Jackson Free Press

In a letter dated June 21, Dale Danks gave the city of Jackson 60 days notice that he is resigning as contractual counsel for the city. The letter was addressed to City Attorney Sarah O'Reilly-Evans.

Danks lists all of the cases for which he has been contracted. He does offer to stay on one case, Sebrena Crawford, et al. vs. City of Jackson, et al. It is worth noting that the JFP first requested the details of Danks' contract, which would include this list of cases, on Jan. 5, 2006. The city has never replied to that public records request.

The most interesting part of the letter is a brief paragraph where Danks explains his reasons for leaving. He is surprisingly candid, even if the language is polite.

I will not enumerate herein the various reasons for my decision to withdraw as outside counsel for the City of Jackson as I believe you are already aware of them. However, the fact that I have served as personal counsel to Mayor Melton, and will continue to do so when requested, has obviously created strained relationships which does not inure to the benefit of the City of Jackson. I place more value on friendships than money and my sole interest has always been to assist Mayor Melton and his Administration.

Now, the man is being polite, and he occassionally lapses into lawyerly language—inure to the benefit?—but he makes little effort to obscure the fact that he is leaving because of a power struggle between himself and the city attorney's office, Sarah O'Reilly-Evans in particular.

Although the idea had already lost all momentum, this means that Danks will not become public records czar for the city of Jackson. What might it mean for the city's settlement with The Clarion-Ledger? Finally, now that Danks no longer works for the city, will he feel freer to pursue other legal matters? Will he return to his old practice of regularly suing the city? Presumably, his client Frank Melton would not approve.

Previous Commentsshow

My take is that the Captain of the good ship Jackson (FM) will no longer listen to the hired pilot (Danks) so the pilot is getting off board before the ship hits the rocks.

JLYerg

Jun 27 2006

Well, looks like we can expect Danks to return to his previous lucrative career of suing the city. Especially if he is released (or releases himself) as Melton's personal attorney.

jeff lucas

Jun 27 2006

Yerg, what i think is he sees some liability coming against melton and dont' want any conflict of interests to keep him from representing his client.

Kingfish

Jun 27 2006

Exactly.

jeff lucas

Jun 27 2006

ejeff and Jimmy, I agree 100%

JLYerg

Jun 27 2006

In the opinions of some, Sarah was mistreated in the first place by Melton contracting with Danks on behalf of the city. Hiring Danks possibly showed Sarah was giving good legal advice that Melton didn't want and never adhered to. It may also show Melton doubts Sarah's ability or qualifications on certain matters as attorney for the City of Jackson or him personally. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah didn't give Melton an ultimatum that either she or Danks had to go. If I were the City of Jackson and Danks took any cases against the city in the near future I would strongly argue conflict of interest. Also, representing the city and Melton simultaneously could have presented a conflict of interest that scared Danks away. He was always on shaky grounds with this.

Ray Carter

Jun 27 2006

Agreed Ray. Of course, neither Melton nor Danks has seemed to take conflicts of interest seriously. Multiple sources inside the city tell the JFP that Danks and Evans were in escalating conflict over his role.

Brian C Johnson

Jun 27 2006

When Danks bails off of the ship, it's time for everyone to take notice. I only hope that Danks does not try and work out of the shotgun. I agree with Ray. Sarah should look twice at the situation. First Melton brought in Danks to "assist" the legal department. Then he brought in Jim Black to "assist" the police department. Hmmmmmmmm

lance

Jun 27 2006

I heard the samt thing Brian. Two type-A personalities will always bump heads.

lance

Jun 27 2006

Lance, if he would put Jim Black in charge AND LET HIM RUN IT I woldn't have a problem with him being chief.

Kingfish

Jun 27 2006

At least when Black was chief of police, he ran his own department. That is exactly what we need. Someone who really IS a police officer with a backbone. I don't believe that Black will be a "yes man".

lance

Jun 27 2006

Maybe there's more money to be made in sueing now?

