Dillon’s $100,000 Attorney – Part 2

Posted in City Government at 1:46 am by Moorcat

I got a chance to see the packet for the upcoming City Council Meeting Scheduled for this Wend, May 21 at 7:00pm. There are some interesting things on the agenda but buried in the Committee Reports is the real kicker for this meeting. It appears there might be an actual vote on the contract making our City Attorney Dillon’s $100,000 attorney. Also included in the packet are the meeting minutes for the SECOND Judiciary Committee meeting held April 14th. Seeing these minutes clears up the confusion that occured at the City Council Budget meeting when Gilbert’s requested wage was first discovered.

History –

I have already posted about what happened at the Budget meeting here. To review a little, when the budget for the City Attorney was presented, questions were raised about the budget outlay of $100,000 for the City Attorney’s wages and benefits. It was presented that the Judiciary Committee – composed of Councilman Achter, Councilman McIssac, and Councilman Riley – had reached an agreement with Gilbert to pay him $110.00 an hour for 70 hours a month. There was a great deal of confusion about that information because the Judiciary Committee minutes handed out to City Council didn’t seem to indicate that agreement.

It turns out that the minutes of only one of the two Judiciary Committee meeting minutes were handed out – the minutes for the March 27th Judiciary Committee meeting. There was appearently a second Judiciary Committee Meeting held April 14. Why those minutes are just now being added to the packet (given that the Gilbert contract is on the agenda for this meeting) is suspect.

The April 14th Judiciary Committee Meeting

The following is taken from those minutes –

The second agenda item, the city attorney contract was considered. The chairman [Riley] asked the City Attorney to explain the current status of his contract. Mr. Gilbert explained that the contract needed to be re-negotiated as it pertained to the hourly rate and that the contract extension was to be agreed upon by the end of January. Failure to meet that deadline did not affect the viability of the contract and that any increase in the hourly rate would be retroactive to January 1, 2008

So let me get this straight. They are talking about giving Gilbert a significant raise (16% to his under 55 hours a month rate and 10% to his over 55 hour rate) and they ask HIM what the situation is. He tells them that his current contract needs more money and if any contract is negotiated, it must be retroactive to Jan, 2008. Since Gilbert DIRECTLY benefits from this contract, why didn’t anyone question this analysis?

Further discussion ensued, including Gilbert asking for an increase to $120.00 an hour instead of the $150.00 an hour he asked for in the previous meeting. Councilman Achter proposed that Gilbert be paid $110.00 an hour (the “agreement” from the first Judiciary Committee Meeting), and this proposal was passed by the Judiciary Committee to be forwarded to the City Council.

The City Council Meeting, May 21, 2008 –

Under the Committee reports, there is a line item under Judiciary Committee listing Gilbert’s Contract. There is no indication whether this contract is to be voted on but given the almost certain negative public response to an agreement of this nature and given that a copy of Gilbert’s sweetheart deal contract is included in the packet, I think it likely that the Dillon City Council will, in fact, vote on this contract tomorrow.

Summary –

Only a complete and utter idiot would think that this contract is even marginally palatable to the citizens of Dillon. Even if they were to give Gilbert the accepted PERS wage increase of 3%, many Dillon Citizens would be angered beyond words. His current rate of pay is ridiculously high and only the use of Mayor Malesich’s tie breaking votes have kept it that high. To increase Gilbert’s pay by 16% and 10%, they are showing how little financial responsibility the Dillon City Administration and Dillon City Council have. Make no mistake, I will be posting exactly which City Councilmen vote for this contract and I would not want to be in their shoes when the citizens find out.

A futher consideration should be the fact that Gilbert is already $10,000 OVER budget for this year with two months still to go. If this contract is approved (and is retroactive as Gilbert wants it to be), the amount over budget the City Attorney’s wages are soars. This would need to be addressed by a budget adjustment hearing and full City Council support – something that is not a given.

Each City Councilman should consider exactly what their constituants are going to say when this goes public. The bottom line here is that the Citizens of Dillon are unaware of what you are doing at this point. They know what the County Attorney was paid for his FULLTIME position because it was posted in the paper. They will find out what you are doing (likely after the fact…) and be furious. Those of us that do know what you are doing are furious. Remember that we are the “well” you have to keep coming back to and we have the power to say “NO”. We also have the power to ensure that you never are in a position to screw us over again come time to vote.



