DUANE SHERRILLEditor

A move that could have led to a complaint being filed against the city’s own attorneys failed by a single vote this past week after Alderman Jenna Amacher maintained the law firm has not been keeping the board apprised of updates in pending lawsuits against the municipality and had canceled their planned briefing at the last moment.

The motion to require one of the law firms working for the city to appear before the city board within 48 hours or face a complaint against them filed to the state Board of Professional Responsibility died by a 3-3 tie – the source of the impasse being Alderman Kurt Glick who abstained from voting on the matter since he has a pending age discrimination suit against the city of Tullahoma. Mayor Ray Knowis, along with Aldermen Daniel Berry and Jerry Mathis, voted against the controversial motion while Amacher and  fellow Aldermen Bobbie Wilson and Derick Mann voted for the motion.

“I’d like to instruct the interim city administrator to instruct Bob Burns and Associates to reschedule the executive session (a private session where legal matters are discussed between attorneys and BoMA) that was set for today within the next 48 hours and to inform them that if they fail to do so the city will file a formal complaint with the BPR (Board of Professional Responsibility),” Amacher announced during the BoMA meeting.

Alderman Wilson seconded that the attorneys need to meet the board in executive session since she, as a new member of the board, has questions about the pending lawsuits against the city.

City Attorney Stephen Worsham immediately disputed Amacher’s motion, calling it “out of order” and questioning its legality.

“It is also an idle threat by Ms. Amacher, to threaten these attorneys who are representing the city and have been hired by our insurance carrier to do so,” he said. “Giving 48 hours is totally unrealistic. I think this move is totally inappropriate. It is a self-serving motion because Ms. Amacher has interjected herself into some litigation against the city which I think is improper.”

Amacher insisted there had been no “sit down” meeting with the attorneys in nine months over litigation the city is facing.

“I have been less than impressed with some of their tactics,” Amacher said. “In fact, I think they are possibly causing us more liability and harm than necessary because they have refused to update us on (these cases). I believe there are nefarious reasons about why they canceled. This is unacceptable.”

Amacher pointed to the rules of professional responsibility as it pertains to attorneys, claiming the attorneys have not kept the city board abreast of plans.

Berry disagreed with Amacher’s reasoning, pointing out that the city of Tullahoma is contracted with Public Entity Partners and that the attorney’s work for the PEP, not the city. He also reminded Amacher of a warning the federal court gave Amacher last month in which the judge advised that Amacher’s involving herself in the pending Glick lawsuit could result in the city’s insurance carrier moving to terminate its relationship, thereby leaving the city of Tullahoma having to pay any monetary costs Glick might win in court.

Wilson again sided with Amacher in not being thrilled with how the executive session was canceled at the last minute by the law firm.

“I would think they should at least have the courtesy of telling us when they could reschedule this,” she said. “We need to know what’s going on with some of these lawsuits. It’s ludicrous that we hear about it from outside and we don’t even know what’s going on.”

Berry countered that an executive session with the attorneys is not required to keep up with the lawsuits as he goes onto the PACER website (an online website that gives information about federal cases) to keep himself updated.

“None of us should be walking around ignorant,” Berry said of visiting the PACER site that contains legal documents from federal court – a site that is open to the public for a small fee. “I follow everything that needs tracking so I’m never surprised by the status of what those are. If you want to walk around nine months in the dark, then that’s on you.”

Alderman Mann pointed out one particular lawsuit against the city, the Glick suit, is brought up at board meetings.

“It’s become political,” Mann pointed out, noting he had reached out to the attorneys and did get a call back just before the BoMA meeting – a call he missed as he was getting ready for the city meeting. “I do see the frustration … there should be some kind of update.”

After the lengthy debate, BoMA deadlocked at 3-3, effectively killing Amacher’s motion to seek action against the law firm.