Minutes 06/06/1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-> -\ ;uU TUESDAY JUNE 6, 1972 law firms--can represent the City capably and appropriately. In addition, Vice-Mayor West pointed out that, by the selecting of a local law firm, the taxpayers' money would be spent locally as opposed to employing an out-of-City firm which, he finds, the City Attorney has so employed. Furthermore, Vice-Mayor West indicated that he implied or cast no adverse reflections either upon City Attorney Cubine or upon the Danville law firm the City Attorney has engaged; rather, that he strongly felt and feels that a local firm should be employed. City Attorney Cubine then presented and read in its entirety the following statement as to his position and action in this matter: As a preface to this statement may I say: It is my considered opinion that as City Attorney no one but myself has the authority to appoint legal assistants to my office. Chapter 7 of the City Charter, Section #2, provides that the head of the department of law shall be the City Attorney. Section #3 (g) provides that the City Attorney shall "appoint and remove such assistant city attorneys and other employees as shall be authorized by the council". No where is it provided that this function shall be exercised by an individual councilman. The May 19, 1972, issue of the Martinsville Bulletin reported that a Roanoke realty firm had filed (it later proved to be May 16) a suit in the U. S. District Court, Danville, Virginia, naming the council and the planning commission of the City as defendants, separately and collectively. It stated that the City had "20 days to reply to the allegations in the suit" (State law requires that the city attorney be given 30 days notice prior to such filing). The Sunday, May 21 issue of the Bulletin "advertised" extensively on its front page the purport of this suit, yet no process or notice had been served on myself or any of the defendants. On Monday, May 22, one week after the alleged filing, I became a little uneasy, as still no process or notice had been served. I could not answer questions directed to me because I did not know what the suit sought to accomplish nor whether it actually had been filed. Personally knowing members of a Danville law firm active there in Federal practice, and in legal municipal affairs, and, after seeking advice as to my best judgment, I called the senior member of this firm and asked him to go to the Danville U. S. District Court and determing whether suit had actually been filed; its objective, etc., and to advise the Federal time allowed for filing answer. This Danville attorney called me the next morning and gave me the information.