Budget Meetings – an overview

Posted in City Government at 2:36 am by Moorcat

Last week, the Dillon City Government held the first five meetings – in what promises to be a LONG series of ineffecient meetings – to discuss the upcoming 2008 – 2009 budget. While I have posted about each individual meeting, it is time to give an overview of what I witnessed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Budget meeting 5 – May 16th

Posted in City Government at 12:18 am by Moorcat

The Fifth scheduled budget meeting was held Friday, May 16th at 4:00pm. Once again, there was a protest against the scheduling of these meetings during working hours. To no surprise, that protest was summarily ignored.

Water and Sewer Budget –

There was some confusion as to whether the budget’s supplied included the proposed increases in water and sewer rates. Further, due to the lack of firm numbers for the money spent this year or the revenue expected, little could be addressed in these budgets. Some of the requested Capital outlays were discussed including setting up a bulk water fill tank but those discussions were tabled until a better idea of the operating money could be presented.

The Sewer Budget was discussed until it was found that the sheet handed out to the Council contained a large number of errors. It was decided to re-address this budget at a later time.

The Cemetary Budget –

There was discussion about beginning work on the memorial wall and phase I of the “niche” wall. Though the discussion was confusing given the lack of concrete information, it was decided that those projects would probably go forward in some respect. Also discussed was the construction needed to control flood water at the cemetary. Further details were to be supplied in future discussions. It was pointed out that until it final numbers on how much money the City was working with were forthcoming, little could be finalized in this budget as the Cemetary is funded by a specific method and could not tap funds from other accounts.

Parks –

The budget for the Parks was discussed. Near the beginning of the discussion, Councilman Lawson reported that he had spoken with the Director of Operations and the printed budget given to the Council was not reflective of what the Parks Committee would like to do.

It was also discussed that a “Parks District” should be established and the process should be presented to the City Council. This would result in an additional special maintenence tax being levied on property owners in Dillon – similar to the Lighting or Street Maintenence district already in place.

Adjourn or Recess

The final discussion of the meeting occured when Malesich suggested recessing the meeting until the week of May 19th. Multiple councilpersons objected to that idea, stating that it failed to meet the notification rules of Open Meeting Law. Other Councilpersons stated that they had plans for much of that week.

It was also discussed holding the meeting at a time when the public could attend. Councilman Straugh acnowledged that public’s right to attend but then went on to say that these budget discussions were preliminary and that “later” meetings would be scheduled at a more reasonable time for the public.

The end result was that meetings were scheduled for May 29th and 30th at 4:00pm and for June 5th and 6th at 5:00pm.

The meeting was then recessed by Malesich.

It should be pointed out that during these discussions about whether the meeting should be adjourned or recessed and when these meetings should be held, the three members of the public requested to be heard. None of these three people were recognised by Malesich and the meeting was adjourned without their input. This seems to be a direct violation of Montana’s Open meeting law, though typical of Malesich’s Administration. The absolute contempt Malesich and his administration displays toward Citizen Input – a right protected by the Montana Constitution is obvious when pulls boneheaded stunts like this.



Budget meeting 4 – May 15th, 2008

Posted in City Government at 11:37 pm by Moorcat

The Dillon City Council met again on Thursday, May 15th, to continue to go over the proposed Dillon City Budget.

The City Library –

Two members of the City Library Board were on hand to present the City Library Budget. They included, in their presentation, an overview of the Dillon City Library usage and how the Dillon City Library stacked up against other libraries in Montana. It was a well thought out presentation and little comment was made about the library’s proposed budget.

The Dillon Fire Department Budget –

Again, little was discussed on this budget, given the lack of definitive numbers for salaries, and end of year figures to work with. One suggestion was made to look at a possible levy to pay for the fire truck instead of taking it out of the fire budget, but it was tentatively decided that with the upcoming need to resolve the police retirement issue, the Dillon City Council had to be careful “how many times they go to the well”.

The Dillon City Court Budget –

As soon as this budget was brought up, there were complaints that the City Judge was not available to attend the budget meeting. It was pointed out that the scheduling of the Budget meeting during normal working hours was probably part of the problem. Councilman Lawson again brought up the security of the Court Clerk’s office and complained that the City Judge was not in attendance at the City Hall Committee meeting. It was decided that a letter would be sent to the City Judge asking her to attend the next City Council Meeting Scheduled May 21, 2008.

