In his story, Outzen noted:
Mussetto said that Thomber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach established the acts involved must purportedly arise from the performance of his official duties. However, a public official is not entitled to taxpayer-funded reimbursement simply because an allegation of misconduct arises in the course of his public duties. The alleged misconduct must also serve a public purpose.
Mussetto asserted that four questions must be answered:
1) Was the official’s successful defense against the charges undisputed?
2) Did the challenged acts arise out of the official’s performance or public duties and serve a public purpose?
4) Did the prospective payor authorize the challenged acts?
- 01/15/15 entry references bank records; Whose bank records? Joint account? Partnerships?
- 01/19/15 entry references insurance document from client. How is the Mayors insurance city business?
- 9/8/14 entry references document from banks. Who's accounts?
- 9/11/14 entry references tax returns? Is this a tax case? How is that City business?
The above indicates that more than bribery may have been investigated and if so why are the Citizens paying for his fees?
Don't ask Dick or Bobblehead, they just did as instructed without doing....THEIR JOB!
Did City CFO Dick Barker and City Attorney Bowling commit a crime in blindly paying for Ashton Hayward's criminal defense without doing any review of the files to determine the public purpose before authorizing payment?
This is definitely a question for the State Attorney.