Tom Davis stating objections at Port of Shelton Commission MeetingREIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL FEES FOR JOHN DOBSON
Submitted to Shelton Blog by Tom Davis Mason County Progressive
April 19, 2011
Board of Commissioners
Port of Shelton
W. 21 Sanderson Way
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Reimbursement of Legal Fees for John Dobson
Dear Board of Commissioners:
Consider this letter formal objection to the recent decision by the Port of Shelton to reimburse legal fees incurred by Mr. John Dobson resulting from Mason County District Cause No. 11-CV-0001 and the legal document entitled “Order to Show Cause Why a Temporary Protection Order Should Not Be Issued and Notice of Hearing”, all of which was dismissed without prejudice January 19, 2011.
It is my understanding that the basis for the motion to reimburse Mr. Dobson was the memorandum of legal opinion, dated March 30, 2011, provided to the Commissioners by Port Attorney, Charles “Skip“ Houser.
Specifically, the opinion offered by Attorney Houser has as its foundation a most liberal interpretation of RCW 53.08.208, the intent of which is to protect officers, agents and employees of Port Districts from legal action arising out of the performance, or lack of performance, of their assigned duties; it is not meant to be umbrella insurance against legal fees resulting from a personal dispute, which this matter appears to have been.
The record shows that a legal complaint was brought against Mr. Dobson by Mr. Strickland; there was no mention of either man’s officials duties or performance of those duties, as such activities were irrelevant to the complaint; the matter was, at its core, a dispute between two individuals and unrelated to their respective positions. The very nature of the alleged offense bears this out.
Moreover, the involved parties settled the mater upon mutual agreement prior to any court appearance, with no Port involvement and no court action, other than formally dismissing the case without prejudice. The absence of any port involvement in either the complaint or subsequent agreement is evidence the dispute was unrelated to Port business. (Additionally,, implicit in the agreement between Mr. Strickland and Mr. Dobson was the decision to deny the court an opportunity to rule if Mr. Dobson had been acting within the scope of his duties at the time of the alleged offense.)
It follows that any agreement between Mr. Strickland and Mr. Dobson that may have culminated in the expenditure of public funds by the Port of Shelton would surely have warranted the involvement of either the Port Commissioners or Port Attorney Houser. Since there was no such involvement, it is reasonable to assume the Port considered the matter unrelated to its operations.
In conclusion, it would appear that if the Port or Port related business played no part in the original dispute or the complaint, or the subsequent - out of court - agreement, the Port cannot grant reimbursement of Mr. Dobson’s legal fees under the sited RCW.
Given the above, there is more than sufficient reason to revisit Attorney Houser’s opinion as foundation by which the motion to reimburse Mr. Dobson was allowed to move forward.
For these and other reasons, I would ask Port Commissioners to set aside the decision to reimburse Mr. Dobson under RCW 503.08.208 till such time as the matter can be investigated by the proper oversight authority.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Mason County Resident
cc: Brian Sontag, Washington State Auditor
PORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOHN DOBSON
Between a rock & a hard place these days...Photos by Christine
Well, isn't that unusual: The Port's attorney provides yet another weak opinion in support of yet another improper position taken by two Port of Shelton Commissioners.
ReplyDeleteI am hopeful that when we have a clearer picture of just how much TAXPAYER money the Port of Shelton spent on lawyers in the past twenty-four months, that the citizens of the Port District will see the light and replace these litigious fellows with people who can play well with others.
I eagerly await the reply of the Port of Shelton to my Public Disclosure Request regarding their expenditures of attorneys fees.
Inquiring minds want to know why, if the Port of Shelton has it's own attorney, Mr. Houser, it engages other attorneys.
I hope to have answers shortly as to just how many other attorneys the Port has engaged in the past twenty-four months, and at what cost to the citizens of the Port District.