The City Council Budget –

The City Council budget was brought up with little discussion due to the lack of final figures for this year, and the lack of salary figures to work with.

Summary –

Once again, this meeting demonstrates why these meetings have limited value (other than to pay Gilbert to sit at them). As a citizen of Dillon, I feel that the money paid Gilbert could have been much better spent. I do want to say that I was very impressed by the library presentation and hope that they get most of the budget they asked for. They, at least, justified their budget well.


City Hall Committee Meeting May 15th, 2008

Posted in City Government at 11:18 pm by Moorcat

The second meeting held on Thursday, May 15th was a City Hall Committee Meeting. The only agenda item was discuss the security of the City Court Clerk’s new Furniture.

History –

Late last year, the Dillon City Court received notification of some new rules passed by the Montana Supreme Court on the required Security of City Court equipment and records. Since the Montana Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these things, this situation was brought before the Dillon City Council. Coupled with these new rules, the City Court Clerk’s office was vandalized on more than one occation.

After lengthy discussions and a power struggle between the Dillon City Council and the Mayor – Where the Mayor contended that he was not required to follow policies set by the City Council – the decision was made to purchase $6,000 worth of furniture that would – presumably – meet the security requirements of the Montana Supreme Court. Councilman Lawson forcefully opposed this resolution, stating that the City Clerk’s office should be moved to the current Treasurer’s office because it had a locking door. Lawson’s proposal was strongly opposed by many on the Council and by both the City Clerk and the City Judge for many reasons, including the safety of the City Judge.

At the City Council Meeting held May 6th, it was suggested that the furniture purchased was not what the City Council ordered and that this furniture was inadequate to resolve the issue. This was assigned to the City Hall Committee for review.

The City Hall Committee Meeting –

On review, the furniture delivered was, in fact, what was ordered. The original discussion of new furniture included the idea of “clamshell” styled furniture but prior to the City Council voting to purchase the furniture, it was discovered that the “clamshell” furniture was no longer available. In reviewing the information supplied to the City Council about the furniture that was ordered, it was clear that what was ordered was what was supplied.

Councilwoman Kailey also brought up that, in the future, it might be advantagious to add a plexaglass screen above the desk units to further protect the City Clerk but stressed that the current furniture was, in fact, what was required to meet the Supreme Court’s new rules.

Councilman Lawson and Councilman Spehar – the two councilmen opposed to the ordering of the furniture – maintained that they did not believe the ordered furniture was secure. The City Court Clerk verified that the furniture met the requirements of the Montana Supreme Court. Councilman Lawson asked to go on record that he wanted to see a letter from the Montana Surpreme Court to that effect. He further stated that he felt that the council should have “forced” the change of office.

After the meeting, Councilman Lawson, Councilman Spehar, and Lynn Westad all stated that they felt the City had been “ripped off” and Lawson vowed to continue “the fight” at the next City Council Meeting.

Water and Sewer Rates with Harry Whalen

Posted in City Government at 10:50 pm by Moorcat

Last Thursday, May 15th, three meetings were held by the Dillon City Government. The first of those meetings was a Sewer and Water Committee meeting to discuss Harry Whalen’s recommendations for increasing our Water and Sewer Rates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama, Clinton or McCain

Posted in State and Federal Politics at 10:06 pm by Moorcat

I have been asked on multiple occasions, by both readers and people who are aware that I politically blog, who I am supporting in the upcoming presidential elections. This is a lame attempt to answer that question…

The short answer is that I will probably pull the lever for Obama – but it is quite possible that it won’t be in the primary next month.

You see, I have issues with all the candidates. There isn’t a single candidate running for office that really gets my motor running. That is not to say that I don’t like some of what the candidates have to say… just that no single candidate embodies even a majority of what I would like to see in a President. Let’s examine our choices –

John McCain –

This one is a definite ‘no’. There is no way I would ever back a candidate as wishy-washy as this one. Besides the fact that the man seems to have no platform he can stick to, he advocates many of the same illegal policies as the current Chump in Chief. The Republican Party once again abandoned those of us that want a return to Conservative Values by electing this moron as their primary candidate. They deserve the loss they are going to suffer in November – not only in the White House, but in Congress as well. Maybe this will be a wakeup call to them – but I doubt it. As long as idiots like Rush Limberger set the tone for Republican speech, we are going to continue to be inundated with Candidates like McCan’t.

