Yes, I saw the website. No, I didn’t have anything to do with it. And, in fact, I wasn’t even going to write about it, despite the urgings of folks to do so.
But the story in this morning’s Pilot about the site being taken down requires comment.
Norfolk City Attorney Bernard Pishko, who represented Burfoot, said he found the site to be “slander on the whole community.”
Setting aside for a moment that Pishko appears to not know the difference between slander and libel, what in the heck is the City Attorney doing representing Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot in what was clearly a politically-motivated situation? The role of the City Attorney is clearly defined in Section 53 of the Norfolk Charter (emphasis mine):
He shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the city, and for all officers and departments thereof in matters relating to their official duties.
Since when did getting re-elected relate to “official duties?”
Burfoot had every right to pursue the removal of this site, just as Pat Edmonson did last year. But when he went to Pishko to represent him, Pishko should have told him to hire a private attorney. The use of taxpayer dollars for political purposes needs to stop.
UPDATE: I’ve obtained a copy of Judge Poston’s order, available here in pdf format.
UPDATE2: I’m not ignoring the 1st Amendment issues that this case represents; rather, I think that Eileen has that covered here.
Speaking professionally, and as a lawyer specializing in the First Amendment, with a goodly number of TROs under my belt, this stinks to high Heaven. Heads should roll on this one.
Posted by James Young | Thursday, April 22, 2010, 12:13 pmThe City Attorney’s involvement is what bothers me most about this story, although there is so much wrong with the way Burfoot went about well, his public life from becoming a councilman until now. If his constituents don’t dump him now, I question their sanity.
Time to get rid of him, Pishko and Regina Williams. Past time.
Posted by Archie R. Whitehill | Thursday, April 22, 2010, 2:49 pmVivian, thanks for getting and posting the order.
I guess there doesn’t have to be a reason for the judge’s decision, except Burfoot couldn’t reach the owners of the website.
No proof of libel, no proof of lies, no proof of anything.
Posted by Doug | Thursday, April 22, 2010, 2:56 pmThanks for the copy of the ruling, but does anyone have a copy of the complaint?
That should make interesting reading.
Posted by Don Tabor | Thursday, April 22, 2010, 4:00 pmThat the city attorney did not know to stay away from this private fight is another example of why we need some fresh air in city government. Hopefully May 4 will see some new thinkers who will help bring positive change to the City Council.
Posted by Ron Wilson | Friday, April 23, 2010, 8:07 am…and we sun people are all up in arms about the Governer’s failure to mention slavery in the “resolution.” MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLACK AND WHITE; IT’S ABOUT ABOUT GREEN or GREED!!!
Posted by CD | Friday, April 23, 2010, 9:28 pm