The Titusville City Council on Thursday voted to retain outside counsel to help the city respond to a March 10 subpoena duces tecum in the criminal case State of Florida v. Vicky Conklin, after staff described a large volume of potentially responsive records and a narrow court timeline.

City Manager (name not specified) told the council the city had been served “on 03/10/2025 with 2 subpoena duces tecums without deposition” and that staff had begun gathering records but confronted a heavy workload and questions about redactions and privilege. The city’s assistant city attorney, Chelsea (last name not specified), said an initial machine search of city email tied to three named individuals returned “17,700 plus emails” and that the records custodian estimated about 60 hours to sort the first tranche of those email hits.

“The goal is compliance,” the city manager said. “If you don't comply in the 20 days you're facing contempt of court.” Council members were told the subpoena’s date range runs from Aug. 29 through March 10 and that the party issuing the subpoena declined requests to narrow the scope or extend the deadline.

Council members debated whether to pay outside counsel to appear in criminal court, argue for narrowing the subpoena and help the records custodian with review and redactions, or to rely on in-house attorneys and city staff to produce records. Council member Nelson argued there was no realistic way for staff to finish within 20 days and warned, “I don't think that staff can comply within 20 days, which means we're in contempt court.”

Assistant city attorney Chelsea said the outside firm Roper, Townsend (full firm name in engagement materials) has experience defending public entities and that the firm would supply attorneys familiar with criminal subpoenas and the discovery process. Michael Roper, identified in the meeting materials, was named as a contact at the firm. The engagement letter would authorize the city manager or city attorney to execute the contract.

Some council members and residents pushed back on the expense. Resident Elizabeth Parker said, “The city does not need a criminal attorney. The city has 2 attorneys on staff who are quite competent,” and urged the council to be cautious with taxpayer dollars. Resident Kathleen O'Rourke urged caution about paying outside counsel and suggested limiting production to only what is required by the subpoena.

Council members were also told the city has a budget line for outside legal counsel and that roughly $40,000 remained in that account; the proposed outside rate discussed in the meeting materials was $250 per hour. City staff said the records custodian had already started keyword searches using I.T. tools and that additional non-email files (work files, phone logs and other records) could add substantially to the review workload.

After discussion, a motion to approve the engagement as recommended passed on roll call: Council member Nelson — yes; Vice Mayor Cole — yes; Member Stockel — yes; Member Moscoso — no; Mayor Andrew Connors — abstain (Mayor Connors stated he is a victim in the case and completed the required abstention paperwork). The motion carried and city staff were authorized to execute the engagement letter and move forward with outside counsel assistance.

Council members and staff said the immediate priorities for outside counsel would be to appear before the criminal court to seek scope clarification or additional time, advise on privilege and confidentiality claims, and assist the records custodian in producing responsive material in compliance with the court order. The council did not adopt any new policy or ordinance; the action was limited to approving the engagement of outside counsel for this specific subpoena and related work.

Public commenters used the meeting’s public comment period to criticize city leadership and question whether outside counsel was necessary. Speakers cited the cost to taxpayers, urged full transparency in production, and said the city should avoid “circling the wagons” to shield officials. Several speakers also raised unrelated concerns about a police chief’s contract and a development appeal; council members acknowledged those comments and indicated some of that material would be addressed in future meetings.