Clear conflict of interest

Regarding “Local governments turn miscues into profit at taxpayer expense” (News, Nov. 19): What kind of lawsuit allows both parties to profit? One involving Oklahoma County as the defendant. The defendant loses or negotiates a settlement with the plaintiff and pays off the judgement or negotiated settlement with county funds raised by increased property taxes. The defendant then buys the debt on itself and charges interest to the homeowner — interest, by the way, not returned to the taxpayer in the form of reduced taxes. Does anyone see a huge conflict of interest here? What incentive does the defendant have to fight any lawsuit, frivolous or not? In fact, it appears just the opposite. The defendant can profit not only by agreeing to a settlement, but the larger the settlement the greater the financial reward through earned interest. County Commissioner Ray Vaughn says, “Would you rather pay the interest to a bank that doesn’t give you any benefit?” and, “the county then is able to take that interest and use it for taxpayer expenses.” Sounds like door No. 1 and 2 in “Let’s Make a Deal.” I like door No. 3 — return the interest to the homeowner in the form of lower property taxes.

Cities and counties engage in this activity. If I want the local governments to have more money, I’ll vote for it.

Donald Newsom, Oklahoma City