Readers’ Views

Editorial Board errs again

To the Editor:

It’s amazing that the Sentinel Editorial Board keeps embarrassing itself by opining in Friday’s edition without researching any facts.

First of all, all that is being considered is removing the city attorney attendance requirement from our city code. If the council desires, we can require the attendance of the attorney as part of any future contract. There are a number of cities that do require their attorney be present, but almost none of them have it as part of city code. Removing it from our code is basically housekeeping and does not stop attendance if desired by the council.

Secondly, we are getting fewer attorneys that will consider an interim contract because of the attendance requirement in our code. There are many municipalities that get attorney services that are performed remotely, for the most part. Most other cities only have the city attorney at meetings they deem necessary. It is most common in cities of all sizes that the city attorney is present only when asked.

The editorial board’s analysis of this is hogwash and shows again they don’t even bother to pick up the phone and ask questions before commenting. No one has a problem with their opinion in general, but the purpose of their editorial stance over the last two months is to divide our city by engaging in slander and other untruths. If they cared at all, they would call and verify before attacking in this way. Thankfully, the volume of support I am personally receiving leads me to believe our council is on the right track.

By the way, be sure to send your concerns to the Mankato City Council and all the other cities that you believe are in legal peril due to not having their attorney present at meetings. That would be a nice public service.

Tom Hawkins



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)