Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outside Counsel Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves $150,000 transfer for outside counsel; appoints outside counsel for legislature
Summary
The committee approved a $150,000 fund transfer to cover outside legal services, heard that specialized construction and personnel litigation is driving costs, and approved the legislature’s request to appoint outside counsel where the county attorney has conflicts.
Putnam County’s Rules, Enactments & Intergovernmental Relations Committee approved a $150,000 transfer to cover outstanding and anticipated outside counsel bills and later approved an appointment of outside counsel for the legislature where conflicts exist.
At the outset of the meeting, First Deputy County Attorney John B. Charico told the committee the transfer was needed "for both outstanding legal services incurred to date as well as invoices not yet received for the remainder of 2024," citing specialized work by retained firms on matters including the Arben v. Putnam County construction litigation. Committee members pressed staff on funding sources and vacancies in the law department; an auditor reported year-to-date outside-counsel spending of $282,172 and members noted that adding $150,000 would bring total projected outside counsel spending this year to roughly $432,000.
Members questioned whether contingency funds were the right source and whether department vacancies might reduce outside counsel reliance. Charico and staff said many matters require specialized outside expertise and noted that some firms engaged—named in discussion as Romer Wallens and Gervin Filazzo—have no learning curve for specialized litigation.
Separately, Legislator Yankee requested the appointment of outside counsel to represent the legislature where the county attorney’s office has actual or potential conflicts. "I made a request for outside counsel ... I am requesting the appointment of Kena Beam, counsel for the legislature," the legislator said. After members discussed scope and cost considerations, the committee approved the request by voice vote.
The meeting also moved into executive session to discuss a litigation settlement; minutes record that no action was taken in executive session and a subsequent motion to approve that settlement later failed on the floor. Committeeworkers said they will post revised drafts and schedule additional meetings so the public can review proposed charter and term-limit language before final votes.
Next steps: staff were directed to post revised documents for public review and the committee set a special Rules meeting to continue consideration of the term-limit charter items.
