City of Austin
Sokolow To Be Terminated?
Ready for the Firing Squad
Sokolow Increasingly Viewed
as a Problem to be Solved
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2010
The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero once wrote, “The good of the people is the greatest law,” and that seems to be a guiding principle in how the Georgetown City Council deals with the fate of its chief legal counsel, City Attorney Mark Sokolow.
None of the four council members interviewed would speak on the record about how they intend to vote in tonight’s council meeting, and no one but the council members can decide whether Sokolow keeps or loses a job that pays $130,000 a year.
Mayor George Garver cannot vote except to break a tie and says his focus for action this week has been to establish an orderly and discreet process for considering whether Sokolow goes or stays, and under what conditions.
Nevertheless there is a possibility that Sokolow will be terminated just over 10 months after he started work last October 19 with the responsibility to establish a new in-house legal staff.
Georgetown City Attorney Violates Charter
Waives Requirement for Assistant
City Attorney to Have Municipal Experience
Is Hiring Council Member Pat
Berryman’s Friend That Important?
Investigative Report by Ken Martin
When it comes to hiring attorneys, the City of Georgetown just can’t seem to get it right.
First it violated the Texas Open Meetings Act in hiring City Attorney Mark Sokolow and failed to legally execute his contract.
Sokolow himself violated the Georgetown City Charter by hiring Assistant City Attorney Bridget Chapman without the City Council’s approval.
Section 5.06 of the Georgetown City Charter states that both the city attorney and assistant city attorney serve at the will of the council. The charter authorizes the city attorney to appoint his assistant but requires the City Council’s approval.
Chapman was hired effective April 19, 2010, at an annual salary of $76,907, according to the Personnel Action Form obtained by The Austin Bulldog through an open records request filed under the Texas Public Information Act.
City Attorney Sokolow did not respond to two messages left with his office on Friday, requesting an interview about this matter.
Mark Sokolow’s Competence in Question
The municipal legal career of Mark Sokolow has seen its ups and downs:
Up: In 1991, Sokolow was hired by the City of League City, Texas.
Down: In February 1996 he was fired as city attorney of League City; he returned the favor by suing the city.
Up: Despite getting canned by League City, he was hired the very next month as city attorney for the City of Port Arthur; a council member in Port Arthur when Sokolow was hired said the council wasn’t aware of what had happened in League City.
Down: Sokolow's lawsuit against League City was so flimsy it was dismissed without getting a trial.
Up: When Sokolow resigned last October to take the job of Georgetown’s city attorney, the Port Arthur city council handed him a hefty bonus.
Up: Sokolow was hired by the City of Georgetown and started work last October 19 for $125,000 a year.
Down: He is working for the City of Georgetown under a contract that was never legally executed.
Down: The Austin Bulldog reported on May 4 how Sokolow facilitated the illegal payment of $13,600 for Georgetown Council Member Pat Berryman last December.
Down: He screwed up a deal to buy property for city facilities, hacked off the school district and embarrassed the city he represents.
Up: After six months on the job the city council evaluated his performance and gave him a $5,000 raise.
Down: He has alienated numerous colleagues. Examples abound, as detailed below.
Down: City staff is rooting for his ouster, though they fear being fired if they speak up.
The defense rests: Sokolow declined to be interviewed for this story.
Georgetown City Attorney Hired In Secret
Investigative Report by Ken Martin
The City of Georgetown has legal problems.
On September 8, 2009, the Georgetown City Council made the decision to hire a new, in-house city attorney, Mark Sokolow, in a closed-door executive session. That appears to be a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Attorney Jim Hemphill of the Austin law firm Graves Dougherty Hearon and Moody, serving as a volunteer attorney on behalf of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, described the nature of such a violation. “While the Open Meetings Act allows deliberation of personnel matters to be held in executive session, it does not have any provision authorizing hiring decisions to be made in executive session,” Hemphill said.
Hemphill pointed to Open Records Decision No. 605, issued by then Texas Attorney General Dan Morales, that states:
Patricia “Trish” Carls of the Austin law firm Carls, McDonald and Dalrymple had served as Georgetown’s city attorney for years. She was present and acted in that capacity at the September 8 council meeting. (It is common practice for small cities to contract with outside law firms for legal services rather than hire the staff necessary to provide such services.)The wording of the agenda item for the executive session is unclear. It could be construed by the public to mean that a discussion of Carls would be undertaken.
What actually occurred, however, was revealed in the minutes of the September 8 council meeting, which under “Action from Executive Session,” reads as follows:
“Motion by (Council Member Pat) Berryman, second by (Council Member Gabe) Sansing that the Human Resources (sic) have the authority to continue his discussions with the