Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, January 11, 2010

City Attorney's Office: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

Posted by on Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:21 AM

As I wrote in November and December, newly elected City Attorney Pete Holmes is letting go of several key attorneys who worked under Holmes's predecessor, Tom Carr, and even one who worked under Carr's predecessor, Mark Sidran. Included in the jettison was criminal division head Bob Hood, who would have been involved in prosecutions for the failed Operation Sobering Thought, and civil division head Susanne Skinner, who would have had a leading role in decisions about the botched Sonics case and the balloon man case. Now don't get me wrong: If I had a law firm, I'd want piranhas like Carr and Sidran working for me. And if I were Carr or Sidran, I'd want flesh-eating attorneys by my side. But that's the sort of office that Holmes ran against—and the platform that got him elected with a nearly two-thirds majority. Today, Emily Heffter at the Times reports that, of the 150 staffers at the city attorney's office, 14 have been shown the door—and some of them are getting petulant:

"It seems misguided to fire already-busy attorneys, the ones in the trenches representing the citizens in court and in city contracts, just to hire two more advisers to the city attorney himself ... who weren't elected, and whom no other city attorney has needed," Suzanne Pierce, a fired senior assistant city attorney in the torts section, said in an e-mail.

Twenty-year office veteran Ted Inkley said he wonders whether some of the attorneys who were not reappointed lost their jobs because of their involvement in controversial cases. ...

"I have never seen a more inept, disorganized and, quite frankly, vindictive transition than this one in 30 years of public life," said Hood, who headed the criminal division since 1998.

Oh, I'm sorry, but are the leaders of an unpopular, politically astray administration saying that (a) their involvement wasn't at all to blame for the blunders and (b) that the operation would be better if Holmes left things alone? Give us a fucking break. It seems pretty clear that Carr and Sidran could have used some advisers—some savvy folks close by to suggest that it was an atrocious idea to ban sitting on the sidewalk, prosecute bar employees on thin cases, defy city laws on pot, uphold the car-impound ordinance, or pursue a federal case to limit the locations a man can blow up a balloon. Instead, the people who were by Carr's side, those high-ranking senior officials "in the trenches representing the citizens in court and in city contracts," probably didn't have the most astute sense of priorities (or, in some cases, democracy or the constitution) or they would have told Carr and Sidran to stop. It makes sense for Holmes to shovel those folks out of the barn; that they're crowing about it only confirms that Holmes is making the right call.

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
Pete Holmes 113081 63.85%

Tom Carr 63615 35.92%


Just a reminder.
Posted by Baconcat on January 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM
2
I disagree that flesh eating piranhas make good attorneys. Usually, flesh eating piranhas have small brains an equally small moral compass. In litigation, you need to be smart, and part of that is being in tune with the moral dynamics of a case. Judges, juries, voters, and the public at large get it when the attorneys running the show abandon their loyalty to the corporate body of the city of Seattle.....which demands that you not prosecute bar operators if you can't get a conviction....and replace it with loyalty to the personal agenda of a city attorney, or representing officialdom in its narrow self interest, instead of representing the city at large.

Also, given the track record of losing all the operation sobering thought cases AND the Sonics, really, we have to concluse many of these attorneys in the city attorneys office just are bad attorneys.
Posted by A anthropomorphic, dolphin/Avatar-like attorney on January 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Vince 3
If they were representing citizens the citizens would not have overwhelmingly rejected them. And they don't even have the class to leave quietly.
Posted by Vince on January 11, 2010 at 9:44 AM
rob! 4
Still, Hood and Skinner are great names for attorneys.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 11, 2010 at 9:44 AM
michaelp 5
These departures are ugly, but Pete is being very positive about it. As pointed out, he won with a substantial majority, and that means getting rid of the top folks who were there creating and perpetuating the problems under the Carr administration. If memory serves, Carr did the same thing when he was first elected.

