Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Session Legal Consultation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Cruz County supervisors enter closed session to consult on former treasurer embezzlement matter
Summary
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 11, 2025, to go into an executive session to receive legal advice and consider its position in an embezzlement matter involving former treasurer Elizabeth Garford. County counsel said parts of the case remain confidential and require private consultation.
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 11, 2025, to convene an executive session to consult with legal counsel about an embezzlement matter involving former treasurer Elizabeth Garford.
Board Chair opened the county’s special meeting and called for a motion to approve the agenda, which the board adopted by voice vote. The board then moved to item C: an executive session described in the meeting as being held “pursuant to R. S. 38 dash 4 3 1.0383 and 4” to discuss and consult for legal advice regarding the former treasurer’s embezzlement matter and to consider the public body’s position and provide direction on litigation.
Supervisor Davis asked whether the matter could be handled in public, saying much information has already been published and asking, “Is there any way that it we can move that to the public or we have to have it in a securitization?”
County counsel (identified in the meeting as Mr. May) responded that open-meeting laws generally favor public deliberation but include exceptions for privileged attorney–client consultations. He told the board that while “there’s a lot of information that has been made public, there’s also some information that has not,” and that confidential exchanges with counsel are necessary so the board can make informed decisions and provide direction “as provided under the statutes.”
After the exchange the board moved, seconded and voted to enter executive session. The meeting record shows later motions to adjourn the executive session and to adjourn the special meeting; both carried on voice votes. The board did not disclose further public details about the substance of the embezzlement matter during the meeting.
County staff indicated, as part of the public meeting record, that “as soon as the information can be made public, our county manager and Shannon do a very good job of, devoting that information.” The board provided no additional timeline for public disclosure.
The session lasted only long enough to complete the procedural votes recorded on the special-meeting agenda; no public deliberations of the substance of the embezzlement matter were held on the record.