The kicker for my active dislike for McCan’t is his idiotic support for the financial blackhole in Iraq. If it were up to him, he would continue that debacle indefinitely. Ignoring the body count (something that as a former military person I have a real hard time doing…), the financial cost to this country is being felt even now and will be felt even more as the bottom line for this war gets higher. It has already impacted education, benefits for our elderly, and even critical financial expenditures such as infrastructure, homeland defense and emergency services. While I am not a big fan of “Big Government”, there are places that government spending is essential given the size and scope of our society. Those essential needs are not being met. McCan’t won’t solve that problem – in fact, he will make it worse.

Hillary Clinton –

Of all the Candidates running, she wants this office the most. You can tell by how much she is willing to break the rules to get it. She has been called “one of the smartest people in Government” and it might actually be true, but brains without honesty, honor or morals is NOT a good combination. I was pre-disposed not to endorce her campaign due to her “Bigger Government” policies but when her campaign threw the rulebook out the window, she lost me completely. Even if she gets the nod in the primary (something I see as less and less likely every day), I would have a hard time pulling the handle for her. Given a choice between her and McCan’t, I will probably vote for Micky Mouse.

Barack Obama –

Of the three candidates running, he seems to be more in line with what I want to see in a President. As a Democrat, he often supports a “bigger government” agenda but, at least in the debates and interviews I have seen, he does so in a far more rational manner than either Clinton or McCan’t. His stance on gun control is still somewhat of a mystery (the available information is contradictory and therefore unreliable) but his stance on providing essential services domestically is what I want to see.

My concern with Obama stems from his lack of foreign policy experience and short time spent in Federal Government. He is the relative newcomer to the Political scene and that raises some legitimate questions. It also means that he is less likely to have already become an “insider” – doing business the same old (wrong) way. He seems to have the ability to think “outside the box” and, to me, that is a definite plus.

Anyone who discounts his ability to speak intelligently and movingly to crowds is an idiot. Few candidates have had his charisma or ability to energize a group since Kennedy. McCan’t has disregarded it and paid sorely for it. Clinton disregarded it and she is likely to lose the Democratic Primary because of it.

Now my support for Obama would be cemented if he chose Richardson as his running mate. Say what you want about Richardson, but I am going to quote another Blogger here – “Richardson has more Foreign Policy Experience than all the other candidates put together”. Further, Richardson is not only familiar with Western Values, he actively works to protect them.

Given a choice between Obama and McCan’t, there is no contest. For better or worse, I will vote for Obama because voting for McCan’t is simply too distasteful for me.

The Primary –

This year, I will probably vote in the Republican Primary. My reasons are simple – the races that are important here in Beaverhead County (for the primary) are between Republican Candidates. While I will post more on those primaries later, I want the ability to vote on these primary races as I feel they are important. You must remember that Beaverhead County is predominantly Republican and most of the primary contended races are Republican. This does not negate my support for certain Democratic Candidates – like Monica Lindeen – but I can only choose to vote in one primary. This time around, it will probably be the Republican Primary.

Hopefully, this answers the many questions I have received about who I “support” for the Presidential Race.


Budget meeting 3

Posted in City Government at 3:23 am by Moorcat

The third of the five Special Council Meetings scheduled for this week was held this afternoon at 4:00pm. The proposed topics of discussion were to be the City Hall Budget, the Planning Board/Zoning Board Budget, the Police Department Budget, and the Director of Operations Budget.

The City Hall Budget –

As with all the Budgets under discussion, the information handed out to the City Council was incomplete as the fiscal year is not over, and much of the factual information needed to calculate things like salaries are not available until after May 15th. That said, there were a number of items on the budget discussed. It was reiterated that these budgets were “wish lists” of items the responsible people would like to see budgeted and the end result would probably be less than what was asked for.

The primary topic of discussion was the $37,000.00 asked for by the City Hall Committee for improvements to the City Hall building. These included wiring upgrades and replacing the doors to the building. Not included in the $37,000.00 but also requested was $4,000.00 for insulating the pipes in City Hall (to offset high utility costs), weather proofing windows, and bringing City Hall into ADA Compliance – something City Hall is not at this time.

