The Democrats have made a big noise about how much Smithfield paid for legal services when Republicans had the majority of the Town council. He throws out a big number completely out of context.

Under Republicans, legal fees totaled about eight-tenths of one percent of the total budget. This was money well spent. When it comes to legal fees, you get what you pay for. We got quite a lot, and much of these legal fees went to pay protecting Smithfield from ill advised legislation on "Affordable Housing."

Republicans retained a highly competent firm to handle Smithfield's legal issues. This firm had expert attorneys experienced in personnel issues, criminal issues, development issues and all other issues municipalities need expertise in.

The Democrats, on the other hand, hired an attorney who works alone, out of a small office with no staff. This attorney has moderate skill in some areas of law, but not across the entire range of issues that confront a town like Smithfield. They then appointed several assistants, all from different places with no connection or coordination.

This lack of resources has actually cost Smithfield money. Poor advice has cost our taxpayers quite a bit of money. Democrats have refused to say exactly how much, because they claim these expenses are not legal fees and that they don't have to reveal the discussions about settlements. However, here is what bad legal advice has cost has done:

• The town attorney advised the police that grounds existed to charge three people with vandalism. This was actually a political vendetta. Smithfield had 7 police officers and two town attorneys tied up for four full days, some on overtime, prosecuting only to have the charges dismissed. Its good that the charges were dismissed before the defense started, or the taxpayers would have been out twice as much money! Ask democrats how much this little vendetta cost the taxpayers!
  
• The town attorney went to Court and told a Superior Court judge that his own clients - the Smithfield Board of Canvassers - violated the Open Meeting Act. The judge ruled that they had not.
  
• After a complaint alleging a violation of the Open Meeting Act by the Town Council, the town attorney was quoted in the Observer saying that he reviewed the complaint and no violation existed. The Attorney General later ruled that the Council had, in fact, violated the law. The attorney was wrong again.
  
• Two separate personnel issues in which employees had been suspended and then out of work for different reasons were resolved at very unfavorable terms to Smithfield, at great expense to the taxpayers. Had the town attorney been experienced in personnel issues these issues would have been resolved in Smithfield's favor.
  

So how much money did the Democrats save the taxpayers? We think none. They claim they saved over $100,000. Well, they wasted more than this to hire new trash haulers to do an inferior job.