Minutes 10/14/1958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 14th, 1958. At the outset I want to be the first to deplore and condemn the very low level attackI made upon the person who o~c~p~es the highes~ office in thds City. In the letter which Mr. Sandie wrote to the Planning Commission relative to the Mayor's request that he resign from the Commission, Mr. Sandie resorted, in my opinion, not to an attack upon the office of Mayor but upon the Rerson who occupies that position. His stare- ment that he believed the motive prompting the request for his resignation was to obtain within one political family complete control of every function of the municipal government of this City is not only reprehensible but entirely untrue. I personally resent the remark for it gives me credit for h~ving no intelligence whatever and, though it may sound conceited at this time, I firmly believe that I can hold my o%~ with Mr. Sandie a~ any time on any subject he chooses. Ia view of what I ~erm a low level attack upon the person of the Mayor, I believe it fitting at this time to look at Mr. Sandie's position a little more closely and s~e ~ there are not valid reasons~ why he should resign. To begin with, it is importan~ that we recognize the existence of Section 20-3 of our City Code relative. ~o members appointed to serve on the Planning Commission. That code section reads, and I quote: 'The appointed members shall sot bold any other municipal office and may be removed after public hearing for inefficiency, neglect of ~ut~ or malfeasance in office.' I believe tha~ I am correct when I state that Mr. Sandie was appointed to the Planning Commission during the term of office of the Honorable Mayor Duke. The date of that appointment was June 1, 1956. Reference to Common Law Or,er Book #52 at Page 117 in the Clerk's office of the Court of Hustings of this City reveals that on January 10, 1958, ~r. Sandie was appointed by the presiding Judge of that Court ro be the Substitute Municipal Court Justice and Substitute Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Justice for this Cily for a term of four years beginning January 1~, 1958, and expiring January 13, 1962. Despite the provisions of Code Section 20-3 that the members appointed to the Plsnnin$ Commission 'shall not hold any other municipal office', the records will clearly show that nor only h~s Mr,Sandie continued to serve on the Planning Commission, as he does even now, but that he continued ~o hold the office of Substitute Municipal Judge and Substitute Juvenile & Domestic Relations Judge until May 27, 1958. On this latter date, Mr. Sandie resigned his position in the Municipal Court and he was replaced by Mr. John R. Porter, Jr. The official Court order ~o that effect may be found in the same Common Law Order Book' #52, at Page 440 under date of May 27, 1958. The point I wish ~o make at this time is that on January 10, 1958, I firmly believe that it was incumbent upon Mr. Sandie to make his choice as to whether he would serve as ~he Substitute Justice i~ our Municipal Court or whether he would continue to serve on the Planning Commission{~ Under the Code Section I have referred ~o, I believe it was improper~that he hold both positions, but I do believe that the choice was entirely his, ~'and I emphasize that, in my o~pinion, it was necessary that he make a choice at that time. It is my further opinion that having elected to hold the office of Substitute Judge in the Municipal Court the Cods Sec- tion referred ro made it mandatory that he resign from the Planning Commission. Now for a moment I wan~ to look at the situation which arose as a result of Mr. Saa- die's appearance in the annexation case. As an attorney, I shall be t)g first to defend any other attorney for accepting a legitimate cause from a client. ~y remarks, I ~rns~, are in no way to reflect upon ~r. Sandie's. very high professional ethics as an attorney. However, the annexation case was, and is, certainly not a criminal pro- cedure. In every respect it is a civil matter entirely, and in some respects is very much like a condemnation case, What we actually have in substance is that the City of Portsmouth, by its annexati~ ordinance, said to the County of Norfolk, 'We are going to take s part of your territory' and the County of Norfolk had every right to defend that action. ~ud by the same loken, Mr. Sandie had every right.to represent intervenors on the side of the County's interest. However, the question sow p~esents itself, whether or not his participation on the side of the County was incompatible with his continued public service.on the Planning Commission. It is quite true that by serving on the planning Commission, Mr. Sandie is not serving under an attorney-client relationship. How- ever, in his service on the Planning Commission, he had available ro him certain information which was of pecu- liar interest to the City of Portsmouth. He was aware of, or_had the opportunity of being aware of, the thoughts of our then planning director, Mr. Paul Dulaney. Notwithstanding this fact, the gentleman in question partici- pated at the counse, table with those who represenzed the County's interest. During the course of the County's defense, it was a perfectly no rmal procedure that Mr. Paul Dulaney be cross-examined by members of the County legal staff. It is not material whether Mr. Sandie himself conducted that cross examination, but it is material that he did participate in tha~ defensive maneuver, for he was there as a member of~an overall defensive team representing interests in direct conflict with the~interests i~.direc~ conflict with the interests.of our city. - In Volume 193 of the official Virginia Reports, we find set out in the front part of the book beginning with pages numbered by Ronmn numerals CXLIV 'and ending at Page CLVIII those things which law- yers call thelr 'Canons of Ethics'. On Page CLVI, Canon 37, relative ~o confidence of a client is stated and read~ in part as follows: '37. Confidence of a Client - It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client's confidences. This duty outlasts~the lawyer's employmen~,'and extends as well to his ~loyees; and neither of them! should accep~ employment which involves or may i~volve the disclosure or use of these confidences, $ither for the private advantage.of the lawyer or his employees or to the disadvantage of the client, without his knowledge and consent and even though there are other available sources of such information. A lawyer should not continue employment when he discovers that this obligation prevenzs the performance of his full duty to his former or ~o his new client.' Reference to this Canon of Legal Ethics should not and f repeat the word not be construed as an inference that Mr. Sandie has been guilty of say,improper professional condu~t. As a fellow 'attorney I have the highest regard for him and I personally and professionally believe his ethics to be'beyond reproach. However, I very strongly feel that Mr. Sandie's letter ro the Planning Commis- sion and the remarks therein made constitute a very low level attack upon the personage of the Mayor of this City and, while he has a perfect right no these views, any such attack should have been levele~i al the impersonal office of Mayor rather than to the person who occupies that position. It is because of this very persor~al attack and be- cause of his failure to elect on January 10, 1958, whether he would serve as Substitute ~unieipal Judge or on the Planning Commission that I find his continued service not only i~ompatible with his previous actions but also un- acceptable to me. It is a fundamental rule that no man can serve two masters and the mere fact that he serves one of them without pay and the other with pay does not justify such service. I am aware of the fact that one member of this body has remarked that in all probability the Mayor will soon ass me, as Vice- Mayor, to resign because of the fact that, as an attorney, I might be called upon to represent interests in the courzs in ?hi~ City. ~ich ~would be in conflict with the inter- ests of the City itself. ~ am happy ~o say that this ma~ter has ~occurr~d to me in the past and I have sought the advice on th~s particular point from one who now holds a very hig~ judicial office, and I have been assured, that although I serve my oity as a C~3uncitman, any client whose interest I t.ake in defense of a. criminal m~tter in the