The controversy over dental benefits for Fred Larson, retired City Court judge and current Chautauqua County legislator, is unfortunate on many levels.

Larson has been a dedicated public servant over the years, including his tie-breaking (and party line crossing) vote to sell the Chautauqua County Home. We have no doubt that his approach has rankled some in a political arena that is increasingly dominated locally by the Republican Party. And, we can understand Larson being upset that the legal work is being handled by Assemblyman Andy Goodell given the political disagreements between the two over the years.

But this is a controversy that didn’t need to happen, or that at least could have been headed off, more than two years ago with a simple vote by the City Council. The result likely would have been the same, but the decision would have been made quickly and by the legislative body that is supposed to control the city’s pursestrings rather than by three lawyers behind closed doors. At least then the decision would have been made publicly, with a public paper trail. Instead, money was spent literally by three men in a room – former Mayor Eddie Sundquist, himself a lawyer recently admitted to practice in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Larson and Elliot Raimondo, the city’s corporation counsel who now is also corporation counsel for the city of Dunkirk.

Judging from the reaction of City Council members during Monday’s meeting, they take issue as much with the fact the decision to spend money – even a small amount of money – was made by former Mayor Eddie Sundquist and not by the council. No one publicly took issue with Larson’s service as a judge or his outspoken advocacy as a Democrat. But multiple council members took issue with city money being committed without their approval. We can’t disagree.

Just this week, City Council approval was needed to purchase three radios for a new ambulance at a cost of less than $450. Why would council approval be needed to spend $450 one time and not needed to extend dental benefits costing more money to a non-city employee for several years? Should Jamestown Renaissance Corporation employees receive city-backed retiree benefits? Much like judges, they work in City Hall and their work benefits city residents. How about county mental health workers who work in City Hall but are paid by the county?

It doesn’t make sense. If the agreement indeed violates the state constitution and state General Municipal Law as the city says it does, the agreement should end and benefits received paid back.

City Court judges are state employees, so it would stand to reason those benefits should be paid for by the state. How many lawyers should it take to reach such a simple realization? Apparently at least one more, because these three appear to have come up with a losing argument.