done in jest, and you know it. These were not intimidating or threatening comments to women, please. You seem to be the only one who has taken them this way or charcaterized them as such. Relax and laugh a little, lady, you'll live longer.
You also seem surprised that people act politically on a political blog. This naivete on your part also hurts your credibility.
I am just as critical, often less so, than others who blog regularly here and elsewhere (including Katie Teague, GS, Nobody, CAP-812, and others), yet I don't hear you asking them to tone it down, or lecturing them on their blog behavior.
And you talk about me suiting my own political purposes? Hmmm....
There are times when I have considered you just above phytoplankton in the hierarchy of life forms. There, is that funny enough for you?
Katie Is a class act. I don't know/care about the others. They don't post on my blog. They are over on Dennert's.
Mango - don't drag my name in your pathetic attempt to rationalize your boorish behavior.
Katie, my lady (and I use that term liberally), your latest post makes my point quite well. Listen to your vitriolic tone, your anger, your pent-up feeling of unending rage. It's enough to make a poor, timid blogger, such as myself, run and hide among the nearest flock of Strickland protesters. That's where you can be found, no?
Marie, flattery will get you nowhere, I'm afraid. At least you're trying to be funny. That's an improvement.
I sure hope you aren't working today. You waste a lot of taxpayer's money blogging from work. No wonder the budget is in shambles.
All I have to say, Mongo, is that if you show up to dance on my front lawn I have a big, mean dog and an even bigger, meaner husband.
I have a great sense of humor. I just don't think you're funny.
Katie is a classy lady who I admire very much.
Marie,
Well, I'll have to take those factors into consideration then. Maybe I'll wear a loin cloth. What do you think?
Katie,
I'm self-employed, so, excuse me, but I'll blog whenever and from wherever I damn well please. So stop with your empty accusations.
You, on the other hand, as I recall, work under contract doing some sort of forensic analysis work. That means you must work for or get paid by the government (court system, coroner's office, etc.). That means you are the one who is actually ripping off the taxpayers.
Katie works very part time at a private crime lab without a way to log onto a blog. If she's blogging, she's at home.
As Marie point out, and as a general rule, crime labs don't have internet access in the lab - too easy to jeoprodize the cases. I work for a private crime lab.
You on the other hand blog on the taxpayers dime. Don't waste my money.
Marie, I love the title of this thread "Your tax dollars at waste." It is so appropriate.
Now to get back on track, one should look at Boulder, CO which is where Mr. Callone was recently employed. Boulder has a number of fees implemented. I haven't checked the track record on extended law suits but hopefully he has a record of shining light on these.
Katie,
You, honey, are a certified wack job. Who do you think I work for anyway? I'd be very interested to know.
You may work for a private crime lab, but crime labs typically have contracts with the government (law enforcement agencies, mainly). Why else would they be in business? Prove me wrong.
Geez, dude, you are one sick twisted puppy. Katie girl did you tell us once that this guy ran for city council?
I figured you'd want a piece of me eventually, Skipster. Whadup, dog?
I never understood the obsession with proving someone is at work and shouldn't be blogging.
If your boss allows you to send personal emails as long as you get your work done it seems fine. It doesn't take more electricity or use up much band width.
I understand if you are technically using government property to support a candidate but even then it sounds more like a gotcha move then someone seriously offended.
Would I be offended if a Firefighter was using her station's internet connection to argue about local politics? Not anymore then if she was playing fantasy football or something like that as long as it doesn't take away from putting out fires.