Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
I tend to agree but I do think that no matter where or when its stated (unless its obviously a personal matter between two people) then the City should at least look at the issue and its legal department choose the best course of action for the City. However if Nenshi were to disregard the advice of the city then yes he should have to pay for his own defence.
I dont like it but it doesnt cost the city any extra as the lawyers are already paid and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward as the lawsuit while not against the City does damage the Citys reputation and could harm its ability to acquire services etc.
|
I don't know if we'll see eye to eye. I always have this argument with companies that I deal with in terms of the second paragraph with the we pay them anyways.
There is an inherent cost where a lawyer working on a candidate case instead of doing city business for example. That means another lawyer will have to pick up the slack.
Everything costs something, and would the city use its lawyers, or would they go outside the city and contract litigators who are more intune with this kind of law suit.
And in terms of dangerous precedents. Once you open a Pandora's box in terms of defending a candidate, then aren't you opening yourself up to defending other candidates in different lawsuits with a similar foundation? Or defending an alderperson who commits a actionable item when not at work?
Nenshi said this as a candidate in a campaign to get elected, he was represnting himself and his campaign and not the cit, any legal cost obligation, settlement costs or verdicts should be up to him to pay if it comes to it.
I have no interest in seeing taxpayer money going towards a verbal war between two loud mouths who should know better.