Fayette County Attorney Shows His Stuff…

Thursday night after the Fayette County Commission meeting the County Attorney, Scott Bennett, came over to the press area and said he wanted to talk with the press. I didn’t catch the entire statement so I asked one of the other reporters what he’d said. The reporter indicated he wanted us to stick around so he could talk to us. We immediately “assumed” it had to do with the lawsuit filed by former County Administrator, Chris Venice.

We chatted a bit about the lawsuit, then Bennett walked over and said to meet in his office. One reporter followed immediately, I had to grab my pen and paper. As I walked into the hallway leading to Bennett’s office I overheard him talking to the first reporter about me in a tone that made my ears perk up. Hmmm, not very professional for the County’s legal spokesperson to be disparaging someone to a reporter… But it got better, or worse, depending on your point of view.

He caught my entrance out of the corner of his eye, whirled around and bluntly stated that I was not invited. At first I thought he meant only press could come, and knowing that some had problems with a “newspaper” that was strictly on-line, I nicely said that I was press.

Ah, but that wasn’t his problem.

Turns out he didn’t like some of the things I wrote back when the county was in the process of firing their long-term attorney and hiring him. Given the fact that he had sued the County on behalf of one of his friends on the Commission, and that friend was one who was part of the decision making process, I had problems with the entire process, not just Bennett.

Oh darn, there I go again. Just seems that I keep letting those pesky facts from the past get in the way of trying to be friends with the County Attorney. I bet he’s going to be mean to me again.

Yep, he was mean.

He told me in no uncertain terms that he could talk to whoever he wanted and he did not want to talk to me. He said I didn’t trust him, I wrote bad things about him and he didn’t have to talk to anyone if he didn’t want to. “So there you mean old reporter, and let me stomp my foot for emphasis, take that.” OK, OK, he didn’t say “so there”, nor did he stomp his foot, but the effect was the same.

Quite frankly, I was astonished. The more I thought about it the more amazed I was that an attorney, especially an attorney serving in a position that requires interaction with the public, didn’t know how to handle the press. Gosh, even I tread lightly with my fellow reporters. Tick ‘em off and they can get a whole lot of ink working against you and those you represent.

But then I thought back to some of the reasons I’d originally had problems with Bennett. I’m not the only member of the press on his list to snub I’d guess.

Seems that back when he worked for the city council in McDonough, he got on the wrong side of the press there, too. He advised the City Council that citizens didn’t have the right to film or record public meetings. One of those banned citizens happened to work for a local television station. Not a good choice and completely wrong from a legal standpoint to boot. The sunshine law that governs public meetings and elected officials clearly states that anyone can film or record public meetings. It doesn’t even use the typical lawyer-eeze that makes a lot of laws so difficult to understand. Knowledge of the Sunshine Law is part of lawyering 101 basics, especially if you’re working for the government. Bennett managed to end up being the focus of a TV expose as a result of the issue.

Another issue that bothered me at the time the County was considering hiring him was the fact that he had sued Fayette County reference the county’s sign ordinance. He represented a national sign company that wanted to get multiple billboards along our county roads. I would bet I’m not the only one who was not the least bit surprised when the county recently cut a deal with that same billboard company to allow billboards in our county?

When I wrote my first little blog about Bennett way back when, I started getting phone calls from people who knew him or knew of his work. I didn’t share the things I was told in subsequent blogs or op-ed pieces simply because there wasn’t any supporting documentation. I think Mr. Bennett should be relieved that I didn't share some of the information, and that I chose not to go digging further. The impression I had of Bennett was not very favorable as a result of the calls from his “past” associates.

Now that Bennett has had his little hissy fit, we have a problem, or two or three. See, Mr. Bennett has put me, and the County Commission, in a difficult position. Instead of asking and getting his canned responses to questions, I’m going to have to ask his boss. If that doesn’t work then I’m going to have to go the old open records request route and/or get most of my information from the opposing viewpoints.

Bennett is in a public position that requires him to interact with the press and the public. In his position he actually has a higher accountability to the public than those in private practice. My tax dollars, along with yours, are paying his salary. Based on some of the news that was reported about him previously, if he stops talking to everyone in the press who writes things he doesn’t like there aren’t going to be very many left to talk with sooner or later.

I had pretty much put the past in the past, which I know is easier to do when you’re on the delivering side. But, while my impression of his abilities hasn’t improved after watching him in action over the past year plus, he is in the office and it’s necessary for me to deal with him politely. If he hadn’t pitched his little snit-fit I would never have brought up the past, nor would I now want to pay more attention to answering questions that have popped into my mind and been dismissed over the past year or so. He kinda forced the issue with his highly unprofessional actions.

What questions you may wonder, have popped into my mind over the past few years about Bennett? What does a full-time attorney do five days a week to earn his salary? Especially when an outside attorney has to be hired for litigation outside his expertise. How much money is being spent on legal expenses? What kind of lawsuits, aside from the one by Chris Venice, have been filed against the County this past year? What is included in his new contract? What kind of reputation has he gained working with the County? Oh, I could go on… but the list is growing longer as I think about him. Rather a shame he’s now pinged himself to the forefront of my mind. I have so many things on my list of things to do and dealing with answers to those questions wasn’t even on page ten of the list.