Ironghost

Jun 27 2006

BTW, there some info on the Sabrena Crawford case here in case you're curious.

ladd

Jun 27 2006

*Lance, if he would put Jim Black in charge AND LET HIM RUN IT I woldn't have a problem with him being chief.* *I don't believe that Black will be a "yes man".* Let's not get carried away just because we have such a sad situation with leadership in the police department that we want to go retro. Black is as incapable of leading a police department in 2006 as perhaps Anderson. You can almost bank on it that Black is not advising Melton against his tactics. Otherwise, why would Melton have him there in the first place. Black's time has come and long gone. There are dozens of people that are more capable and much better qualified inside and outside of Mississppi for the position.

tomac

Jun 27 2006

That's why I love these blogs. Tomac you are absolutely right. I guess that by being starved for leadership one can very easily look to the first person that comes along. Time will be the best judge of character.

lance

Jun 27 2006

Am I missing something here? There's talk of Danks being FM's personal attorney. I thought he only became that when FM became mayor. The Priester's have been FM attorneys the whole time he has been in Jackson. I think Danks sees a sinking ship and he's bailing out with his life jacket on! In terms of Black, I'm with tomac let's not get carried away. Black did not have a "liberal" attitude in reference to promotions and hiring practices with blacks during his administration.

maad

Jun 27 2006

I never liked the fact that Danks was FM's lawyer and counsel for the city. I can't believe it was ever allowed in the first place! And I don't think anyone was exactly happy about having a long-time mayor behind the scenes--how could he not have had his own agenda? I would like to agree with the opinion that Dale is "jumping ship", but I think its gotta be way, way more complicated than that. And way more shady. I've got a feeling that this administration is going to self-destruct very quickly. And that makes me sad, because I honestly wish everything wasn't turning out this way. I want the best for this city, and I hate to see it in crisis...but it seems like the tide has begun to turn for Frank and his gang.

Belhaver

Jun 27 2006

Melton had a hidden agenda from the begining. I believe that he never intended to keep the promises that he made when he was elected. IMO this is just as bad as a partial judge, crooked cop, arsonist firefighter, etc. These are people that are in a trusted position to keep us safe and help us grow. Melton has shattered any chance of going down in history as a decent mayor. He has not accountable to anyone. He runs HIS program daily and probably laughs about it later. I believe that he has grossly misled and misused the trust of the public. I hate to see anyone fail, but in my heart I don't believe that Melton even tried to make a positive difference. If he has any shred of compassion or decency to do the right thing, then he would walk away and let someone in there that can revive this city. He is no longer trusted, and when you lose the public's trust, you cannot suceed.

lance

Jun 27 2006

Hey Donna! Ya'll got quoted on WLBT this morning! JFP reporting that Danks quits, the whole thing. It was after the birthday announcements. I have it recorded, therefore.

Ironghost

Jun 28 2006

Ironghost, just curious -- why would you record the morning news?! ;-)

cosmobarfart

Jun 28 2006

I think that we are missing something and by doing this, it only prolongs the inevitable: Melton is the Elephant under the green on the pool table: Melton is the Bull in the China cabinet: Melton is the Jack A$$ that couldn't become a Race Horse: Melton is the square peg that won't fit the round hole: Melton is the sow's ear that some are still trying to make that silk purse out of. Lastly, Melton is that WOLF in wolf's clothing. Again I say, it is time to call the WOLF ugly and accept the fact that the voters bought a pig-in-a-poke. Danks has seen the handwriting on the wall and he is jumping ship to avoid becoming "LUNCH" for the Great White Sharks!"

justjess

Jun 28 2006

Clarion Ledger is now reporting Danks is resigning. How is it that we know before they know?

Ray Carter

Jun 28 2006

Because they suck, Ray. ;) We broke the story, because even City Council didn't know about it until they saw our Web site. But would The Clarion-Ledger ever credit the Jackson Free Press for breaking a story? No, not Goliath.

Brian C Johnson

Jun 28 2006

WLBT quoted us? How cool. TV is definitely getting better about giving credit where it's due. The Ledge, on the other hand ...

ladd

Jun 28 2006

Our Danks scoop is all over the media tonight. WAPT "has obtained" a copy of the memo tonight, it seems. ;-) On WAPT right now, Danks is admitting that "somewhere down the line, there may be a conflict" ... exactly what we've been saying all along. Too bad The Clarion-Ledger wouldn't quote me saying this last week.

ladd

Jun 28 2006

Here's the WLBT report, classily giving credit where it's due for this story, as we do to other media when we report what they break. But Danks' assertion that the letter was "accidentally" leaked is rather precious—and inaccurate. It was purposefully given to the Jackson Free Press—by whom, I cannot say. But I assure our reading audience that, as the editor, I am fully aware of who that confidential source is. Danks says he will still serve as personal counsel for Mayor Melton. He says his letter of resignation was accidentally leaked to the public, when it was published by the Jackson Free Press.

ladd

Jun 28 2006

What's remarkable to me is that there are people out there making up that this letter was "accidentally leaked" when that's not true. No one has asked us if that's true, and we're the one who "obtained" it. Weird.

ladd

Jun 28 2006