The Fox In The Henhouse
January 6th, 2007 | by christine | |
Just a few thoughts on county attorney Bonnie Toskey …
First of all, Ms. Toskey signed Margaret’s contract. Ok, she’s the county attorney … no big deal. Then she’s asked to render a legal opinion on the validity of that contract. Ok, she’s the county attorney … no big deal. Then she reportedly gives the opinion to Margaret McAvoy prior to giving it to the County Commissioners. But she’s the county attorney … that is a big deal. Isn’t it? |
In this article, Margaret said that the legal opinion couldn’t be released to the public except by the commissioners, due to attorney-client privilege. Obviously Margaret believes that the privilege belongs to the commissioners. Did Toskey violate that privilege by giving Margaret the opinion without the commissioners’ consent? The commissioners did not meet as a body to discuss the validity of the contract, once it was brought into question. Who waived the privilege on this legal opinion? Is there a blanket waiver that allows Margaret to receive all legal communications?
Ok, a blanket waiver is possible … she is the county president administrator. We should be able to find such a waiver in the minutes somewhere. (snark) But now let’s pretend that Margaret McAvoy might someday sue the county over breach of this contract. Now she’s got Bonnie Toskey’s legal opinion to help her with her case against the county. So maybe giving Margaret the authority to receive legal communications regarding her own contract isn’t such a good idea.
Furthermore, why have Toskey render an opinion? She signed the contract. She has a vested interest in supporting the validity of it. She would risk professional embarrassment if she said that a contract she signed was invalid.
The county needs another legal opinion.
Bonnie Toskey is not working in the best interest of the county, in my most humble opinion. Sure, she gets paid by the county, but she works for Margaret McAvoy. Consider this statement, from July when the people of Shiawassee protested the approval of this contract:
“Although McAvoy’s job title would change, it doesn’t come with more power or different job responsibilities, labor attorney Bonnie Toskey said.”
But look at what Margaret McAvoy had to say about her contract back then …
“The only appointed department heads that do not report to the Coordinator are those of Equalization and Community Development. If the Commissioners should elect to name me County Administrator, I would assume supervisory responsibility for those departments and expect to have my salary reflective of such a change.“
Which one of these statements is correct?
Then, Toskey went to bat for Margaret …
“Classification: Ms. McAvoy proposes to remove the position of County Chief Executive Officer from the County’s classification plan or alternatively provide that the position be subject to a reclassification. I recommend that the Board seriously consider this.”
I explored all of this in my Power Grab article.
Who does Toskey really work for?
Seems to me that Bonnie Toskey is the fox in the county henhouse.
5 Responses to “The Fox In The Henhouse”
By Kay Lauro on Jan 6, 2007 | Reply
Christine “Then she reportedly gives the opinion to Margaret McAvoy prior to giving it to the County Commissioners. But she’s the county attorney … that is a big deal.
Isn’t it?”
Yes, this is a big deal. Who actually requested an opinion from Toskey? McAvoy or the Commissioners? McAvoy on behalf of the commissioners? Wrong. This was never discussed in a public meeting. The attorney/client privilege has been violated by McAvoy. She should not have access to an opinion from a county attorney to the commissioners that has anything to do with a possible lawsuit she could bring against the county
By christine on Jan 6, 2007 | Reply
Yeah I agree. And it occurs to me …shouldn’t your attorney tell you when you are doing something stupid? I would hope my attorney would let me know when I am giving information to the wrong people … seems like this might pop into Toskey’s head once in awhile.
Unless Toskey doesn’t work for the county. But in that case, why does the privilege belong to the county commissioners?
By Kay Lauro on Jan 6, 2007 | Reply
“But look at what Margaret McAvoy had to say about her contract back then …
“The only appointed department heads that do not report to the Coordinator are those of Equalization and Community Development. If the Commissioners should elect to name me County Administrator, I would assume supervisory responsibility for those departments and expect to have my salary reflective of such a change.—
But she could have remained coordinator and assumed supervisory responsibility for those departments and still had the job reclassified with ensueing increase in pay. The responsibility did not come with the title. The title of coordinator and administrator are interchangeable. The additional responsibility moved her job description up the scale, not the title.
By Kathleen Taylor on Jan 7, 2007 | Reply
The Argus Press didn’t have it quite right about “at will ” employment regarding Ms. McAvoy. At will actually means “All may dismiss their employee(s) at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally woron without being thereby guilty of legal wrong. (payne v. Western & A.R.R. Co., 1884)
Countetbalancing the employer’s right to dismiss employees is the right of an employee to leave their employer at any time and for any reason.
Good news all around.
By christine on Jan 7, 2007 | Reply
Hi Kathleen, thanks for the comment.
The “at will” piece is good, but if the county dismisses Margaret we still have to pay her severance according to the contract. I believe that’s 4.5 months salary + benefits … I’d have to look it up to be sure.
So I’m hoping that the contract is invalid and the position is reclassified or at least renegotiated in such a way that it more accurately reflects the financial condition and needs of Shiawassee County.