Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Defense Fees Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers vote on resolution to pay legal fees for supervisor; decision pushed three months
Summary
Charles City County supervisors deferred action on a resolution that would authorize the county to pay legal costs to defend a board member facing a removal petition, amid sustained public opposition and questions about statute applicability and potential cost caps.
The Charles City County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday deferred a resolution that would authorize the county to pay legal costs to defend a board member in a removal proceeding, voting to postpone action for three months or until the case is dismissed.
The move followed more than an hour of public comment criticizing the proposed use of county funds to cover a supervisor's legal bills and an explanation from the county attorney about the legal framework the board relied on in drafting the resolution.
The resolution, drafted under Virginia Code §15.2-1520, would allow the board to pay costs for a public official sued in connection with official duties. County Attorney Bosch told the board that the statute “is designed not just for board members but for any public official that is sued in some sort of sense related to their official capacity,” and that the statute allows — but does not require — the board to pay those costs. Bosch also said the county’s insurer is reviewing coverage and that about half of the fees may be recoverable through insurance.
Public speakers urged delay or rejection. Linda Cook repeatedly told the board the resolution omitted statutory context and cited a separate statute, code section 24.2-238, that she said governs petitions for removal and could affect who is liable for fees. Several residents, including Robert Tyler, Bill Hopke and others, argued the board should not use taxpayer dollars to pay a sitting supervisor’s defense and urged the supervisor to step down instead.
After legal staff described options — approve the resolution as written, approve it with a cap, or defer — the board voted to defer. The motion to defer was approved with Supervisors Patterson and Hill voting yes and Chairman Atkins recorded as abstaining. The board set a three-month deferral period or earlier if the case is dismissed.
The county attorney recommended the board could revisit the matter once the special prosecutors complete their review or after the county has clearer information on insurance coverage and potential total costs. The board did not set a specific spending cap in the resolution as drafted.
Board members and several public commenters said they want clearer cost estimates and legal advice before taking final action. Multiple speakers asked that the judge, if the case proceeds, make any award of fees rather than the board preemptively obligating county funds.
The deferral leaves the matter open pending the special prosecutors’ decision and further review of insurance coverage; the board’s next meeting schedule includes a timeline for reexamining the resolution.
