Board debates interim county attorney contract; motion withdrawn after public and commissioner concerns

The Custer County Board of County Commissioners took up a proposed interim county attorney contract at its Feb. 13 meeting but the motion to approve was withdrawn after extended discussion among commissioners, the incumbent county attorney and public commenters.

At the meeting, commissioners said they wanted an interim attorney available immediately and discussed a proposed hourly contract at $100 per hour. The draft contract included a section limiting the interim attorney’s litigation services to pre-litigation matters and interaction with the county’s insurer; that limitation drew pointed questions about who would handle existing litigation.

The incumbent county attorney — identified in the record as Dan — defended his experience and argued he was qualified and locally available. He said he had handled a wide range of county legal matters for more than 25 years: “I have done all that for a quarter of a century, and I’m relatively local,” he told the board. He also noted the contract’s litigation limits and said several pending planning-and-zoning lawsuits and another case against the prior district attorney appeared to fall outside the contract’s scope.

Commissioners discussed tradeoffs between rapid continuity and broader litigation capacity. Some commissioners supported hiring the interim attorney under a limited contract and arranging for specific litigation to be handled through other counsel or the county’s insurer. Other commissioners and public speakers urged more time to vet the candidate’s qualifications, and one commissioner withdrew his second to the motion. With the second withdrawn, the motion failed for lack of a second and the proposal was not adopted.

Public commenters criticized the board’s handling of the attorney change. One citizen described the action as politically motivated and urged the board to follow merit-based selection; another asked for transparency about the county’s legal needs and the plan for ongoing cases.

Ending Because no contract was adopted, the board left the employment arrangement unresolved and said the matter could be brought back to a future meeting after further review and, if desired, additional interviews or clarifying language about litigation responsibilities.