City government
     
    Wagnon throws in the towel
    Councilman: 'The votes aren't there'
    for reimbursing misconduct legal bills
     
    By GEOFF DAVIDIAN
    Putnam Pit editor
        COOKEVILLE, Tenn. (Feb. 19, 1997) -- City Councilman Don Wagnon today told The Putnam Pit that he withdrew his request for city reimbursement of his $10,000 legal bill incurred successfully fighting a felony official misconduct charge because he couldn't win.
        "The votes were not there," Wagnon said. "I'm just beating a dead horse."
        Wagnon said he spoke this week with City Manager Jim Shipley about how the rest of the council felt about reimbursing the money, and Wagnon said Shipley told him there were two members for and two against paying it.
        Shipley had no comment today.
        Wagnon said he would not identify who was for or against his bid to recoup the money.  "I [would] just as soon not raise names," he said.  "But it was split, two for and two against."
        Every phone call received by one member of the council was opposed to reimbursement. "Right now, I'd have to say I oppose it," the council member said.
        Wagnon, who voted with the unanimous council Jan. 16 in favor of asking the state attorney general for an opinion on the legality of a reimbursement, said he would not have voted to break the tie. Nor could he have because of the obvious conflict of interest.
        Shipley's spokesperson, Gail Fowler, said Shipley would issue a press release Friday (Feb. 21) on Wagnon's withdrawal.
        In January, Shipley said he thought taxpayers should pay the politician's legal bills.
        Shipley told The Pit that discussions with Wagnon about the reimbursement began several months earlier.
        "He asked me if we could look into it, as you might imagine," said Shipley. Shipley said he asked Wagnon to obtain from his lawyer, Don Dickerson, "a written defense of the case." The item was then placed on the agenda for the Jan. 16 council meeting. Shipley stated that while he put Wagnon's request before the council, "I did not make a recommendation." But asked whether he thought Wagnon was entitled to the money, Shipley said, "Yes, I do."
        Meanwhile, Councilwoman Bettye Vaden moved the council seek the advice of the state attorney general before the council voted on the reimbursement issue.  No answer to that request has been received, according to city officials.
        In his letter dated Dec. 24, 1996, Dickerson wrote:
     
    "To Whom It May Concern:"
        "Mr. Don Wagnon has requested I outline to the Cookeville City Council the basis of his defense against the outrageous indictment brought against him by District Attorney General Bill Gibson. As you all know, Bill Gibson initiated an investigation of certain members of the Cookeville City Council pertaining to Sunshine Law violations. From my view of the record, he used four T.B.I. agents of a period of approximately four months to investigate certain members of the Cookeville City Council pertaining to everything they had done since they were in office.
        "It appears the investigation was a waste of time since the only criminal charge Gibson presented to the Grand Jury was against Don Wagnon for allegedly using his elected position to wrongfully influence former Cookeville City Police Officer Tim Lane to reduce a $50 ‘failure to yield right of way citation' to a warning. This citation was issued to 80-year-old Henry Thrasher.
        "First and foremost, it was and still is my opinion that Don Wagnon was absolutely innocent of this specious charge. Don Wagnon met with Tim Lane in his front yard on only one occasion approximately one month after the ticket was issued to Henry Thrasher, who filed a complaint against Tim Lane with the Cookeville City Police Department the day after he was cited. Henry Thrasher complained that Lane was physically abusive toward him. Don Wagnon inquired about the Thrasher matter with Tim Lane only because he was concerned about another lawsuit against the City based on abusive conduct by a police officer against a citizen. Don Wagnon had no personal interest and he never talked to Henry Thrasher at all about the ticket. On this one meeting with Tim Lane, Tim Lane assured him that he had no hard feelings against Mr. Thrasher, and would go and see him and work it out. Tim Lane never did this. Tim Lane instead tried to cast Don Wagnon in an unfavorable light in order to transfer the heat off himself.
         "The defense maintained to the jury was that Don Wagnon was in fact innocent and was in fact only acting in the interest of the City of Cookeville. The jury unanimously acquitted Don Wagnon."
     
        In a Dec. 31, 1996, letter, City Attorney T. Michael O'Mara wrote in a letter to Shipley that after reviewing material on the matter he decided the council would be acting within its authority to give tax money to Wagnon to pay off his lawyer because, in O'Mara's opinion, Wagnon was acting "within his authority under Section 2.05 of the Cookeville City Charter when he undertook the investigation into Mr. Tim Lane's conduct."
        "While the criminal action against Councilman Wagnon is not expressly an action where the legal expenses were incurred in the performance of Councilman Wagnon's official duties, it is clear that the allegations against the councilman rose out of the councilman's performance of his official acts."
        It is not clear whether Don Wagnon meeting "with Tim Lane in his front yard on only one occasion approximately one month after the ticket was issued to Henry Thrasher," as Dickerson wrote, constitutes an "investigation," as O'Mara states in his letter.
        This much we do know: When The Putnam Pit asked for documents regarding the reimbursement issue, the city manager's office provided Dickerson's and O'Mara's letters.
        The original story out of Shipley's office was that Wagnon came to visit Shipley in December and had Dickerson's letter with him. Shipley read the letter then immediately called O'Mara to ask what authority the city council had to reimburse Wagnon. A week later, O'Mara wrote back to say it would be within the council's authority.
         However, a Pit search of public records showed O'Mara included the Wagnon legal fees issue in his Dec. 6, 1996, $5,058.75 bill for professional services.
        Thus, the letters from O'Mara and Dickerson were generated after the discussions and research were carried out. Furthermore, Shipley said that should the city decide to pay Wagnon's legal fees, he did not think it necessary to request an itemized statement of actual costs. Nor was it clear whether the city would look into whether Wagnon had already paid Dickerson. Generally, lawyers keep two sets of books -- one to show the court when it comes time to ask for legal fees, the other based on what was agreed upon between the lawyer and client in case the client has to pay.
        If Wagnon has actually paid $10,000 to Dickerson, then it would be reimbursement. However, if the city assumes responsibility for reimbursement of the fees, it would be up to the city to inspect the charges and determine they were warranted, and at the same per-hour amount that Wagnon would have paid had the city not taken up his cause.
        There are also some questions about the bill that need to be answered. For example, Dickerson charged Wagnon, if the bill is legitimate, $250 for the video deposition of Thrasher. However, a deposition is part of a civil case, not criminal. Also, if the city is going to pick up the tab, would Wagnon's file, now with Dickerson, have become a public record?