Committee holds bill that would let county career service councils award attorney fees

At a meeting of the House Political Subdivisions Committee, members voted unanimously to hold House Bill 236, which would add authority for county career service councils to "may award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing county employee." Representative Peterson presented the bill and asked the committee to consider the change in the career-council remedy list.

The bill would add attorney fees to the four existing remedies the statute currently allows the county career service council to grant: modify discipline, restore an employee to a prior role, award back pay and clear personnel records. "May award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing county employee," Representative Peterson said during his presentation.

Committee members pressed on several points before voting to hold the bill. Representative Miller asked, "What is the definition of reasonable?" and members noted the draft does not define the term. Representative Ward reviewed the statutory language describing council membership, reading that "the members of the career council shall be persons in sympathy with the application of merit principles to public employment," and observed that panels are typically composed of human-resources professionals. Committee members said that raised questions about whether council members routinely decide questions about the reasonableness of legal bills.

Representative Walter and others asked how the council's authority would interact with courts. Nathan Brady of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel relayed a drafting-attorney clarification: "The bill only allows the council to award the fees. A judge awarding fees would be a totally different part of the code." Members also discussed appeals; the bill references a district court appeal process, but members asked whether a party could seek fees from the council after taking a dispute to the district court and being unsuccessful there. Committee members did not reach a definitive answer during the hearing.

Several members expressed concern about the fiscal exposure counties could face because attorney-fee awards are harder to quantify than back pay. Representative Peterson cited a recent case in which an employee spent about $10,000 in fees pursuing restoration and back pay. Several lawmakers said that detail — and whether a definition or cap on fees is needed — should be clarified with the drafting attorney before the committee advances the bill.

Representative Peterson said he would consult the drafting attorney to clarify how an award of fees might work; the committee then voted to hold the bill. The motion to hold passed unanimously; the mover and seconder were not specified in the hearing record.

The bill remains held pending the sponsor's follow-up with legislative counsel and drafting staff.