I mentioned Bennett’s behavior to Jack Krakeel, the County Administrator and Jack Smith, the County Chairman. I probably wouldn’t have bothered to do so if I hadn’t been after a bit of info regarding the lawsuit being filed by Chris Venice. It was kind of hard not to mention his actions when they both referred me to Bennett as the spokesperson. I don’t think it’s going to affect his job at all.

As most of my readers know I’d been taking a break from the County Commission. There’s a point where you can film and write and film and write and if no one else seems to care about what their elected officials are doing, if you have absolutely no effect on their actions, you just have to say enough and move on to other things. Bennett’s actions last night put a bee in my bonnet and now I have all the Commission meetings back on my calendar.

Guess I’m going to be seeing a lot of Mr. Bennett again.

Revisionist History…

On September 5th Commissioner Eric Maxwell attempted to change history. He asked that the Commission change the minutes of a previous meeting (August 1st, 2007) and that they change the affidavit regarding what they discussed during Executive Session.

To understand why this is important in the big scheme of things you need to know a bit about what Commissioners (and any other group of elected officials) are allowed to discuss legally behind closed doors (called Executive Session by the Fayette County Board), and what the restrictions are if they’re going to do so.

They can discuss personnel issues, real estate matters and legal items. That’s it. If they’re going to discuss a legal matter, they MUST have an attorney present.

The record (minutes) of the August 1st meeting reflected that Commissioner Maxwell asked that the Board discuss a LEGAL item in Executive Session. They did not have an attorney at that time.

If the records remained the same, and someone questioned them, then he and the Board could be in trouble.

As it turns out, at the August 1st meeting, Commissioner Pfeifer questioned whether they could go into Executive Session without an attorney. Maxwell said yes, the Board voted to do so, and they went… AFTER the meeting, an affidavit is signed by the Chairman (Jack Smith), which certifies what they talked about. Smith signed the affidavit which confirms they discussed a legal matter.

Now, fast forward a tiny bit.

Commissioner Pfeifer wasn’t comfortable with the situation. He decided to ask the State Attorney General (AG) whether it was or was not legal. There’s really no other entity to ask, as their office is the one responsible for enforcing the laws covering this issue.

Pfeifer got a letter back saying nope, that wasn’t legal, you guys broke the law, but we’re not going to do anything. Generally they have bigger fish to fry and they don’t like to get involved in local politics. Pfeifer provided a copy of the letters to and from the AG to the Board so they’d know they’d stepped over the legal line.

So, what’s a Board to do once they’re confronted with confirmation that they broke the law? They can “come clean”, say oops we goofed, own up and ask for forgiveness… or they could try to cover it up…

Maxwell opted for the second scenario and attempted to revise history.

On September 5th Maxwell recounted a fictitious scenario of the events that occurred on August 1st. He talks about pushing back from the microphone, moving away from the “bench” and being halfway down the ramp. He says he made comments while too far away saying it could be a legal item OR a personnel item and he asked the Board to change the records to reflect it was a personnel item rather than legal.

Some may not know that Maxwell is in a wheelchair. When he talks about being partway down the ramp, he’s referring to the ramp in the main Commission chambers where most meetings are held. Workshop meetings are held on the first Wednesday of the month in the smaller boardroom around a table, not in the main chambers. There is not a ramp. Both the August 1st and September 5th meetings were Workshop meetings held in the boardroom.

When Maxwell refers to pushing away from the microphone and leaving the bench, he is also referring to the main Commission chambers where each Commissioner sits in front of their own microphone on dais (or bench).

He could not have made additional comments while moving away from the “bench” as he was sitting around a small table. The video of the August 1st meeting clearly shows that he was sitting next to Commissioner Pfeifer, he moved closer to the table after the meeting adjourned for Executive Session (not away) and he did not make any further comments.

False accounts aside, there’s another real clear problem with Maxwell’s version of revisionist history. Commission Chairman Jack Smith signed the affidavit AFTER the Executive Session stating they had discussed a LEGAL item. Irregardless of whether Maxwell’s twisting tale had happened, the entire group went into the meeting believing it was a LEGAL item they were going to discuss. They all heard Pfeifer’s question and Maxwell’s caustic response. Then, AFTER the meeting, the Chairman signed off on it being a legal matter they discussed.

Watch the video. Watch the body language. Listen with all of the above in mind. Watch the side-ways stares as Maxwell recounts his tale. Watch the fidgeting hands. While Maxwell may have been the point man on this one, I’d venture to say there was a little scrambling behind the scenes on how to handle the potentially hot breaking of state law. Did they really think they could revise history and that we wouldn’t be able to see the glaring discrepancies? They KNOW that the Fayette Front Page films all meetings. Were they hoping we wouldn’t get curious and take a look? Did they WANT to get caught or did they just assume they could get away with revisionist history?

Watch the video for yourself. Make your own decisions.