Dixon Platt and Timing
I consider myself to be an outside observer of the whole Dixon Platt implosion, but certain aspects of the case jump out at me. The A-J reports that Platt dropped out of the grievance hearing process because he felt that the mediator had a bias toward the City.
I wonder why he uses the potential bias of the arbitrating attorney now, after two days of testimony, to cancel the public hearing process. Why not point out the possible bias at the beginning of the process, thus saving two days of testimony (and taxpayer dollars too)?
My hunch is that the hearings weren’t going well for Platt, and he needed a dignified “out” to re-group and begin a fresh legal assault.
Thoughts?
Share This
August 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Platt’s attorney asked Fernando Bustos to recuse himself at the beginning of the grievance hearing. Fernando did not. I believe this bias allegation is a red herring because normally the grievance is heard by employees of the city up to the city manager if necessary. Who could be closer to the city? Here’s what the AJ said about that: “Employees can appeal decisions through the management chain up to the city manager. Because City Manager Lee Ann Dumbauld and City Attorney Anita Burgess were witnesses in the hearing, the city appointed outside counsel to represent Lubbock and to mediate the hearing.” I think the use of the word “mediate” is wrong in this context. In AJ coverage Fernando is called the adjudicating attorney at one point and at another point referred to as mediator. I don’t think this proceeding was a mediation. Someone who is a lawyer could chime in on this point. Like you, I think he was losing and that’s why he called it off.