After discussion, the apparent concensus was to fund the insulation of the pipes in City Hall and look into what it would take to bring City Hall into ADA compliance. The other improvements were considered “cosmetic” and would be looked at later once better figures of available money could be obtained. Since no figures were available for bringing City Hall into ADA compliance other than “a lot”, the council moved to the next budget. Councilwoman Kailey volunteered to organize the painting of the council chambers if the city would budget for the paint. She stated that she would be willing to paint the chambers in order to save the money it would cost to bring someone in.

Planning Board/Zoning Board/Joint City – County Planning Board Budget

Some history is required to understand this discussion. During the 2007 – 2008 budget cycle, Dillon operated with a joint Planning/Zoning Board. Late during 2007, it was pointed out that the law requires that these two boards be seperate. This move was made and a seperate Zoning board was established. While these two boards are populated by most of the same people, and meet at similar times, they are seperate entities. The proposed 2008 budget was seperated for these boards to reflect that.

As soon as this topic was broached, there were many disagreements expressed with the idea of budgeting any money for the joint City/County Board until certain agreements had been made. Little was discussed about the specifics of this budget. The proposed amount to budget for this Board was $3,500.00

The requested amount for the Planning Board was $30,400.00. The requested amount for the Zoning Commission was $9,000.00. The Budgeted amount in the 2007-2008 budget for both of these boards when they were still combined was $13,964.00, meaning a net increase of over $25,000.00.

One of the reasons for this increase was the request of the Planning Board for $20,000.00 for “Contract Services – City Planner”. Councilman Riley stated that, up till now, those services had been provided by himself and he was unwilling to continue to provide them. He went further to say that it would be a minimum of $5,000.00 (Lynn Westad stated that it might be closer to $10,000.00) to get the contract help to complete the Zoning Regulations. When asked if this was a “one-time expense”, he concluded that it probably wasn’t.

It was tenatively suggested to reduce the budgeted amount for contract services to $10,000.00. There was some discussion about the requested fireproof cabinet to store planning/zoning paperwork but litte else in these budgets was discussed.

The Police Department Budget

The Police Department Budget was next discussed. There was little to actually discuss here since a large portion of this budget is dependant on information that is not currently available. When asked, Police Chief Gutcheck reported that the officer currently on Active Military Duty in Iraq is due to return in December. Looking at the proposed budget submitted by Chief Gutcheck, there doesn’t appear to be many significant changes from last year. Further discussion of this budget was deferred until more information was available.

The Director of Operations Budget

Little was discussed on this budget due to the time and lack of information that will not be available until later. Councilman McIssac asked J.S. Turner if 15% was an accurate representation of how much time he actually spent on Director of Operation tasks. Last year, Mr. Turner promised to keep a log of his time so that his division of labor could be more accurately calculated. Mr. Turner responded that the actual amount of time spent on Director tasks was probably closer to 25%. This will have an effect on the Water and Sewer Budget, as much of the Director of Operations’ Salary – as well as many other City Employee Salaries – were moved to the Water and Sewer funds over the objection of many City Councilmen last year as well as public outcry.

Also discussed were the increases in the Building Permit Fee Schedule listed on the budget. There seemed to be some confusion over whether a public hearing had been held to increase these fees. It was announced that those fee increases would be discussed at the public hearing scheduled May 21st.

Summary –

Though many things were discussed at this meeting, little was actually accomplished. The combination of lack of final figures for what was spent in the 2007 – 2008 budget combined with the lack of necessary information for the 2008 – 2009 budget cycle rendered most of these discussions extremely preliminary. In fact, it appears the only tangeble result of these meetings, other than a first look at what the administration is going to try to get the citizens to pay for, is that Mr. Gilbert has earned an additional $100.00 an hour per meeting for sitting in them.



It’s that time of year – sort of

Posted in Montana Living at 12:47 am by Moorcat

It is that time of year again, when yards get cleaned up, garages get cleaned out and gardener’s start to set up thier gardens – not withstanding the snow that fell for a short period of time last night.

Things around here are no different. We made a dump run (to get rid of the yard debris I had raked up and some broken furniture), we took all the cardboard recycling to the appropriate place and took the christmas stuff to storage so that I can work in the garage. We also picked up the wood for me to make up some octagonal planting beds for my wife. For those interested, I will post a “how to” on how they are made with pictures later on this week.

By Friday, I will have fired up our new lawnmower and weed-wacker and finish cleaning up the yard. In addition, the hedges are badly in need of trimming….

I love summer in Montana….


