Ulster County’s Laws, Rules and Government Services Committee voted 5-3 on Aug. 14 to appropriate $50,000 from the contingency fund to retain outside civil‑rights counsel to represent the county clerk in pending litigation.

The money was allocated by passage of Resolution 3-75, which the committee described as funding to “hire a defense attorney with civil rights experience” for the county clerk’s office. Committee members debated whether the County Attorney’s Office should handle the case or whether specialized outside counsel was necessary.

The committee heard an explanation from County Clerk Brock, who described the underlying legal issue and why he believed county resources were constrained. “The shield law was very specific. It said that no government employee shall comply with any out‑of‑state litigation, civil or criminal, regarding a health care service rendered in New York state that is legal,” Brock said, adding that he believed that provision limited his ability to file certain documents using government resources.

The County Attorney’s Office described the matter as an Article 78 proceeding under the CPLR, a common mechanism to challenge government actions in New York. Counsel said the paperwork and procedural posture looked like a standard Article 78 case and emphasized that local practice and court rules can shape litigation strategy.

Committee members raised several procedural and policy questions before the vote. Lawmakers pressed staff about the selection and procurement process for outside counsel; Comptroller Gallagher described a prior instance in which her office identified outside counsel and then worked with the County Attorney’s Office to negotiate terms, and she said subsequent budgets included a line for outside counsel. One legislator asked how the $50,000 figure was calculated; a staff member said it was based on assumed hourly rates and an estimated number of hours but that exact numbers were not provided.

There was also debate about whether to enter executive session to discuss active litigation. The committee voted to go into executive session to discuss the active litigation against a county officer; membership invited to remain included legislators, legislative staff, the clerk and counsel, and selected county staff. After returning to public session, members characterized the executive session differently: one member said the line of questioning during executive session left them “very concerned,” while another said the committee needed to know details of the lawsuit before approving funds.

The resolution passed with a 5-3 vote. Committee members emphasized that Clerk Brock is entitled to representation; the core disagreement was whether to use in‑house counsel or retain specialized outside counsel. The County Attorney’s Office indicated the office could file a notice of appearance and that, if the legislature preferred, the county could later retain outside counsel through whatever contracting process is adopted for professional services.

The committee did not specify a return date for the court filing during the public discussion. Staff advised that the County Attorney’s Office believed the matter should be addressed within the month to meet unspecified deadlines. The procurement pathway for selecting outside counsel — whether a sole‑source selection of specialized counsel or a request for proposals — was discussed but not finalized by the committee.

Next steps: the funds were appropriated and set aside pending contracting and any further decisions about who will file and manage the county’s defense in the litigation.