Laserfiche WebLink
was not selected. Mr. Walker said the City had previous experience with Mr. Martin <br />as the City’s Special Counsel. He said the interview committee, consisting of the <br />City Manager, the Police Chief, the Building Commissioner and the City Clerk <br />decided on Mr. Martin’s firm. Mr. Crow said that Mr. Martin also represents Olivette <br />and assumed at some point in time, as we move forward on the joint task force with <br />Olivette, that there would at least be some points where there could be a conflict <br />and how would this be handled. Mr. Walker said that there was not this discussion <br />about this during the process. If it came to that point the City could decide to hire a <br />special counsel if needed. Mr. Crow asked if any of the candidates interviewed, <br />resided or had offices in University City. Mr. Walker said that was not a <br />consideration. Mr. Crow said at least the incumbent did and asked if he was <br />correct. Mr. Walker said that he does not reside in University City anymore. Mr. <br />Crow asked about the time frame of picking a firm from when they were interviewed. <br />He said Ms. Shields was notified of her departure around the October 25 and the <br />Council received notification on the October 26 and the City Attorney was notified <br />on the October 25 yet the Council didn’t get the information until they received their <br />packet on November 10. Mr. Crow asked what the different protocol that was <br />established for the different positions. Mr. Walker reminded Mr. Crow that the City <br />Attorney and City Prosecuting positions are not staff positions. He noted that in the <br />past there has been no written agreement at all and the City Manager could have <br />hired whoever they wanted, without bringing it to Council. He is trying to the proper <br />thing to ensure that there is a legal written agreement in accordance with the State <br />Audit. Mr. Crow said he hoped that the new City Attorney has the same track <br />record as the previous one. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft asked the City Manager to confirm his understanding of the situation: the <br />Council was not voting on the City Attorney but was just being asked to approve his <br />contract. It is the City Manager’s prerogative to make this choice for City Attorney. <br />Mr. Walker agreed <br /> <br />The motion carried with one Nay vote from Mr. Crow. <br /> <br />5. <br />Approval of contract for Crotzer & Ormsby to provide City Prosecutor services to the <br />City. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft moved to approve and was seconded by Ms. Ricci. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked how many firms applied and how many were interviewed. Mr. <br />Walker said there were five responses and five interviewed. Mr. Crow asked about <br />the lack of experience of the chosen firm and Mr. Walker agreed. Mr. Crow asked <br />what services the firm has provided previously to U City and Mr. Walker said as <br />Special Counsel. Mr. Crow questioned the advantage of removing someone with 25 <br />years of prosecutorial experience and replacing that person with a primary contact <br />with less than three years of legal experience and no prosecutorial experience. Mr. <br />Walker noted she would be working with the Senior Partner of the firm. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft asked how many municipalities have the same person who is the City <br />Attorney and the City Prosecutor, as has been the case in University City. Mr. <br />Walker noted that it was quite uncommon. Mr. Kraft asked Mr. Walker to describe <br />the type of crimes the City Prosecutor deals with in the job. Are they dealing with <br /> 5 <br /> <br /> <br />