Document: Résumé of City Attorney Stuart Oberman
Just in case people want to know the interim attorney's background, we are sharing his résumé with the public.
Staurt Oberman is Snellville's interim city attorney. He was appointed in November by Mayor Kelly Kautz.
Despite serving in the capacity of city attorney, city officials have not yet agreed to pay him. He is owed $14,015, including more than $10,000 for adminsitrative services.
We've tracked down his résumé, just in case you want to see what it says.
See the attached PDF document.
Sharon Hetherington
2:45 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Your bias is showing, again. "City officials have not yet agreed to pay him" the amount he has billed. Whether the amount of the invoice and the amount "he is owed" equal remains to be seen.
"I have the right to ask questions," Councilman Dave Emanuel said, adding that he has problems with the invoices from Oberman as well as the attorney's lack of experience working for government. (Gwinnett Daily Post)
Thank you for publishing Oberman's resume! This is a great idea! Now we can all see that Mr. Oberman has a broad interest in law which has never before extended to municipal legal services, municipal law or municipal government issues. He is charging us based on a fee schedule of an experienced city attorney, while he is an apprentice. He is, however, listed in the Directory of Dental Speakers.
Joy L. Woodson
9:01 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Thank you for your comment, but I am not bias. We are only concerned with the city doing what it's supposed to, being fair and being transparent. Not paying someone who was appointed long ago is, at least, something that should be questioned in the interest of public knowledge and public trust.
Sharon Hetherington
8:27 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
We are concerned that it is unfair to the taxpayers to be saddled with an unseen invoice from an unqualified, inexperienced attorney. We are concerned that the bill for $14,000 has been rendered for an appointee of 90 days service. That is 'something that should be questioned by a reporter interested in public knowledge and public trust'. (I'm sure you meant to say 'biased'.)