Money well spent?To the Editor:On several occasions, a member of the City Council, or more than one member of the Council, as well as some regular citizens in the City, have made the statement that the expenditure of over $300,000 [to date] and further authorized amounts up to $800,000 paid to Los Angeles Attorney McDermott were prudent, necessary and proper because: [to paraphrase];‘We haven’t done anything wrong’ - ‘We don’t know what we’re being charged with’ - ‘The Department of Justice will not speak to us [or our attorney]’ - ‘The DOJ is stonewalling’ - ‘We have no choice’ [whatever that means?] - ‘It’s worth it’ - Etc, Etc.It has also been reported that some of the same individuals have said, in essence, if it bankrupts the City to fight this matter - it is money well spent - and so what?The plain truth of the matter is, the City, up to this point in the litigation, need not have hired any specialized, outside Counsel at all. The City Attorney, it is presumed, went to law school and has a proper license to practice and should have been able to file a demurrer or General Denial. No charge to the City. The DOJ would have then proceeded as it has anyway to investigate and develop a case if it felt one were justified. The City could have designated a committee to meet with the DOJ to talk reasonable settlement - again, no charge. That alone would have saved the first $300,000. At any point, if settlement were not effected, the City could have then hired outside Counsel. Plenty of time - no rush. Even, if in the extreme case, settlement could not be effected, or the suit dropped, does the City Council believe that means the DOJ “automatically” wins - like a default judgment on a civil lawsuit for damages, for instance, - and that then the DOJ would come to town with a map and ruler to cut up the City willy-nilly into geographic voter districts? Is this what attorney McDermott has told the City? Ridiculous! The City is always entitled to its day before a Federal Judge in court. And that is when you retain counsel.Now, what has $300,000 bought the City? How many hours, at what hourly fee, has McDermott billed the City, and for what, exactly? Are this attorney’s hours being carefully monitored, and by whom? Was competitive bidding employed? Who recommended this attorney? What is his win/loss record? Is he just billing in big round numbers with no detail? Is the City’s $1 million surplus about to become Attorney McDermott’s surplus? If McDermott’s win/loss record is “unknown” or spotty, is the City of Santa Paula financing his on the job training to develop strategies for future litigation on behalf of other cities? Who is making the big decisions for the City; the Council, the City Manager, or - Attorney McDermott? Now think about that.What will $300,000 buy today in the legal field? Certainly, a first class defense in a complicated first degree murder case can be obtained. And that is work! Extensive civil litigation, say over a $1 million dollar dispute, could be in hand. Top flight legal counsel in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles - big name lawyers - can be obtained for $300,000. What has Santa Paula gotten for its $300,000, going on $800,000? “We don’t know what we’re being charged with?” “Once Janet Reno is gone the case will evaporate”. “The Bush Justice Department [aside, which is actively courting the Latino vote] will drop it”. Well, apparently not yet!Another way to look at this problem with the Department of Justice is on the reward/risk basis. To date, the City has risked at least $300,000, on the way to $800,000. The City of Santa Maria has expended, I am told, over $2.5 million on similar litigation - and with the same defense attorney, I believe. They haven’t won anything either yet. So, here in Santa Paula it appears to be all risk and no reward as far as the eye can see. If the Justice Department folds its hand tomorrow, we win only the hollow victory of being able to say - “We won”. But there is no prize, only a close-out bill from the attorney. The DOJ isn’t even going to say “Sorry”. But if the City is found to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, not by having “done anything wrong” - that’s not the standard - but by structural, de facto under-representation of Latino population, which can be wholly unintentional and innocent, that is, no specific intent to deny representation is alleged or found, the City loses all the way around and gets to pony up an additional half million to one million dollars, not including appeal costs. Oh yes, if the City loses at trial, isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the specialist attorney will recommend appealing to the very liberal, the most liberal in the entire United States of America, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which will almost certainly uphold the lower court decision against the City. More bills, more fees, Aaah, but there is always The United States Supreme Court - allegedly a conservative dominated body - maybe they’ll give us a victory! A victory for the attorney and his accountants, anyway! There is no prize for the City of Santa Paula, only bills, a dwindling surplus and very possibly, bankruptcy. For what? Pride?Ladies and gentlemen, what is wrong with this picture? Everything.Doesn’t it make sense for the power structure in Santa Paula - the Chamber of Commerce - people who have been here for years who are known and respected - to start asking the hard questions regarding the above?Dividing the City into geographic/voting districts to “guarantee” more Latino representation on the Council is no panacea, and until someone seriously talks with Justice, there is no reason to believe that is the only solution that might be suggested. There are alternative remedies to the perceived [by some, not all] problem of under-representation of Latinos in the City. It is not an either/or scenario, but no one can get anywhere on the matter if people don’t have the good sense and reasonableness to try to work it out.Now, who, exactly, “brought” the Department of Justice to Santa Paula. Last week Ms. Johnson said in this newspaper that it’s the same small group who have tried to manipulate the City’s affairs before - and, by the by, supported John Procter for Council. So, that must mean, also, the supporters of Measure I, SOAR, those opposed to the Adams Canyon Plan, Etc. are the ones who brought this grief down on the City. Well, the undersigned supported Measure I, made a small donation to John’s campaign, believing him to be a good and decent man with long term Santa Paula credentials, opposed the Adams Canyon Plan, and so on. Now reader, please, read carefully. I have asked many people “in our group” who made the complaint, if any was made at all, to the DOJ. I can and will swear under oath, I do not know. No one I have asked seems to know. The only name that has surfaced is “Martha Machaca”, who wrote a book about Santa Paula. Don’t know her. No one seems to know her, but, Ms. Johnson says “the same little group” did it. If this is true, let’s hear the names in the next broadside. If they know something for a fact, people ought to stand up and name names, or forget it!Why does the undersigned take the time to write such a letter as this, risking enmity and ridicule from those who see it another way. One reason only, fellow Santa Paulans, I hate to see the City squander away its hard won surplus of $1 million. That’s it in a nutshell. I have no opinion at all vis-à-vis electing-at-large vs. district voting, or some type of hybrid system for that matter.Richard Main, J.D.Santa Paula