Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Appointment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lawrence City Council approves William J. Maloney as second assistant city attorney after debate over hiring process

Lawrence City Council · July 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lawrence City Council voted to appoint William J. Maloney to a one-year term as second assistant city attorney on July 15, 2025, after a presentation by the city attorney and questions from councilors about transparency in the hiring process.

Council President Rodriguez presided over a special Lawrence City Council meeting on July 15, 2025, that approved the appointment of William J. Maloney as the city’s second assistant city attorney.

City Attorney Tim Hooten introduced Maloney as a candidate for the second-assistant role and said Maloney’s municipal experience and familiarity with city operations made him a strong fit for a position the office treats as largely instructional rather than heavy litigation. “He comes in clean,” Hooten said when asked about past matters involving Maloney and the city.

The council discussed the need for the additional attorney to reduce outside-counsel costs and to handle routine litigation, small claims, grievances and other day-to-day legal work. Hooten told the council the position is designed as a teaching role for candidates without extensive municipal litigation experience.

Several councilors pressed for more transparency about the hiring process for city attorney positions. One councilor read portions of an email received that alleged a candidate for the first-assistant city attorney vacancy had experienced a poorly run interview and stated “the statement of not having qualified candidates is untrue,” which the councilor said raised concerns about whether the process was fair.

Hooten responded that he would follow up about the specific email and emphasized that Maloney had been considered for the second position and was not presented for the first-assistant role. Maloney told the council he applied on his own and said he would not function as city clerk if appointed. “I was not directed to make an application,” he said.

Councilors also discussed Maloney’s resume, which shows prior municipal service including time as an assistant city attorney from 1998 to 2004 and later service as city clerk. Some councilors noted the candidate had limited private-practice legal work since 2004 but said that municipal experience and institutional knowledge are valuable for the duties of the second-assistant role.

The council voted on the personnel committee’s favorable recommendation to appoint Maloney to a one-year contract. The clerk recorded the roll-call vote; councilors present voted in favor and the motion carried. Following the vote, Maloney thanked the council.

The appointment is for a one-year term, after which the council and the office will reassess whether the arrangement has met the city’s needs. The council did not take further action on the procedural concerns raised during the meeting; the city attorney said he would discuss those concerns offline and provide updates as appropriate.