To The Editor:
During the first week of April 2012, the Pacific residents received a written message from the Pacific mayor’s office, pertaining to the recent state audit of Pacific.
An attempt was made to explain Pacific’s huge legal bills. Some Pacific voters questioned the huge legal bills. The attorney’s hourly rate wasn’t in question. The Pacific city official(s) who requested all the legal advice is/are responsible for the huge bills, not the attorney.
Why was so much legal advice needed? Could it be, the Pacific official(s) were not knowledgeable about the operations of a fourth-class city?
The state auditor concluded, for the amount of money Pacific was paying a part-time attorney, the city could probably afford a full-time attorney and suggested this to Pacific.
Instead of comparing the hourly fees of attorneys, a comparison should have been made of the legal bills paid by: Union, St. Clair, Sullivan and Eureka.