City lawyers shouldn’t handle RUPCO case

Dear Editor:

In the field of law, an attorney is obligated to maintain an attitude and appearance of independence in handling all legal matters.

The city’s legal staff, a.k.a. corporation counsel, serves at the pleasure of the mayor and is appointed by the mayor.

Mayor Steve Noble wrote a crystal-clear letter on July 11, 2016, supporting RUPCO’s planned use for the former Alms House.

The city Planning Board recently denied RUPCO’s site plan, effectively shutting down the project.

RUPCO has again sued the city of Kingston. (They also sued Kingston when they were denied a zoning request previously.)

Because Corporation Counsel Kevin Bryant and his assistant, Daniel Gartenstein, serve at the mayor’s pleasure and because the mayor is clearly a supporter of this project, should these two attorneys recuse themselves from this case?

The city’s aldermen have been asked this question but do not seem to understand. One alderman stated that if the Common Council were to appoint independent counsel, then council would have a conflict. But our Common Council does not serve at the mayor’s pleasure. They serve at the pleasure of Kingston’s voters and have no similar conflict.

Attorneys with whom I have spoken are unanimous in their belief that if, at a minimum, a conflict in appearance exists, Kingston’s corporation counsel should recuse itself from this representation, and the city should retain independent counsel.

Kingston readers should let their aldermen know what they think. Vince Rua, Kingston