Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Attorney Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds rewrite of attorney-access policy after attorneys warn about reporting burden
Summary
The Policy Committee considered a proposed amendment to Policy 26-10 that would require district attorneys to inform all board members of legal questions and the attorneys' responses within 24 hours or before the next meeting.
The Policy Committee considered a proposed amendment to Policy 26-10 that would require district attorneys to inform all board members of any legal questions asked by an individual member and provide the attorneys' responses within 24 hours or before the next board or committee meeting.
The proposal was intended to ensure transparency so no board member is "blindsided" by legal advice given to an individual member. Committee members and counsel debated whether the requirement was feasible and how it would affect attorney-client communications and legal billing.
One court-appointed district counsel warned that a strict 24-hour reporting requirement would create an administrative burden and substantially increase billable hours. The attorney said the current practice relies on trust and triage: quick off-the-cuff questions often do not rise to the level that warrants formal reporting. "If we're required to bring everything to you guys...I'd have to drop off everything and focus solely on reporting guidelines with you all," the speaker said, explaining that constant reporting would multiply fees and slow legal service.
Several committee members said they supported board members' direct access to counsel but suggested clarifying language that requires attorneys to notify the chair or report "pertinent or extremely important" questions rather than every text or quick call. Board members discussed funneling requests through the chair or committee chairs to keep the full board informed without compelling counsel to prepare frequent written reports.
The committee voted to hold Policy 26-10 in committee and asked the attorneys to draft alternative language that preserves transparency about substantive legal matters while limiting administrative and billing burdens. The motion to hold passed on a voice vote.
Staff and counsel will return with proposed language aimed at balancing board transparency with the efficient operation of the attorney-client relationship.
