Local attorney Bert Oram questions if new City Attorney Rusty Wells has accurately described his side work for the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office. Wells has told councilmen and the media that he worked for the ECSO after hours and only on forfeiture cases. Here is Oram’s letter to the Pensacola News Journal
Sweet Deal for Mr Wells, but What About the Taxpayers
In an article published on May 19, 2008, about the impromptu vote to hire William “Rusty” Wells as Pensacola’s new city attorney, you described Mr. Wells’ work as a contract attorney for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office working on forfeiture cases while he also worked as an Assistant City Attorney as “moonlighting.†The term moonlighting is generally understood to mean to work at an additional job after one’s regular, full-time employment, as at night. This is not the situation as I discovered Mr. Wells’ work for the Sheriff’s Office.
I am a local attorney in private practice. In February 2006, I was contacted to help an individual gain access to certain records kept by the Sheriff’s Office. I exchanged several letters and phone calls with Mr. Wells, who held himself out as the Escambia Sheriff’s Office Legal Advisor.
After further delay, and without an agreement to allow the inspection of the records, a lawsuit was filed under the Florida’s Public Records Act. A preliminary hearing was conducted on March 2, 2006. Since that time, depositions have been conducted and there has been one additional hearing. Although another attorney in private practice represents the Sheriff’s Office in this case, Mr. Wells is a witness and has been present on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office throughout the proceeding and at the depositions. My contact with Mr. Wells occurred, and these proceedings and depositions were conducted, during normal business hours.
Further, on several occasions in the past several years I have had to contact the Sheriff’s Office regarding forfeiture cases. In these matters, I have generally worked with other members of the Sheriff’s Office, not Mr. Wells.
I make these points because it seems odd that a person who is paid a substantial government salary appears also to be working for another government entity at the same time, and during the same hours. Mr. Wells seems to be generously compensated and appears also to have enjoyed receiving benefits associated with government work, such as health care, sick leave, vacation, job security, and retirement, from two separate government entities.
Further, I can well imagine that his work as an attorney for the City might conflict with his work for the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, there appears to be some evidence that in order to juggle this work, he paid his assistant at the City Attorney’s office for the work this person did for him for the Sheriff’s Office.
This arrangement seems highly unusual, and I doubt that most private employers would be so accommodating. More telling is that Mr. Wells now says that “he does not plan to fill the vacancy created by his promotion.†Of course, he knows best how much, or how little, work he did for the City. Besides, if he hires outside counsel, it might be an opportunity for him to earn a few extra bucks.
Before negotiations with Mr. Wells are finalized, the City should reconsider the proposal to privatize the office.
Bert Oram