Hamblen County commissioners vote to object to magistrate—s fee report and to an order on refiled bill of costs

The Hamblen County Board of Commissioners voted on two motions related to ongoing litigation after an executive session, announcing the first motion passed 13–1 and the second motion passed with an announced count of 14 in favor.

The motions, both first introduced at the meeting—s open session after a closed briefing, asked the board to object to Magistrate Wirich—s report and recommendation on attorney—s fees and to object to an order allowing plaintiffs to refile their bill of costs. Commissioners said they had been briefed in executive session and that specifics could not be discussed at the public meeting.

Why it matters: The votes relate to active court proceedings and potential county financial exposure. County commissioners said they were legally advised to limit public discussion of the matters. That prompted comments from at least one commissioner and multiple residents at the meeting asking for greater transparency and raising concerns about recent settlements and county practices.

At the start of the agenda item, the chair said commissioners had been briefed in executive session and asked for a motion on whether to object to "Magistrate Wirich's report and recommendation on attorney's fees." The meeting record shows Commissioner Sam Harville made the motion and Commissioner Rodney Long seconded it; the chair called a roll call vote and announced, "13 1. Motion passes."

A second motion asked whether to object to an "order allowing plaintiffs to refile their bill of cost." The meeting record shows the board moved and seconded that item and the chair announced the outcome as "14 14. Motion passes." The board described neither the substance of the magistrate—s recommendation nor the details of the order permitting refiling during the public meeting.

Commissioner Dobey, speaking after the votes, raised transparency concerns: "In all fairness, I think to the citizens of Hamblen County, there should have been more transparency. I know what we were told, we couldn't discuss it. We couldn't do otherwise. We couldn't ask questions." Dobey said he understood the legal advice but disagreed with the instruction not to ask questions in executive session.

Members of the public used the meeting—s comment period to press the board on related issues. Resident Gwen Holden criticized county payouts in litigation and asked why incarcerated people who sued could receive settlements while taxpayers must pay: "Why these these ladies that was in jail got to sue and wind up winning, and we're gonna have to pay out our nose to taxpayers." Resident Justine Jones described concerns about in-custody deaths and settlements: "In the last 10 years, 9 inmate deaths have made it public. 4 overdoses brushed off, 1 suicide, 3 heart attacks, no defibrillator on-site, and Rodriguez dying after he told staff he'd swallowed fentanyl." Jones said she feared quiet settlements were being used instead of policy changes.

Other residents raised separate concerns during public comment, including questions about a county property that had been approved for sale in February 2021 for $160,000 and whose county assessment was around $100,000 at that time. A speaker who identified as Muichan at First North Street asked why the county might now pay more for the property when market values have fallen in parts of the country.

The board concluded the regular meeting after the votes. Commissioners repeatedly said they had been briefed in executive session and that legal advice limited what they could disclose in public. No further public details about the magistrate—s report or the court order were provided during the meeting.

Votes at a glance: The board recorded two roll-call votes after executive session. The chair announced that the motion to object to Magistrate Wirich's report on attorney's fees passed by an announced count of 13–1. The second motion, to object to an order allowing plaintiffs to refile their bill of costs, was announced as passed with an announced count of 14 in favor.

What the board did not disclose in public: Commissioners said the specifics of the executive-session briefing and the substance of the magistrate—s report and the court order were withheld on legal advice. The meeting record does not include the magistrate—s recommendations, the underlying case name, or any dollar amounts tied to settlements or potential payouts.

The meeting adjourned after public comment and the announcement of the two roll-call votes. The record shows at least three residents spoke on related topics and that at least one commissioner publicly pushed for greater transparency after the votes.