For the third day running, Scott Schwebke reveals, in a new Standard-Examiner story, important new information about the circumstances surrounding Senator/Chief Greiner's Hatch Act litigation. Various stories have reported that the taxpayers of Ogden may have been picking up the tab for this protracted litigation; and WCF readers have expressed their fears that the taxpayers may have been hit hard in the process. This morning's Scott Schwebke story delves into the details regarding the source of funds for the financing of this lawsuit, and (among other things) offers this somewhat heartening information regarding the Emerald City Lumpencitizens' current financial exposure, as the Ogden City Administration considers the possibility of taking the matter up on appeal. Up until now, according to Mr. Schwebke's report, it appears that Ogden City's "risk management carrier" (not a true insurance company) has been picking up the entire tab, which is good news for Ogden taxpayers, we believe:
The Utah Risk Management Mutual Association, the city's insurance carrier, is paying Jim Bradshaw, a lawyer defending Greiner, and Stan Preston, an attorney representing the city administration, Patterson said.Ogden City risk manager Ron Ball also offers this interesting additional observation, which anticipates a question we're sure many of us would be asking, even in the event that Ogden City might not seek future relief through the appellate court(s):
Bradshaw and Preston could not be reached for comment Thursday regarding how much URMMA has paid them.
Jim Fisher, claims and litigation manager for URMMA, declined to disclose amounts paid to Bradshaw and Preston because the Hatch Act case is still active
Ron Ball, Ogden's risk manager, said Thursday he doesn't know how much has been spent on legal fees because attorneys used by the city typically bill URMMA directly..
The Hatch Act case shouldn't increase the city's annual insurance premium with URMMA, Ball said. Premiums are based on the city's size and number of employees and not on individual claims, he said. The city's URMMA premium in 2009 was about $210,000.Whether Mr. Ball's assurances are accurate we do not know, but our own experience with insurance companies who've paid out substantial claims leaves us in some doubt. Does URMMA have contractual or statutory authority to raise Ogden City's premiums going forward? Can URMMA simply exercise the power cancel Ogden City's coverage? In our view Mr. Schwebke has insufficiently researched this question; and we're not entirely satisfied that Ogden City taxpayers will be held entirely harmless for the costs and expanses of the unsuccessful litigation to date.
Nevertheless we'll go out on a limb and say "so far, so good" (we hope), even though we don't have a hint about the true costs of this litigation.
A second set of separate questions also arises as Ogden moves forward, considers keeping Greiner in place as Ogden City Police Chief and contemplates filing an appeal, of course:
Is URMMA, (which is a state-funded risk management fund, and NOT a true insurance company) contractually or statutorily compelled to continue financing this litigation, in the event that Ogden City officials unilaterally decide to pursue an appeal? According to this morning's story, Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke made a "finding of fact" that "Greiner violated the Hatch Act because he signed off on (initialled) a half-dozen federal grants valued at more than $1 million already in place during his successful 2006 campaign for the state Senate." As a general rule, appeals based on allegedly erroneous findings of fact are usually a tough uphill fight. Here's a brief summary of the problem from Answers.com:
On appeal, a question of fact is treated differently than a question of law. If an appellant alleges that the fact finder incorrectly decided questions of fact, an appeals court will give deference to the fact finder's decisions. The fact finder gets to see and hear all the evidence and thus is in a better position to make factual determinations than is the appeals court. If an appellant claims that the trial judge incorrectly decided a question of law, however, the appeals court will examine the trial judge's ruling more carefully. Essentially, it is more difficult to overturn a verdict based on a question of fact than a verdict based on a question of law. [Emphasis added].Our guess is that the underlying administrative court case turned on Judge Parke's finding of fact, and that unless there exist other fatal errors of law in the underlying trial court matter, the State funded URMMA will not be inclined (rationally, at least) to further underwrite an appeal of this matter.
This raises this additional question, of course. In the event that URMMA declines to provide further funding for this lawsuit, and the Ogden Administration nevertheless decides to keep Greiner on the City payroll and move forward with an appeal, WHO will be on the hook to finance this litigation henceforth?
You got it folks! Vous!
Write your City Council and the Little Lord on Nine and let them know that the Taxpayers of Ogden City will not stand for the expenditure of a single Ogden Taxpayer Dime on the further pursuit of this lawsuit:
• Contact Local OfficialsYou know what to do... do it on the internet...
We'll also note in passing that we believe, unlike many WCF readers, that Chief Greiner has been well justified in pursuing this litigation, so long as he remained in the Senate race. We believe that acts of civil disobedience in the face of government tyranny are part of the fabric of liberty in America; and up until now we've believed Chief Greiner has "fought the good fight." Now that The Chief has however voluntarily removed himself from the Sen 18 race, and acquiesced to an overbearing federal agency (the Office of Special Counsel) in depriving Weber County voters of the opportunity to vote for him in November, this can no longer can be rationally deemed in any manner to be "the lumpencitizens' fight," in our opinion.
Having said that, we'll turn the floor over to our gentle readers.
