Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter challenges county attorney contract, minutes practices and RFQ process
Summary
A long public comment alleged problems with the county attorney contract, minutes preparation, indemnification clauses and closed-session handling of RFQs; commenter urged transparency and raised potential statutory violations.
A public commenter urged the Northampton County Board of Commissioners to review the county attorney contract, minutes procedures and procurement practices, alleging legal and transparency concerns.
Earl Daniels, a frequent public commenter, told the board the contract between the county and the county attorney contains language that permits the attorney to bill partner and associate attorneys without board consultation and includes an indemnification clause that he described as perpetual. Daniels cited several sections of North Carolina law in his remarks and said the contract’s wording, as he read it, could leave the county without recourse should the attorney render improper advice.
Daniels also criticized the board’s practice on meeting minutes and the use of consent agendas. He asserted that minutes are not being approved in sequence, that paralegals may be preparing minutes, and that RFQs for a new jail were discussed in closed session and later approved by consent without adequate public justification. Daniels cited North Carolina General Statutes including around public comment periods and the open meetings law during his remarks.
The board’s chair and other commissioners did not take immediate formal action in response to the allegations during the meeting. The county attorney or staff did not deliver a reply on the record in this session.
Daniels requested that the record reflect his comments and that the board consider reviewing the contract language and minutes practices.
