Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ione council pauses proposed ban on direct council contact with city attorney after heated debate over legal bills
Summary
Councilmembers and residents clashed over a draft resolution to restrict councilmember contact with the city attorney after the mayor flagged rising legal invoices. Instead of adopting the draft, the council directed members to develop an alternative plan to reduce billable attorney correspondence.
The Ione City Council on Nov. 4 debated a proposed resolution that would limit how councilmembers contact the city attorney, prompted by concerns over escalating legal fees.
The proposal, explained by City Attorney Vrinsky, would steer most legal inquiries through the mayor and the city manager and allow direct contact only in two narrow circumstances: advice about personal conflicts of interest and suspected criminal conduct. "What this resolution would do is further clarify and restrict how council members would contact the city attorney," Vrinsky said during his presentation.
Mayor Stacy Rhodes told the council he reviewed correspondence and attorney invoices and concluded the volume of direct communication is driving up costs. "Our attorney bills are absolutely outrageous," Rhodes said, summarizing his counts of calls and emails and the hours he attributed to them.
Opponents argued the draft is overly broad and may conflict with the municipal code and the city-attorney contract. One councilmember called the draft "absolutely the worst resolution document I've ever seen," saying councilmembers need access to legal advice and that a blanket restriction would impede the council's duties. Several speakers also raised procedural objections, saying the resolution appeared to have been prepared before the council had discussed and directed staff to prepare it.
Public commenters told the council that while attorney fees should be controlled, elected members must retain the ability to consult legal counsel when necessary. Several residents suggested alternatives that would reduce billable hours without eliminating members' access.
After extended debate and public comment, the council rejected moving forward with the draft as written and instead approved a motion to develop a better approach to reducing direct, billable correspondence with the city attorney. Council directed two members to work with staff on implementation ideas and suggested removing the mayor-only language and routing correspondence principally through the city manager or adopting a budget‑control mechanism for attorney expenditures.
The council did not adopt the draft resolution at Tuesday's meeting; it will return for further discussion after staff and the designated council members present recommended alternatives.
