Is it a violation of Section 9.01 of Morgantown’s City Charter or Chapter 6B Article 2-5 of the State Code?
Did the city attorney benefit from an action of council or the city, or did he breach the state’s Ethics Act’s standards for public employees, or both?
In March, City Manager Paul Brake decided to make an administrative change to provide legal counsel for the city. His decision was administrative and did not require a vote from City Council. He said the move to continue working with City Attorney Ryan Simonton, but through an outside law firm, passed muster with the state Ethics Commission.
It was also explained then that State Code does not require contracts for legal representation to be bid out.
The decision to eliminate the city attorney’s office, opting instead to contract with a private law firm on retainer, was embodied in the city budget.
Some concerns were raised then by council members, however, the budget was approved on a 6-1 vote by council.
That lone dissenter, Ryan Wallace, who did not run for re-election, has since moved to Toronto. However, Wallace continued to air his concerns and filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission to investigate this arrangement.
What appears to make this change in how the city contracted for its legal services especially egregious was that Simonton sat in on the interviews with the firms vying for this contract.
Furthermore, the law firm ultimately selected was the one for which Simonton worked prior to joining the city and has since rejoined via the contract. Is that proof of impropriety? No, but one could be forgiven for raising an eyebrow.
This appears to be a violation of the state’s Ethics Act, which prohibits a public employees from taking part in a decision involving a vendor with whom he or she is seeking employment or has an agreement concerning future employment. It even bars them from making recommendations or giving advice on the contract.
It appears this agreement also violates the city’s charter, which requires any city employee with a substantial financial interest in a contract with the city to declare that interest and not participate in that contract. Period.
Often red flags that signal a conflict of interest don’t flap loudly or even waver and any potential benefits from one might be unclear. However, here they looked to be flying wide and high then and now and the benefits are spelled out.
We applaud Wallace’s efforts for not relenting on this matter, that few in our community, including this newspaper, failed to heed, until now.
Council should void this contract with Simonton and his law firm at once as a result of these apparent violations of the city charter and state code.
Wallace is right: This is a “serious thing,” and no question — it should be treated as such.
