Thursday, February 23, 2017



How is it not a conflict of interest for Ashton Hayward who is now PERSONALLY being sued for his alleged violations of Matt Schmitt's civil rights to be able to make any statement to the City Council or act on behalf of the City in any way regarding any potential settlements with the Plaintiff?

If he settles it without Council permission like he did the Reynolds case, is he not using City funds to settle a personal potential liability?  Conflict of Interest?

If he recommends Council settle the case, isn't that also self serving and a conflict?

If he lobbies or discusses the matter with Council is he not lobbying in a matter that might inure to his special benefit?

Since the City is now a separate defendant from Ashton J. Hayward III, individual, and he is individually a defendant shouldn't the City retain separate counsel from the Mayor?

And shouldn't all communications between their separate counsel and them be done in the shade, away from Hayward?

Is it not very possible that the City could chose to settle the matter separate from any potential liability the Mayor has individually?

Is it not conceivable that the best interest of the City would be to settle with the Chiefs but let the case against Ashton J. Hayward III, individual, continue to trial where his personal assets are at stake?

This case is the very DEFINITION of Conflict of Interest.

This makes my brain hurt.


George Hawthorne said...


You are absolutely correct regarding the "Conflict of Interests" between the interests' of the City in defending itself from the actions of the Mayor. Clearly, the interest of the Mayor and the City are different and the Mayor will definitely "throw the taxpayer's" money at a settlement that would clear him also.

In fact, the City Council needs to ACT in the interests for the CITY and TAXPAYERS as the elected governing body of the City and Hire outside counsel for the City and separate from the Mayor's attorney.

For the same lawyer to represent BOTH the City and the Mayor is an actual attorney "conflict of interest" that the counsel must affirmatively waive by VOTE. Such a vote would be not only incompetent, but potentially, could make the counsel "personally liable" to a taxpayer lawsuit for not taking proper fiduciary actions as the governing body.

Anonymous said...

George Hawthorne is correct. I doubt that you will see the same attorney representing both the city and Hayward as that would be a serious enough breach of ethics to have the attorney disbarred. At the end of this affair, however, expect to see Hayward ask the City Council to reimburse him for his private attorney fees. We already know which lap dogs on the council will agree to do so. By the way, the city taxpayers have already paid slightly less than $100,000 to an attorney for the sham investigation that Hayward used in a vain attempt to cover his rear end.

It will be interesting to see if Hayward can find a local attorney who has not done any business with the city and therefore has no conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

Probably not really taxpayer money other than the cost of the insurance premiums for the insurance policy (or policies) that are providing a defense and would be the first source of funds for payment of any judgment or settlement. Taxpayer monies would only come up if the judgment or settlement exceeded the policy limits, which is probably unlikely. I would be surprised if the City didn't have insurance for this claim.

Insurers simultaneously defend multiple parties in these types of suits all the time. A conflict only comes up if the policy is inadequate to settle the case or pay a judgment.

The insurance policy would be a public record so you could get it and find out what the limits are. Any communications between the insurer and the people it is defending might also be interesting, but might also be privileged.

Anonymous said...

Was ashton paying part of the insurance to cover his ass if this happened? No.....thats the cties policy, not his personal policy...

Anonymous said...

This could be a very interesting case. Unfortunately how this all plays out will not be shared with the public because of the scrutiny local politicians are sure to face. I hate to disappoint anyone who might think otherwise, but this will not get the same media coverage as the very public suspensions and resulting terminations. I seriously doubt the City or the Mayor is interested in lengthy litigation that will likely cause approval ratings to continue to trend downward.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:56 AM you are probably right. But it's a shame that the Chiefs have been publicly defamed while everyone else will get off quietly without having their names smeared openly. Smh :-(

Anonymous said...

Conflict of interest? Definitely! Ethics violation? Most assuredly! Will Hayward's band of crooked attorneys find away to make the taxpayers pay his personal attorneys fees anyway? Without a doubt! After all they have to protect the gravy train that they've been riding the past 7 years. Will City Council finally do their jobs by intervening and stopping this violation of ethics? Absolutely...NOT! Will things just continue as though nothing happened? You can bank on it!