We fail to see the legal argument that the attorney for Mayor Cecil Williamson seems ready to make against claims that she illegally obtained insurance benefits from the City of Demopolis despite being told that she could not do so.

Birmingham attorney Bill Clark told Circuit Judge Eddie Hardaway on Monday, &8220;The issue I am raising is whether or not the indictment is based on the unanimous recommendation of the council.&8221;

For those who are wondering what to read from between the lines, it is probably this: Clark will argue that if the board met as a quorum with District Attorney Greg Griggers to ask for the indictments, then they were in violation of the Alabama Open Meetings Act and therefore the indictments should be dismissed because Griggers would not have otherwise sought them.

The council failed to properly call and post the meeting. In essence &8212; and actuality &8212; they met in secret to conduct city business. That&8217;s wrong.

But you know what? It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the mayor is guilty of the charges she faces. Furthermore, the district attorney can &8212; and probably will &8212; argue that had he received the evidence from just one councilman, he would have acted in the same manner. If this is an argument about evidentiary discovery, it appears to our &8212; admittedly non-legal &8212; minds to be a weak one.

The people of the City of Demopolis will be best served if this case is considered and decided on the merits of the evidence. Either the mayor is guilty of stealing these benefits or she is not.