The lawyers were busy last week with the usual back and forth about whether the Santa Rosa City Council broke the law by failing to disclose a $327,000 embarrassment.
Even if the city's legal defense involves more semantics than substance, City Hall likely doesn't mind a controversy focused on what the state's open meeting law does or doesn't require. People tend to nod off when the conversation wanders into the arcane language of government. Plus, the blah-blah-blah serves to distract us from more fundamental questions, such as:
How did the City Council manage to fritter away $327,000? (Fritter is not the first word that came to mind, but you know what I mean.)
Let's take away the obfuscation and review what happened here:
In 2008, the then-Santa Rosa City Council enacted a tax surcharge that was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It didn't take a constitutional lawyer to figure out this assessment on future residents was floated on a wish and a prayer — as judges in two courts would later affirm. A year earlier, the council rejected the same proposal, noting it would create "two classes of citizens." (This was the same time the cash-strapped city was talking about charging for paramedic calls for homeowners who didn't volunteer to pay a monthly fee.)
Having lost in court — twice — the council met in private earlier this year and instructed its lawyer to complete the paperwork and pay court-ordered legal fees to the lawyers who successfully sued the city.
The council did not disclose the payment — for reasons all of us can understand. The council had screwed up; the outcome was embarrassing.
Along the way, City Attorney Caroline Fowler tried to persuade us the council didn't make a decision when it made a decision.
Or, as Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
A Press Democrat editorial aptly described the city's imaginative etymology as "the nonsense of the city's games and word parsing."