I highly doubt, in the grand scheme of things, that any of these attacks will hurt Pete politically, and after a few months, we'll have a better idea of how good of a job he is doing, and highly suspect it will already be a vast improvement over Tom Carr. The culture of the office will begin changing, and we'll no longer have a vindictive legal department.
Posted by michaelp on January 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Pol Pot 6
Well stated. Holmes should Clean house more thoroughly... I'm sure there are more than 14 out of Carr's staff of 150 that should be shown the door. Now if only Obama would get off his cowardly ass and cleanse the federal judiciary of Bush's load of right wing activist scum, we might actually get a little of the "change" we were promised.
Posted by Pol Pot http://bottlefuelrag.blogspot.com on January 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM
7
Guess who broke this story?
(Hint: It was Dominic and it wasn't the Times)
http://bit.ly/5HZJ1r
Posted by You Heard It Here Last on January 11, 2010 at 10:00 AM
8
it's awful to be fired by e mail, after you got interviewed in person by pete holmes spending a huge amount of time doing that before even taking office, all for no pay. it's horrible etiquette. the standard etiquette of firing public employees is to (a) sideline them into duties with no importance, for a few months, (b) gradually give their important cases to others, (c) stop inviting them to high level meetings, (d) stop "chit chatting" by the water cooler for a few more months, (e) when they confront the boss, reluctantly admit that maybe their performance is an issue, and passive aggressively ask them if they're ever thought about moving on, because maybe "this is not a good fit for you"? then (f) a fewmonths later, if they don't leave, tell them privately they will have another year to go get a new job before they would actually be "fired."
In this way, they get to suck off the public trough for some 18 months extra, plus, they get to pretend to new employers that they were leaving to "pursue more challenging opportunities in the private sector" instead of having to say, "I fucked up, so I was fired."
Damn that Holmes for not following the standard etiquette!
Posted by The Seattle way.... on January 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM
9
The Stranger could benefit from a good house cleaning as well.
Posted by Bring back Anna Woolverton on January 11, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Will in Seattle 10
@1 ftw,

Oh and the city budget would have resulted in 8 positions being cut no matter who won.

Which they know, but don't want you to focus on.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 11, 2010 at 10:47 AM
11
Does anyone the names of the other attorneys in the City Attorney's office who were shown the door?
Posted by Erick on January 11, 2010 at 10:49 AM
COMTE 12
This is basically a variation of the same argument executives in the banking and securities industries used to rationalize NOT firing the people who got us into the banking, Wall Street and mortgage mess (you know, the messes that contributed mightily to our national economy going down the crapper the last several years?), which goes something like this:

"we can't possibly afford to fire the people who put us in this mess, because only they have the intimate knowledge of and experience with this type of mess to be able to pull us out of it."

To which I say, "bullocks!"
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on January 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM
13
Lots of breezy assumptions going on here about what role the fired attorneys played in the Sidran-Carr policies that are of interest to The Stranger; and not a lot of nuance about the role an attorney plays in representing a client. What one person calls "loyalty," another might call "fulfillment of professional responsibility to a client." Pete Holmes is entitled to surround himself with whomever he wants, of course. But it also is appropriate for people to question the abrupt and apparently nasty way he ended the careers of people, some of whom I understand to be regarded as effective, honest and highly knowledgeable public servants. It would be a service to this discussion if we could get some facts about the nature of the "involvement" of, say, Ted Inkley in the teen dance ordinance and nightlife issues. To say he should be tossed out on his ear simply because he was "involved" in some way seems a tiny bit simplistic. @2, I agree with lots of what you say, but do we know that the fired attorneys "were simply bad attorneys?"

@6. Presidents don't fire federal judges.
Posted by anonymous this time on January 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM
seandr 14
These people are just like Carr - completely in denial about their ineptitude and utterly unreceptive to feedback and criticism.

And all this public bitching shows a lack of class.
Posted by seandr on January 11, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Will in Seattle 15
@12 - um, have you seen the latest bonus payments? I'm not sure the banking industry learned ANY lesson.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM
16
Here, here! Does it really matter if they were fired via voicemail, email, or singing telegram? There's a new regime in place that needs to make changes in order to reflect the new (improved) values. the quicker it is done the better.
Posted by Anodyne on January 11, 2010 at 1:11 PM
GlennFleishman 17
Whoa, this is the smartest comment thread I have ever seen on SLOG! I was going to come here and bitch and complain, and yet everyone has already said smarter things than me with more class.

I'd just add that this was a terribly reported piece, because it was all local politics, without any national or non-Seattle insight. Carr's actions were clearly disliked based on the vote, and yet none of Carr's policies in dispute were mentioned, just dismissed as "politics."
Posted by GlennFleishman http://blog.glennf.com/ on January 11, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Etherite 18
@17 - Thank you! Nobody else mentioned it but that piece was rediculously biased. Of course someone who just got canned is going to be bitter! The least the reporter could have done was go and talk to Holmes about his side of it.
Posted by Etherite on January 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy