Wednesday, April 28, 2010
LEGAL MALPRACTICE OR INCOMPETENCE ? ROSIE STRIKES AGAIN
John Rose once again was the topic of conversation at Monday nights Council Meeting. Much of the debate was regarding a move to clarify the City Charter and whether John Rose should issue an opinion or should the Council just skip right over him and get an outside opinion.
On Tuesday, it seemed to become quite clear that Rosie does not have the best interests of the Council first and foremost. Almost 24 hours after the Council meeting, Rosie sent an e-mail to all Council members advising them that in his opinion they had broken the law the previous night. The e-mail from Rose to the Council outlining his thoughts is below.
The question arises though on whether the Council is actually receiving proper advice from Rose. He has exhibited his disdain for the Council on numerous occasions, and this is just one more glaring example.
If Rosie sat through the meeting and observed this perceived illegal activity and said nothing , it can amount to one of two things. If he didn't realize the actions were improper and had to research it the following day, that is incompetence. Although he makes it quite clear that he is ignorant of, or unwilling to obey, FOI laws, the Council deserves much better representation when dealing with the business of the City.
If Rose sat there and knowingly let the Council proceed down a path he knew, or felt, was illegal I would think that would constitute malpractice. If this was a game of "gotcha" to show the Council who's "the boss", Rose should be removed from Council meetings permanently. If necessary, someone competent from the Corporation Counsel's Office should be assigned to serve the Council since Mr. Rose is incapable, or unwilling to do that. Although in considering the track record of the Corporation Counsel's Office, finding someone competent in that office might potentially be a problem.
Rose 4-27-10 Email