THE FACTS ABOUT THE CONTRACT

Just finish reading Rich Macke's article pertaining to why it was wrong for council to cancel Carl Parker's contract. It's obvious he wrote what Carl Parker told him because it's clear he has no knowledge of the contract and what it states. First he repeats what Carl Parker said to the TV news reporter, " it personal." He goes on to list what he calls 8 facts why the contract should not have been terminated. Let's address these 8 facts.

Fact 1. Carl Parker was under contract by the city . His retainer fee to handle issues beyond the experience of what the city attorney could handle was $6,000.00. THE REAL FACT 1. That is not stated nowhere within Parker's contract, so how is this a fact.

Fact 2. Carl Parker was working on a number of different cases for the city. Cases that need a specific understanding and experience that will help minimize potential risk of losing a case and better chance of winning these cases. THE REAL FACT 2. If Carl Parker is this good and needed for this purpose, WHY did the city hire an attorney we're paying $275/hr, plus her asst. $125/hr and incidentals for that purpose. Parker have done other cases for the city and was paid a fee, including the retainer fee which was separate. Parker only was given these cases because they knew his contract would be considered for termination, which have been the past practice. The city attorney can assign the case to another attorney. If, Parker would do these cases for his retainer fee it would certainly have been a benefit to have him do all the cases, since these cases normally start out at $20,000 and the was NO need the hire the HIGH DOLLAR FIRM.

Fact 3. Carl Parker's contract was up in April of 2018.That's only nine months from now. THE REAL FACT 3. The contract is over in May of 2018. Why continue the contract , if we determine there's no need to continue it. OH, that's right, It's only TAX-PAYERS dollars. Well, it just so happens some of us care.

Fact 4. Removal of Carl Parker when he still had this many cases he was working on for city will force the city to hire another attorney to handle these cases. ( Macke then goes on to play the numbers game) I'll just skip the numbers game and go to the FACT. THE REAL FACT 4. As I stated previously, the only reason he is involved with these cases was to TRY and justify his contract. Parker has also sat in on one of the cases recently, however the case was defended by the HIGH dollar lawyer. If, Parker would try those cases for just the retainer fee, why hasn't he done it in the past?. This has been the pattern, give him something to do, when we feel his contract will be discussed. Carl Parker's Contract states in section 2e, " The vendor will be required to provide the city with monthly reporting detailing the services rendered." Carl parker has failed to do this, which HE SHOULD KNOW IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT. The contract should have been TERMINATED for that reason alone. It's hard to do a detailed invoice, if you have NOTHING or LITTLE to REPORT.

Fact 5. Some wonder why the city attorney cannot handle these cases. Hypothetically, she probably could with additional experience and understanding in specific areas. But, just because an individual has the title "attorney" does not mean he or she has expertise in all legal areas. ( for the sake of time , I'll just leave out the rest of this because it's not pertinent to the topic but rather condescending toward the City Attorney) THE REAL FACT 5. Trying to demean and belittle the City Attorney is NOT justification for this City NEEDING Carl Parker's Law firm to get $72,000 a year for what it does. This FACT by Macke is a demonstration of how desperate he is to TRY to make Parker indispensable. SMH

Fact 6. Carl Parker was also used as a lobbyist for the City, which is invaluable. His experience, connections, and respect by those he knows at that level cannot be touched by anyone locally. Once again, it sounds pretty, but let's think about it. THE REAL FACT 6. Lobbyist is a person or persons one hires to meet and talk to legislators to SUPPORT or OPPOSE an issue that will have a direct impact on whoever paid for the hiring.( in laymen terms) Since 2011, I have not known of any occasion when the City Council has dispatched Carl Parker to lobby for a specific cause for the city. Mr. Macke should tell the citizens how many days Mr. Parker spends in Austin when they are in session. ( they are in session EVERY OTHER YEAR, but the salary is the same EVERY YEAR) Asked Mr. Macke to state the number of CURRENT legislators that even knows who Carl Parker is. ( when was the last year he served?) Macke constantly mentions all the great things Parker does or is doing, but never specific. Easy to talk general.

Fact 7. Rep. Joe Deshotel's name has been brought up as an individual who could handle being our lobbyist. THE REAL FACT 7. The statement was " Rep. Deshotel is a senior representative and has done a great job of keeping the city informed of ANY legislation that is being considered and how it would impact on our city. He has also gone to fight for changes to the state law for the benefit of Port Arthur and got the change approved. ( LSCPA Dorms) He TRULY has experience, connection, and respect . He is present and participating in the legislative session. He's has demonstrated his ability to participate in the session and LOOKOUT for OUR best interest. Parker is NO COMPARISION.

Fact 8. The city council jumped the gun in terminating this contract due to lack of business sense on council. And due to this citizens of Port Arthur will be the ones affected. THE REAL FACT 8. Macke is the ONLY person that has continued to talk about the termination of Parker's contract. He's the ONLY one who have not moved on. He's the ONLY one who has persistently insisted council made a mistake. Macke has not mentioned how many times CITIZENS have come before council and requested council to terminate Parker's contract. Who money is it? Macke has NO knowledge of our form of government, he ONLY print what he is told.

What makes Macke think the council is wrong? The Majority of council and citizens feels it's the RIGHT the decision. It's obvious Mr. Macke has not moved on. Wonder WHY? Think about it.

Mr. Macke has once again proven he is only interested in supporting his special interest group and disrespecting our elected officials and citizens who express their opinion that doesn't coincide with his. It's time citizens realize, Mr. Macke does not know what it means to COME TOGETHER for the betterment of OUR CITY. His service to our community should no longer be needed because they are bias and disrespectful of those who disagrees with his agenda. Just to think, ONLY a citizen in OUR city for almost five years and he knows what is best for us. SMH