Dillon’s $100,000 City Attorney

Posted in City Government at 12:27 am by Moorcat

The second Special City Council Meeting to cover the budget was held this afternoon at 4:00pm. The meeting started with two citizen comments. One citizen (myself, actually) asked why the Dillon City Administration policy of providing two copies of the information under discussion for citizens in attendance had been suspended for the budget meetings. In short, I wanted to know why the policy – loudly stated by Malesich himself a year ago – wasn’t being followed. The question was never answered but I was given an incomplete packet of information and snidely told that I had to leave it in council chambers after the meeting. The second citizen to speak protested the scheduling of these meetings during working hours. Again, no responce was given.

Dillon’s $100,000 City Attorney

The first topic of discussion was the City Attorney’s proposed budget. As reported yesterday, Mr. Gilbert is asking for a pay increase to $92,400.00. The amounts for Unemployment, Worker’s Comp and FICA (which the city has to pay by his contract) are blank, but Mr. Gilbert freely admitted that those amounts would probably total close to $8,000.00, making the proposed amount for Mr. Gilbert’s compensation around $100,000.

For the first part of the discussion, no councilperson was willing to bring up the proposed $30,000 increase in Mr. Gilberts wages. Councilwoman Kailey asked about the appearent overpayment in THIS YEAR’S Budget, but no answer was actually given on how that was to be accomplished or dealt with. Finally, Councilman Straugh questioned the proposed amount. The explanation given was that the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Gilbert had “come to an agreement” that Mr. Gilbert’s hours should be increased to 70 a month and that ALL of Mr. Gilbert’s wages should be paid at $110.00 an hour. While this was not reflected in the Judiciary Committee’s minutes, I can easily see the members of the Judiciary Committee (with a possible objection from Councilman McIsaac) agreeing to this insane increase. Let’s break it down…

Mr. Gilbert’s contracted wage for the first 55 hours a month (by the, now expired contract) – $94.33 an hour.
The “agreed” upon wage increase – $110.00 an hour.

That is an increase of 16.6% over his contract wage. Since the justification being used is that PERS requires the standard Cost of living raise granted all city employees, that increase should have been the 3.4% all other city employees got last year, not 16.6%.

Mr. Gilbert’s contracted wage for hours over the first 55 hours a month (by the now expired contract) – $100.00 an hour.
The “agreed” upon wage increase – $110.00 an hour

That is an increase of 10% over his current wage – Again, far in excess of the PERS standard.

Too much for a City Attorney

The problem here is that the Dillon City Council is attempting to justify the unjustifiable. The bottom line here is that Mr. Gilbert is being paid FAR too much for a City Attorney and our City Government is too gutless to address the base issue. They can talk until they are blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that they are contemplating paying Mr. Gilbert close to $100,000 in wages for a part-time City Employee position. No wonder they are holding these meetings at a time when the majority of Dillon Citizens cannot attend. Every council person sitting at that table that fails to object to this should be ashamed of themselves.

What makes this situation even worse for the Dillon City Council is that Beaverhead County just hired a full time County Attorney for $68,000 a year. That attorney works a 40 hour week (or more if the need arises). Gilbert proposes to work a 70 hour MONTH – less than half the time put in by the County Attorney – for $100,000 a year. What is wrong with this picture?

It should be noted that Mr. Gilbert’s private practice – out of the same office he uses to conduct city business – was never even mentioned.

My suggestion

If the Dillon City Council – as a body – had even a smidgen of backbone, they should propose the following –

1) Put the City Attorney position up for open bids. Mr. Gilbert’s contract is expired. It is as simple as that. Mr. Gilbert is welcome to bid with any other applicants.
2) If the demand for the services of the City Attorney is so great, make the position a full time position.
3) Limit the pay of the position to $65,000 a year.

This would be the financially responcible thing to do. This would be the right thing to do. Is the Dillon City council that responcible? Probably not. Malesich, Gilbert and every City Councilperson that votes for this rediculous amount should be tarred, feathered and run out of the City.

Also discussed was the Street and Alley budget. Unfortunately, little could be done with the budget as much of the necessary information wasn’t available and noted on the worksheet. This budget will be revisited at a later time.

Summary –

It is obvious that both the City Administration and members of the Dillon City Council are looking to giving even more money to Mr. Gilbert. The only thing that will stand in thier way is a definitive outcry from the Citizens of Dillon. Isn’t it about time we stop overpaying for a City Attorney?


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »