Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

48°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Local Guest Commentary: Contracted or city attorney: Which is best for Hanford?

By Robin Mattos

I propose that Hanford has reached the point that current contracted attorney services are too expensive and no longer fit Hanford's needs. Hanford cannot afford part-time legal work on a scale that is close to the yearly budget of a large law firm.

Here are reasons I propose a city attorney employee and city offices make good, solid economic sense:

1. A Hanford city attorney would work for one employer, the City of Hanford, no other clients to tend to.

2. The attorney and city legal staff would utilize office space in city owned/leased property.

3. The amount budgeted for each fiscal year will be a known factor.

In the last six months, Hanford's legal expenses have had an uncertain monthly cost. Most people in Hanford have expressed their disapproval with the cost of $250,000/year for a part-time attorney. The actual legal cost is far more for 2008-2009, somewhere in the area of over $400,000.

Most towns, cities, counties and states across the country have full-time attorneys on staff. For instance, Kings County has county counsel. They are the county's legal counsel. For fiscal year 2007-2008, the cost to taxpayers for County Counsel's un-reimbursed costs is $759,000 total. County counsel's staff includes five full-time attorneys, one full-time and one part-time legal secretary, one paralegal, and one legal clerk.

The terms of the contract between Hanford and the attorney's office don't seem too clear either. The city attorney didn't know they would need to devote so much time to working for Hanford.

Dennis Beaver, an attorney from Bakersfield, wrote two articles that were critical of the city attorney's contract. I agree with Mr. Beaver's assessment. Contract terms don't change without negotiation and clear notice to the public. Hanford taxpayer money is paid to the attorney, not someone's personal finances. The bidding process is the best way to compare apples to apples. The city bid this job out, our representatives chose the most expensive firm. Now that firm gets paid more than they bid in their contract that was approved by the council. This is no way to run a business, especially a very big business like a city.

A city attorney office is a common practice approach to having affordable legal service for the City of Hanford. This idea is something all citizens can understand and support.

I believe the city attorney should have management benefits and should require a minimum of 10 years experience in municipal and land use law to ensure Hanford receives the best advice for the City Council, the administration and other commissions, in order to best serve and protect Hanford.

Our elected representatives are ultimately responsible to inquire and report on the expenditures of our public funds. Let's hold them accountable for their actions and decisions. Tell them we want our own lawyer, not one that provides service to anyone with a case and a retainer fee.

(Nov. 8, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 8, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Someone who is part of a group that sues the city now complains about the cost of the city's legal services. Priceless.

Somehow I doubt that hiring lawyers, support staff, salary, benefits, retirement, office overhead is going to be cheaper than outsourcing of legal services. Outsourcing also has the benefit of borrowing staff as needed to large cases. But I do agree that the analysis should be made for the public's benefit. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 8, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Ms. Mattos,
I am quite comfortable entrusting this, and other important city decisions, to our duly elected officials. Thank you for your opinion. "

citizen_id wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:47 AM:

" What a great idea! Dowd would have to apply for the job and compete with some really well qualified applicants. It's time elected officials start tightening the belt. I am disappointed voters didn't see Sorensen as just another Chin and Buford, a puppet for Jacques and consultants to developers, and those that have a financial interest in decisions Sorensen has made as a planning commissioner and will make for our future.
Hanford, she's goining to approve demolishing the plunge for this developer Painter. Is this really what Hanford needs? If voters in the area realize "thinking out of the box" means ruining our town's heritage, then make it so. Shame!
To Delbert and Carl.Spackler: Dowd has bought the old Hanford Furniture building with taxpayer money. Don't taxpayers believe we paid for their new offices and renovations? Sure, elected officials make decisions. Dowd tells them how to vote, does Gary's work (like contract negotiations) that we pay for by the hour. Mattos's idea is great. Stop using spending taxmoney for Bob Dowd & Company's benefit. Demand your city representative hire an attorney that works for us and stop wasting OUR TAX MONEY! Hire someone with knowledge, not country club connections. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Citizen: Can you elaborate of Dowd's puchase of the new building with taxpayer money? "

citizen_id wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Carl: No need to elaborate, it's pretty apparent. Appearances are everything.They didn't own the building BEFORE Dowd became our attorney.
Then you write: "Somehow I doubt that hiring lawyers, support staff, salary, benefits, retirement, office overhead is going to be cheaper than outsourcing of legal services. Outsourcing also has the benefit of borrowing staff as needed to large cases. But I do agree that the analysis should be made for the public's benefit. "
ANYONE can agree that 5 full-time attorneys with 3 - 4 full time staff, and I verified Mattos' budget information out of the County's publically accessible information, 5 ATTORNEYS and you think we taxpayers are getting our moneys worth with Dowd? Your credibility in these posts have ALWAYS been in question. Your belief outsourcing legal services for over $400,000/per year for part-time work is money BETTER spent than hiring OUR own attorney/staff? Get real. Whatever you do for a living should be outsourced too, I'm sure there's some need for a poster with nothing better to do with their time than monitor the Sentinels website. Go find a REAL job Carl. Your posting on this paper has become tiresome and meritless. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 10, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Attorneys are not commodities, they are not created equal.

If I had a life threatening illness I would never go looking for a physician willing to work for a fixed salary. I would want the best I could afford. Likewise, I don’t want my city legal requirements handled by anyone willing to work for a fixed salary. I want a real litigator whose work is valued by the market.

Before Dowd the city had multiple attorneys. There was the one we all knew about but also several we didn’t. All, unfortunately, reported directly to Jan Reynolds. As a result it was nearly impossible to get an accurate accounting of what was being spent. It was also impossible for the City Council to control.

Now we have one city attorney, who reports to our elected officials, and a stable of knowledge area experts upon which he can draw when needed. In the long run better legal advice is always cheaper.

By squashing every Mattos instigated lawsuit I’m guessing Dowd has already saved more than his annual cost. "

Warden Bob wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Delbert (Bob?) wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:06 PM

"By squashing every Mattos instigated lawsuit I’m guessing Dowd has already saved more than his annual cost."

How do we know what Bob Dowd" annual cost will be?
It started at $250,000 and is now over $400,000 and climbing. BTW if developers are required to defend our city if it is sued as a result of a project, are they required to hire Bob Dowd? If so when will the developers pay the city back? These payments would be public documents.

In looking at some of the legal documents in a recently filed lawsuit, the attorneys defending the city and developer were people named Hillison and Carlson. Dowd's name did not seem to be around, is his work subcontracted? Could this be due to his lack of experience? Just who are we buying for over $400,000?

If Dowd is the only attorney representing the city, is Hanford Bob's only client? Does he also represent city contractors? What about the the Kings County Board of Realtors? How about Zumwalt-Hansen? Both Z-H and KCBOR are listed among the firms client base in legal directories. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:40 PM:

" Citizen ID: I asked you how Dowd bought their building with taxpayer dollars and you say:

"No need to elaborate, it's pretty apparent. Appearances are everything.They didn't own the building BEFORE Dowd became our attorney."

What is that supposed to mean? You have no answer so you chose to turn the attack on me with some nonsense about city attorney billing. So basically you lied in an effort to tarnish Dowd. Nice. I hope he reads these blogs. "

clyte wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Mattos looks like she is okay. What a great idea. CARL.SPACKLER, looks like you have more to obsess about with Mattos. Her views about how taxpayer money are on-point. Who cares what you think about her connection to any groups. As pointed out here, she received an enormous amount of votes. I don't think she paid for any ads and she still came in with a decent amount of votes, even tho Sue outspent all of the candidates 10-1.
Sue, you can take PAC money from KCBOR, have Dick Jacques be your guru real estate broker (which means he is a real estate agent) and friends to do your work for you. Crying is not an option Sue. No one will protect you from the public. You are our servant.
Lastly, I'll bet Mattos will work getting this on a ballot if the council doesn't do something to stop the financial hemmorage Dowd (Delbert) has been to this city. I'll continue to support Mattos and COS in 2010 against the same-old-same old tired insider. Civil engineers, attorneys and real estate brokers have been in charge of this place for too long. Change is good. "

citizen_id wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:54 AM:

" Carl: What I have stated about Dowd is common speak among many people in Hanford. Dowd's new office has been paid with taxpayer money. He gets a check from the city, right?

Hi Bob, I hope you read these blogs too. Dowd's contract with the city and his subsequent increase due to unforeseen expenses, ya-da, ya-da...actions frowned upon by the Bar and not befitting an officer or gentleman. With regard to the Dennis Beaver letters, Dowd is misappropriating public funds and his ethics are in question as to his contract.

Spackler, you're in it up to your ears, consummate insider. If you work administration, on council, are Dowd, or a special interest, your views are ego-centric. This is not hard to understand, Dowd, Council and special interests had better clean up their act. Operation Rezone is here in Hanford. When the feds get done investigating candidate donations and council members on the take, favors by special interests to councilmembers and legal counsel that lacks integrity & ethics, a failure to honor the terms of their own contract, the feds will show no mercy. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM:

" To Robbin Mattos,
This is the kind of stuff you presented in your campaign and I am so glad to see you aren't backing off of now that the campaign is over. Your idea of a staff attorney works for how many other cities or do they all have a out of control biller working for them as well? I don't know what kind of attorney Dowd is, but his biller is johnny on the spot if you ask me.
But like many posters here, I haven't seen anything about Dowd doing anything for the city except billing it in a timely manner.
What exactly does he do for the citizens who pay his salary? Wouldn't you think we would be made privy to that information? Couldn't the over-paid City Manager put out a colorful diagram of that information like he did the improvements coming to Hanford? It seems we still have lost lawsuits in the millions of dollars while on Dowd's watch? So where is the gain for the taxpayers and why does legal fees run so high when nothing is being announced about lawsuits being won? You Go Girl! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:22 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:26 PM:
(Alias Caddy Shack Star)
Come on Carl, fess up what is your connection to Bob Dowd? Anyone says anything about him or Sorensen and you go ballistic? Is your Real Name Mr. Sorensen or Mr. Dowd? Why are you so protective of them? Your biased opinion is so obvious that your credibility is coming into question? Perhaps, a little more evidence of success along with your waving of the Engineers sign, Lawyers sign and Dental Assistant sign might bring back some of that lost credibility? Talk is cheap, but concrete evidence of cost savings and the so called cost effective and cost saving Mr. Chin might go along way to justify their election to the City Council. Oh that's right they think selling of the kids recreational activities for a profit is the answer to showing their wisdom for the city and it's children. Building a three story parking facility, while destroying historic old downtown is the answer. If that parking garage is built, how many down town businesses do you think will then stay open past 5:00 pm.? None "

Pete wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:38 PM:

" So, the Realtors give $1,500.00 each to Chin and Sorensen and they gave Zumwalt $3,000.00 when he ran for the COS board and Jacques is President of the Realtors. Isn't that wise? "

Fence Sitter wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Too bad for the spoilers: if not for Murinsky and Hice, Robin Mattos would have walked away with District B. Something to consider in 2012. I think Dowd would have been getting some walking in too. "

citizen_id wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:56 AM:

" Carl, You asked if I lied. Actually on Nov 10, 2008 11:40 PM, you wrote: "You have no answer so you chose to turn the attack on me with some nonsense about city attorney billing. So basically you lied in an effort to tarnish Dowd."

No, I haven't lied. I am in agreement with Mattos and I am attacking the current system of billing by Dowd as well as how our money has been spent for Dowd's work. Hanford Furniture was purchased after Dowd was hired.

WOW, how did YOU get YOURSELF in this with "you chose to turn the attack on me". NOOOOO, it's not about you, that is unless... it IS about you Carl.

All developers sign an agreement to pay legal fees if their project needs defending. Dowd needs to collect from all developers on behalf of the city or he's not doing his job too. Basic Collections 101. GET IT CARL?

Warden Bob guy is right, that payment for defense of the city is a matter of public record. I'd like to see the 1st payment made by Great Valley Ethanol to the City for defense. "

clyte wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Wow Pete: That's good to know. How much did Danny Todd get? and were there any other Hanford High School board members that received PAC money? "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Citizen: The Hanford Furniture building was purchased by an LLC comprised of two parties, one of which is outside of the Dowd firm and not related. Do some research, get your facts right and quit lying.

Fred: I am none of the people you suggest. WHat I detest and will respond to every time is mis-characterization of good people and false information. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:58 PM:

" Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:09 AM:

And this false statement is contained where and said by whom?

Fred: I am none of the people you suggest. WHat I detest and will respond to every time is mis-characterization of good people and false information. "

Carl you aren't the only one who has inside sources on what happens in this city. In fact I have even questioned the validity of many of your accusations and failed attempts at calling something false, when the proof was there before you.

You my friend are in a state of denial and one day it will bite you where you sit. You keep going out on the limb for your favorites and you might be the next one they throw under the bus! Dan Chin has been known to throw many under the bus, one of his and Marcie's disagreements in fact.

Chin kissed her butt with an expertise that I've not seen demonstrated on the farm, at the candidates meeting at the Civic Auditorium. He did everything but bow down and kiss her feet before all witnesses. It was sickening. "

Skip wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:57 AM:

" I think Bob Dowd is doing an excellent job and is earning every penny he gets. Then again, I'm not jealous of him and I'm glad he's done so well by working so hard. I really doubt the people criticizing him work half the hours he works! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:37 AM:

" Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:09 AM:

Doesn't your action in their defense, not to be considered a lie of sorts. You claim you have no knowledge or concept or connection yet you always immediately jump to their defense. So if you have no knowledge or connection are you not telling lies while defending them? That is certainly how it appears to the rest of us, Carl.

If someone doesn't know what they are talking about usually they won't defend that which they do not know personally to be true and self evident. So your remarks alone point in a direction of connection or of self knowledge from a personal level. So which are you telling lies about not having a personal cnnection or not having any knowledge from which you comment?

I think perhaps you better conentrate on your new grocery store which will be so much more convenient for you. That seems to carry some source of merrit, when your defense of city council people and the city attorney doesn't. You think Marcie Buford walked on water and evidently you feel Bob Dowd parted the seas. "

Joe Friday wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Mattos shows considerable common sense in this proposal to control runaway legal spending by our city. I am amazed that anyone would be opposed to this reorganization plan. What could possibly be the motivation behind their opposition?

In these tough economic times why aren't we seeing other proposals like this from the elected city council?
Is it too much to ask that the financial wellbeing of our city not take a backseat to the financial wellbeing of the Griswold law firm? Just who is working for who here? A lack of public discussion on this issue by the council will only serve to feed growing public mistrust in our city. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:49 PM:

" Fred: My comments you cited were not directed at you. I do not always agree with your take on things but I believe you to be an honest and honorable man. "

jfmurrisky wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:53 PM:

" To: Fence Sitter...you are absolutely correct..."spoiler" unfortunately, neither of us got elected..! ... and not in 2012 for me. Once was enough...maybe Mattos though...we shall see. As for Mr. Dowd...wait and see what this council does? Thanks...JohnM. "

jfmurrisky wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:55 PM:

" To: Carl
Funny you should bring that issue up regarding Mr. D's new office complex on the corner...? Who's money? ...and who bought his old building? JohnM. "

Tony wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Ok. Because I am not a Hanford native I need to ask what Ms. Mattos has tried to sue the city for? "

letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Mrs. Mattos was questioned to respond publically and on the HS blog forum (and did not answer multiple times) People are interested in her stance on the lawsuit issue and her being able to step away from H.E.A.T (etc.) without intrusion, involvement or influence in it.

I went into public records to view. Mrs. Mattos should be proud for spending our hard earned tax dollars but do you know the real deal? We not only paid for the City of Hanford to be represented but quite a few of our FEDERAL and CALIFORNIA STATE resources had to respond to that lawsuit and believe me, that is not free, paid by tax dollars. Other governmental agencies that had to be involved in the lawsuit TAXPAYERS PAID FOR were: U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State of CA Dept. of Fish and Game, State of CA Dept. of Transportation and the State of CA Valley Air Pollution Control Dist. (this was only ONE of the multiple lawsuits).

Now, what is Mattos’s relation with the following individuals/groups who have been listed as plaintiffs against the City of Hanford "

letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:47 AM:

" cont: (and Federal and State agencies)? Valley Advocates (multiple suits filed throughout the State of California), Richard Harriman (attorney), Hanford Environmental Awareness Team (HEAT) (three suits), Hanford No on Walmart (Hanford NOW) (one suit), Hanford Citizens for Responsible Planning (HCRP) (six suits), Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) (one suit), Center for Race & Poverty (one suit) and Hanford Taxpayers Association (one suit). Thirteen suits in our area alone from the 1990’s up to 2008.

Hanford residents must know and have confirmation that our dollars in this economy will not be wasted any longer by groups Mrs. Mattos is affiliated with. In addition to that my candidate needs to be able to voice my opinion not recuse half the votes due to potential conflict. An informed public will make informed decisions. "

letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Ms. Mattos is full of fire. Imagine what she could accomplish if she herself went to law school and became an attorney instead of writing letters to the editor. Maybe she is setting herself up to be the next city attorney and WE can write letters to the editor commenting on how much she is paid and the quality of her work and ethics. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Mr. Murrisky, you wrote

"Funny you should bring that issue up regarding Mr. D's new office complex on the corner...? Who's money? ...and who bought his old building? JohnM. "

I'm not really sure what you are asking. You ask "who's money" I guess you are talking about who's money purchased the Hanford Furniture building?? Are you also attempting to imply that taxpayer dollars are being used? That is a ridiculous argument. It's like saying that is the librarian or a Hanford cop does a remodel on their kitchen, they are using taxpayer funds since they are paid with public funds.

You also asked who bought his old building. Far as I know it is still on the market. Further, what business is that of yours or the City of Hanford? "

Joe Friday wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:45 AM:

" letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:47 AM:
Thirteen suits in our area alone from the 1990’s up to 2008.

Are you stating that Mrs. Mattos was a party to 13 lawsuits against the City of Hanford? Could you please explain how you have access to membership lists for all these organizations and a client list for the attorney?

I believe these would not be in the "public record" as you claim. Whats next are you going to blame mattos for 9/11 and the financial crisis on Wall street?

I guess if you can't find a logical argument to refute Robin's points, it time to stoop to character assassination. It's clear to me that you have a personal grudge against her and will go to any length to discredit those who disagree with you.

Who says McCarthyism is dead? It is alive well and being practiced in the Hanford Sentinel by a bloger writing as letmegetthisstraight. "

Joe Friday wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:09 AM:

" letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:47 AM:
"In addition to that my candidate needs to be able to voice my opinion not recuse half the votes due to potential conflict.."

Somebody needs to tell letmegethisstraight that the election is over, but he brings up a good point on council members recusing themselves when voting. Since Mr. Dowd hosted a campaign fund raiser at the Purple Potato restaurant for Dan Chin, will Chin recuse himself on any vote dealing with the city attorney? "

Warden Bob wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:34 PM:

" letmegetthisstraight wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:49 AM:
" Ms. Mattos is full of fire. Imagine what she could accomplish if she herself went to law school and became an attorney instead of writing letters to the editor."

Robin Mattos is a paralegal. she is a graduate of the American Bar Association (ABA) approved program at COS. She served as a mentor to my kid sister when she was going through the paralegal program. "

Big John wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:58 PM:

" In my experience there is truth, ignorance, lies and damn lies. I’ve come to believe that most of the time these blogs fall in the last category.

It was posted here that Dan Chin’s fundraiser was hosted by Bob Dowd. Since so much reported here as fact has later proven to be incorrect I called Mr. Chin and asked. I was not surprised to learn that the previous post was a damn lie.

If anyone doubts it they can call either Mr. Dowd (584-6656) or Mr. Chin (582-2015) and ask for themselves.

Big John "

observer wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Whatever you do, don't call Bob Dowd and ask as he will surely charge the city for his time on the phone. "

Joe Friday wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Big John here is another number you might want to call to get the truth;

The Mission of the FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION is to promote the integrity of representative state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.

FPPC's Toll-Free Number:
1-866-ASK-FPPC
(1-866-275-3772)
428 J Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814

Don't take my word for it let's have FPPC look into this so the public can get an unbiased opinion on the Dowd-Chin relationship!

Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too.
-Richard Milhous Nixon "

Robin Mattos wrote on Nov 14, 2008 5:35 PM:

" In response to poster LEMMEGETTHISSTRAIGHT. Your information is FALSE. You credit me with every case filed in Kings Co. by attorney Harriman.
I wonder what cases I would be credited with if I suggest you reveal your true identity. Hiding behind your moniker only proves your cowardice. Have the courage to tell me who you are since you are my accuser. Until you do, your statements are nothing more than false accusations and cowardly behavior.

'Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.---Abraham Lincoln'

Note to Tony: HEAT filed a lawsuit that was so overwhelmingly hard to beat the developer settled and so did the city. The City does not make a habit of settling so we must have hired the best attorney and biologists to protect the public's interest. As to other cases against the city of Hanford, I'm not a part of them nor am I privy to their status (unless it's in the Sentinel). "

clyte wrote on Nov 14, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Bob Dowd's office sent the invitation to my home for Chin's fundraiser. That's one of the benefits of being a client. Membership has it's privileges. Bob was handing them out like candy on Halloween to some of his best friends. I wonder if the Mrs. Dowd account paid for the festivities. Bob was the Master of Ceremonies, a good time for all. I had a blast and paid nothing. Someone paid for my ticket sent from Bob's office, it was gratis. Thanks for the wine and food Dan! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:23 PM:

" To: letmegethisstraight, kind person please review:
Hanford residents must know and have confirmation that our dollars in this economy will not be wasted any longer by groups Mrs. Mattos is affiliated with. In addition to that my candidate needs to be able to voice my opinion not recuse half the votes due to potential conflict. An informed public will make informed decisions. "

Did any of this or all of it add up to the more than $15 Million dollars Mr. Miesenhiemer cost us in a lawsuit because he said we didn't need a stoplight placed in town?

All those organizations you listed are full time state agencies that get paid regardless of what they do, so where kind sir/madam is the additional cost to tax payers? I find your argument unfounded and without merrit against Robin Mattos.

If you are gonna speak up, please speak the truth and not try to dazzle us with your lack of brillance!

Robin Mattos cares about this city and this county and should not be punished because her convictions and concerns run deeper than the rest of us. (Continued) "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:30 PM:

" To: letmegethisstraight, kind person please review:
She is dead on about the city attorney being a fulltime position with limited expenses for salaries. That doesn't say not pay a qualified person a qualified salary it says put a limit on it and not let the Attorney write his own check through his billing office. There is nothing wrong with instituting controls and checks and balances in these hard times ahead. I can tell you now the election may be over, but those who almost lost, should realize that there were some good qualified candidates who spoke with conviction, logic and common sense at that candidates meeting. I see that election as bought and paid for and I figured the outcome before anyone else voted. The Downtown business owners who reside in Chin's area are going to do all they can to protect their being the main interest in the City Council's mind. The one's in Sorensen's are not realizing they handed Ayers and Chin a blank stamp when they elected her to serve. She hasn't one time bumped heads with them, she will ensure the skate park and plunge are sold. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:31 PM:

" To:Big John wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:58 PM:

While you had Mr. Chin on the phone did you confirm all the information you've been broadcasting about the Council Members Health Insurance and Retirement? "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Big John: Doesn't surprise me. There is so much mis-information going on here I can barely keep up. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:34 AM:

" To: Clyte

I attended Dan’s fundraiser and I donated.

Bob Dowd didn’t send out invitations, there were no tickets and there was no master of ceremonies.

If you actually attended you would know this as well as know who actually sent the invitations.

Your post is, as Big John would say “A Damn Lie!” "

clyte wrote on Nov 15, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Delbert, were you there? Did we share a free drink? Did you deliver a check from a gas station owner or dry-cleaner owner? Politics make strange bedfellows. I was sitting with the KCBOR folks. I really thought the event was by invitation only because that's what my invite said but checking Dan Chin's website, it was a come one come all event. I figured since the BOR gave him money and I pay to the BOR, I'd at least get something out of it.
So you may want to quote Big John about big lies, but let's say this, if Big John is who I think he is, he'd better recuse himself when there are issues concerning the KCBOR. Man of the Year, Business of the Year, these are all reportable to the FPPC. Better get your 700's filed and Chin had better file something about Man of the Year event and Purple Potato fundraiser. Lil' sis forgot to report those. Half of the Kings County Rep. Central Committee and KCBOR were there. Also, some of the legal community and ex, dir. of non-profits donated too. I'm paying attention Delbert. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 2:28 PM:

" Delbert: Maybe Clyte is getting the Chin fundraiser mixed up with the Christmas party.

Fred: In a nutshell, people vote for who they trust. The majority of voters in the district appear to have a trust level for Chin and Sorenson. City and county voters do not have a trust level for the Mattos clan. Negativity and suing the city will gain points with some people but the majority don't seem to like this. "

Fence Sitter wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Carl. I think your wrong on your thinking. People do vote and when they don't know the players, they either vote for the incumbent or a 'known" name. The “Obama factor” inflated the playing field. That's why Robin Mattos would have walked away with District B if not for the spoilers Murinsky and Hice. Robin is a woman with integrity and someone who will get things done without having to be in someone’s pocket. Bad mouth her all you want. She is what she is: Genuine! "

Warden Bob wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:49 PM:

" Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM:
"The majority of voters in the district appear to have a trust level for Chin and Sorenson."

Umm Carl the last time I checked 60% of the votes cast in District B were against Sorenson. I am really amazed at the childish sniping and attacks going on here. This really illustrates a level of maturity I haven't seen since High School.

Logical and thoughtful discussion of ideas is what these blogs should IMO be about. For some , attacking the messenger is more important than the idea itself. A good idea is still a good idea, the source is immaterial. Grow up folks! I know some of those writing in here consider themselves civic leaders. What kind of example are you setting?

Someone rightfully defined character as what you do when you think no one is watching. Mrs. Mattos and John Murrisky write in as themselves, will Carl Spackler, Delbert or letmegetthisstraight do the same? I doubt it and it speaks volumes about their character. Its not too late folks lets have an honest and open discussion for a change. "

Hanford politico wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:59 PM:

" Carl: Forget the fundraiser!
Chin should be concerned. From what I read in the Sentinel, Mike Spicer ran a low cost one man operation. What does that tell me? Anyone with some name recognition and a little money can beat him. Chin will never change and will get worse. Arrogance has no limits. Someone will defeat him in 2012. 50% of the vote is nothing to brag about. Of that 50%, who voted for the incumbent because they knew no better? Money and name recognition is a recipe for change. "

Big John wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:27 PM:

" WDF said: “Mrs. Mattos and John Murrisky write in as themselves, will Carl Spackler, Delbert or letmegetthisstraight do the same? I doubt it and it speaks volumes about their character. Its not too late folks lets have an honest and open discussion for a change. ”

OK, WDF, this is your chance to show your character. If you’re not too busy getting a pedicure share with the world your real name. Or, if you prefer, come to next Tuesday’s city council meeting one of the many who said they'd start attending can share it for you.

Big John "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:05 AM:

" To: Big John wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:27 AM:

" WDF said: “Mrs. Mattos and John Murrisky write in as themselves, will Carl Spackler, Delbert or letmegetthisstraight do the same? I doubt it and it speaks volumes about their character. Its not too late folks lets have an honest and open discussion for a change. ”

I have a question for you John, were you at the Candidates meeting? I was not hiding my identity, I told several who I was and my real name. I've even listed my real name a time or two in these blogs, what say you: Who the hell are you and why don't you print your real name? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:16 AM:

" To: Big John wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:27 AM:

If you haven't witnessed my character in my blogs, there is little chance you ever will in person. But health permitting I'll see you there. How will I recognize you, other than a man who has his head buried in the past, with a chip on his shoulder about almost everything and a spokesman for the good ol' boys network?

OK, WDF, this is your chance to show your character. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Watch Dog Fred revealing his true identity would not be a good idea. We shouldn't try and force him to do it.

But Warden Bob is another story. He really is the kettle calling the pot black. He questions the character of others but won’t say who he is either. Come on Warden Andy Bob, confirm what we have suspected for so long. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:44 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM: (alias Caddy Shack Character) You must run a Golf Store.

People do not have faith in Chin his almost $15k in spending is what got him the votes. $5k which he paid his own business for services. Unethical and very suspect if you ask me. Another $1200 or more for his sister. Also of question, if you ask me. An Incumbent who has to pay his sister to help him get reelected, how low can you go? Then and only then to only get 50% of the vote when you outspent your opponent 15 to 1 and you are an incumbent. You are right, the voters did speak, 50% of them voted against Dan Chin in this recent election. Spicer made a better showing even though he lost the election!

As for Sorensen, well welcome home Marcie, is about all I can say to that vote. She was a shoe in and as pointed out won with 40% of the vote and her opponents got 60% of the vote, not a landslide by any means. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:49 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM: (alias Caddy Shack Character) You must run a Golf Store.

Perhaps in two years when three more candidates come up for reelection or not things will be entirely different. In those areas of town it is a diversified makeup of Hanford citizens, not all downtown business owners. Those three votes could trump both of the newly elected Council Members.
Aside from the money Chin already misdirected to his own personal business account, it will still take him two of the next four years to recoup the other monies spent on his campaign. I hardly think the contributors this year are gonna be happy with the attention they received for their buy offs as businesses in the community. Who may also suffer business losses because of it, will be quite so willing to stick their knecks out next time. I mean for an incumbent seeking reelection his firgures are nothing to be proud of, a first term Freshman Class President can post those kind of numbers, without even trying. We'll see in four more years. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:55 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM: (alias Caddy Shack Character) You must run a Golf Store.

Why isn't the Mayor an elected position like it is in Fresno. Why don't the people have a say in who directs this community? I don't think it should be an appointment at the hands of the City Council. Sure if they want to run for the office they can but don't just keep naming each other in turn as Mayor and Vice-Mayor. I think it should be a separate elected position with powers the other Council Members wouldn't have, such as veto power on decisions and line item power on decision making on budgets and other serious and important items before the City Council. Such as the hiring of a out sourced attorney for the city of Hanford. Who is to say the out sourced attorney has Hanford's welfare first and foremost in his/her mind? Wouldn't you think someone who had Hanford as the first priority and their only employer be more in tune with what's best for the city and held accountable if they didn't? "

Robin Mattos wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:05 PM:
" To: Big John wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:27 AM:
I have a question for you John, were you at the Candidates meeting? I was not hiding my identity, I told several who I was and my real name."

Thanks Fred. Anyone reading this please note. I do know his name and who he is. He was sitting exactly where he said he was sitting. Never met him before, never spoke with him since.

John, you have posted many very unkind and untrue things about me. Here is my telephone number to confirm or correct any of your disinformation, 559-309-1425. Please contact me about my election, or any other items you may want to check on. I will require you have caller id and it would be nice to know who I am speaking with. I stand by this article, it's content as to why Hanford's legal costs are out of control and,my right as a citizen to protect the public's interest by asking questions, requesting reconsideration of a decision and when summarily dismissed, filing a suit if the public's interest is in jeopardy. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:04 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM: (alias Caddy Shack Character) You must run a Golf Store.

A separate and more powerful position of Mayor completely separate from the City Council members but with the deciding vote could make a major difference in how this community is ran. I've yet to see a Mayor in the past nine years who was self sufficient. Attended all functions designated for the Mayor to attend and handling all matters before the City Council as a Mayor should.
Alan Autry often times disagrees with the Fresno City Council and for the most part what he says goes. He's been an attribute to that city, the last one who really ran that city was Ted Wills. We need improvement as Mr. Murisky stated we don't need the all knowing all seeing Dan Chin making all the decisions thru his puppet strings and we all know who controls those. Now Carl dispute what I've said; show me one instance in where Dan Chin has stood before the council and stood for something in rebuttal or has even had a confrontation with anyone? One different vote! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:12 PM:

" To: Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 15, 2008 4:28 PM: (alias Caddy Shack Character) You must run a Golf Store.

It's always put up by one good ol' boy and seconded by another. The only exception to that rule is when Mr. Thomas interjects a comment or complaint. At least I don't have trouble remembering he is a City Council Member. I haven't heard anything besides "I second that motion" out of Ayers yet.

The only reason Bob Dowd is their favorite attorney is because he got the DA & his former employee, off the back of the City Council on the Brown Act Violation. That couldn't have played out better if it were scripted. The City Council gets off the hook and the City Attorney becomes their savior. Am I the only one who saw this play out to the conclusion of where we were billed $400k? Come on citizens wake up and smell the green backs disappearing from the city coffers, not the crap being spread around the coral they call City Hall. The crap in those City Council meetings, is knee deep and rising. "

Big John wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:26 PM:

" To: Robin,

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you personally. I will forgo the pleasure as your past legal activities have not garnered enough of my trust to accept the risk.

You stated in your blog: “John, you have posted many very unkind and untrue things about me.”

On this topic, about the City Attorney position, I have yet to mention you once. I did take “Joe Friday” to task for posting false information. So, unless you and Joe are one and the same, we have nothing to discuss.

Big John "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Fred: I don't know what you are talking about with the golf store comments.

Just a suggestion but you would be much more effective if you could condense your thoughts into one short, coherent post. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:10 AM:

" To: Robbin Mattos
You are certainly welcome and thanks for vouching for what I said about the candidates meeting.
It amazes me Big John is one of those many people who complains about the disinformation that gets onto these blogs and then he turns around and joins in on the creation of the disinformation like it is gospil.
Anyone who has half a brain and meets you, immediately knows you are not lawsuit happy. You have your convictions and they run deep and when the City Council leaves you no choice then you must file a lawsuit to get their attention. Now how that then can become your fault is beyond me. We need more people like you and Mike Spicer and fewer people like Dan Chin's supporters and Sorensen's supporters. Who blindly walk through life thinking all is rosey because Dan and Sue say it is. "

rocketman wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Maybe HEAT needs to have a membership drive! The truth of the matter is the current membership of the city council will never evaluate the contract for the city attorney. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:25 AM:

" To: rocketman wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:32 PM:

Well when the City Attorney, City Manager and none of the City Council Members listen you have to turn somewhere. It's my underestanding that frivilous lawsuits are illegal. If all of the HEAT lawsuits are illegal, why hasn't that been publicized. What's that, there may be some legal worth to there being filed. A Judge may have to hear them in a court of law. Well then now they don't quite seem so frivolous now do they?

Next paragraph concerns opening your mouth enserting your foot and licking dog do. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:29 AM:

" What would this candidate be worth to a city near Washington, D.C. but first his
Duties:

-Supervises and manages the day-to-day operations of a multi-practice law office, including determining the appropriate outsourcing of legal work.
-Renders oral and written legal opinions to the Mayor and Council, City Manager, and Department Directors and other City staff as requested.
-Prepares court papers, contracts, ordinances, resolutions, deeds, leases, research and related memoranda, and other legal documents.
-Drafts, reviews, and approves proposed ordinances for consideration by the Mayor and Council.
-Recommends and reviews the provisions and legal sufficiency of contracts, bonds, bids, leases, insurance, and claims.
-Attends meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, and various committees and boards as required and renders legal advice on issues raised by matters on the agenda.
-Represents the City in lawsuits and administrative proceedings.
-Represents the City�s interests in various contract negotiations.
-Manages, supervises, and reviews the work of legal and support staff, as well as managing the office budget, support contracts, etc.
-Researches, interprets, and applies laws, court decisions, and other legal authorities in the preparation of opinions and briefs.
-(Continued) "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:33 AM:

" What would this candidate be worth to a city near Washington, D.C. but first his
Duties: (Continued)

-Analyzes legislation including proposed state and federal legislation affecting the City.
-Answers communications from the public relative to municipal ordinances and legal matters affecting the City.
-Investigates complaints and claims by, or against, the City.
-Organizes, interprets, and applies legal principles and knowledge to complex legal problems.
-Comprehends, and makes inferences from, written material to provide legal representation and advice.
-Analyzes narrative and statistical data to make recommendations regarding legal issues affecting the City.
-Oversees the enforcement of City and department policies and procedures, and the maintenance of proper records and reference materials.

Salary: Compensation $140,000 - $180,000 plus excellent benefits; client will pay all interview and relocation expenses.

Do you still think we are getting the best bang for our buck, we are a suburb of Fresno, not Washington, D.C. the nations capitol.

Secondly: Are we getting all this work out of our current City Attorney? I haven't seen any evidence of it. "

Robin Mattos wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:05 PM:

" WDF, with a little research, you have summed up exactly my point. Are we getting what we contracted for? For the amount of money in the job description you found in a town near D.C.,(it's what city attorney's do), we could afford support staff and perhaps part-time attorney. Why has the city permitted this? It's a money pit. Mr. Dowd may be providing similar services you list here, but we city taxpayers are paying dearly. Are there others following this article and thread that are tired of this endless money pit of legal costs? How will the council handle this matter? Will they create a new job for a city attorney? Will they ignore this article and continue business as usual? Will council consider what's in the public's best interest when considering this matter? If they stay with a contracted attorney, it should be an open bid process, nothing to hide, no new amendments to the contract without public input. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Robin,
We elected 5 people to provide policy and guidance to our city administrators and staff. They will do, collectively, what they believe is in our collective best interest. If they don’t we’ll elect someone else. We don’t need another war of wills and egos to result in more unnecessary lawsuits. The people didn’t elect you. In fact they have never elected you (or your husband). This horse is dead; find something else to occupy your empty evenings. "

Robin Mattos wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Delbert, Council is fiscally responsible for all citizens. If Council chose to misappropriate funds by overpaying for legal services or other service that could be less money, then they fail to protect the public's interest (fiduciary duty). Mr. Dowd or any attorney representing a city has a duty to the city and ultimately we citizens. Our current elected officials (including "retirees") have failed to protect us from being overcharged for legal fees. This porkbarrel practice may be okay in some areas of law but when it comes to the public's interest Bob, you have 50,000 people to represent. It's time for a change to employee attorney. Getting quality legal services with less pork is good for all. BTW, why infer a lawsuit? Will one be required before legal costs are reasonable for Hanford? Take off the moniker and let's have a REAL discussion. Results to elections are just the beginning, not the end Delbert. I have the right to my point of view without being muzzled by Counsel or Council. I look foward to a new term of protecting the public's interest. I will keep involved with city politics so I'm not going away. This issue shouldn't either. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:01 AM:

" To: Robin Mattos, there is more Robin check out the requirements for this job.

-Minimum of 10 years experience practicing law, either in a City or County government setting or in a law firm addressing municipal issues. Experience will include zoning and land use, litigation, regulatory and adminstrative proceedings, contract drafting and negotation, and municipal tax and finance adminstration.
-Membership in the Maryland State Bar. (If not a member, you will be required to become one.)

Preferred Knowledge, Skills and Abilities:
-Knowledge of the organization and functions and goals of the City government.
-Extensive knowledge of the provisions of Maryland law, City Code and Charter provisions.
-Strong knowledge and understanding of general principles of legal ethics with an emphasis on ethics and accountability in the context of municipal administration.
-Skill in planning, developing, implementing and administering a legal services program dealing with various governmental functions.
-Skill in negotiating agreements which accommodate conflicting interests and viewpoints.
-Skill in oral and written communication sufficient to develop defenses of, and justification for, decisions reached.
-Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships at all levels, both internal and external. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:09 AM:

" To: Robin Mattos, there is more Robin check out the requirements for this job.

-Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships at all levels, both internal and external.
-Ability to attend meetings and perform work assignments at times other than normal business hours.
-Ability to make a determination when outside counsel is needed and willingness to work with retained counsel

An overview of this city:
The City of Rockville, a suburb of Washington, D.C., is the County Seat of Montgomery County and the fifth largest City in Maryland. The City, with a population of 63,170, operates under the council-manager form of government. Rockville provides a full range of services for its residents, along with providing more than 883 acres of City parkland. In 2008, Money Magazine ranked Rockville as one of the Best places to live in the United States.

Just so you know this is a larger population and a pretty nice city to live in, just in case somebody says this isn't Hanford and is probably a smaller community. If we advertised like this and offered $180,000 to start we'd snag an experienced City Attorney. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:13 AM:

" To: Robin Mattos, there is more Robin check out the requirements for this job.

Amazing that we didn't think of advertisiing on the Net for a City Attorney. Even if we had to pay moving expenses we still would come out on top after the first year. For the full tune of $400,000.00 you could probably set up the entire operations and operate for twelve to eighteen months to boot. Then it's a small budget and a small salary for a full time attorney. You know outsourcing is what got this entire country into trouble. "

Delbert wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Robin,
We already have a mechanism for City Council oversight; it’s called the Grand Jury. Rarely do I question the motivation of this large group of civic minded individuals. Given a choice between them or you, and your lapdog Fred, I choose them. "

rocketman wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:50 PM:

" There you go! Maybe a Grand Jury investigation is what we need to determine if there has been misuse of public funds. Maybe Dennis Beaver can speak to the jury with his concerns. And by the way, this same logic should be applied to city police officer pay, pay them fairly in comparison to like sized cities, this is what the CHP does. And Watchdog, I would be interested in joining HEAT, I was not speaking against HEAT as you imply! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:36 PM:

" To: Delbert wrote on Nov 20, 2008 5:27 PM:

Boy it must be tuff walking through that door way first turning to one side and then to the other and tilting your noggin one way then the next. Do you use a shoe horn to get your big head through the door or just give yourself a wedgy and struggle through? Yanking and hoping you'll slip on through. Next time try buttering your ears and blow your nose at the same time.

I ain't nobody's lap dog, Del and it's too bad you think calling people names would change facts that have been properly presented. The only facts you ever present is the depths to which you might stoop to try and make a point out of a smear tactict. You call good judgement a bad thing and wouldn't know it if it jumped up and placed a pimple on the end of your nose.

Your blind to the politics in one eye and have Dan Chinitis in your other one. You think Marcie and Bob walk on water and it's all smoke and mirrors. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:42 PM:

" To: Robin Mattos

Sheesh first I am called your husband and now I am your lap dog. Why can't people realize that two people can agree on facts and figures that don't lie and present a case to look at other options without being somehow joined at the hip.
I guess they are so use to their affiliations they mix them up with ours, which is strictly professional and aligned toward changing the old guard into an updated cohesive working element with function, purpose and direction to benefit the entire town.
Robin you are right, just because you didn't win a seat on the Council doesn't mean any of you candidates have to sit back on your buttocks and not comment and suggest change for the betterment of the entire community. It's refreshing to see someone concerned with a community effort rather than a personal one, where the entire agenda is decided and the vote taken, before the meeting is even began so to speak. Keep up the good work and keep the faith. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:25 PM:

" To: Delbert wrote on Nov 20, 2008 5:27 PM:

If by them you are referring to the City Council, there may be many people on this very blog who might disagree with that, but then Delbert you quite obviously don't have children or you would understand a large problem with those who sit on the City Council, work as City Manager and Public Works Guru. Our children and grandchildren's safety should be foremost in their minds and I know of 15 million reasons that I can point to that this is not the case. There will probably be millions more to follow if we don't get them focused on our kids or at least willing to listen to matters concerning them.

Every child swimming in that plunge, skating in the skatepark is one less out on the streets as a member of a gang. One less getting into trouble and causing property damage or breaking into your home and stealing your property. Take that away from them without first replacing it and you will have anarchy, increased crimes and four Council Members and a Mayor asking why? Why did this happen? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:16 AM:

" To: rocketman wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:50 PM:
My apologies concerning heat, I read it wrong, it usually is only defended by Robin or myself. I can't believe they have a problem with plausable law suits being brought against the city when the city is clearly in the wrong. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:24 AM:

" If the grand jury ever took a look at the City Council Members soon to retire and several present, they'd not have time to investigate anything else. Voting on issues they clearly profit from, such as the Enthanol Plant. The only reason it hasn't come to reality yet is the downturn in the economy and the lower price of crude.

Of course the City Council Members want to sell the Skate Park and Plunge, can you imagine the last time Marcie, Dan, Ayers ever used those facilities if they ever did?

But, I won't go there right now, I think I have presented some pretty good arguments for why the City Attorney should be an employee of the city and not outsourced for bid. All I ask is look over the information and realize we could have an experienced City Attorney with 10 years of actual City experience? Doing many things I've not seen the current one connected with or doing? How many decisions on land use are being done without benefit of Counsel to determine there legality? Mr. Thomas had get the C.A. involved in one. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts