Jefferson County officials voted to appeal a judge's ruling after a brief public meeting during which the county director outlined three options for resolving the case.

The board decided to continue litigation rather than pay the judge-ordered settlement or authorize a capped settlement negotiation. The director told the members they had met with Mr. Bennett in executive session and summarized the options: "we've got really 3 options. We can pay what the judge ordered in the settlement. We could offer, authorize a certain amount for Bennett to go back and ... negotiate with the attorney a settlement ... or you can vote tonight to, appeal directly to a higher court." The motion to appeal was introduced by a board member and seconded; the chair then called for a vote and declared the motion passed. The transcript does not record a clear numerical vote tally.

Why it matters: County officials said the choice reflected legal strategy and concern about precedent. One board member who moved for the appeal argued that, based on the executive-session briefing and other attorneys' input, "I think the judge in this case made a mistake, and I believe we have a better chance than a higher court." The chair also voiced concern about the precedent the ruling could set for other counties and districts in the state.

What happened next: After the vote to appeal, members moved and seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting ended without further public testimony or additional votes recorded in the transcript.

Details and context: The director summarized the three paths the county could take: accept and pay the judge-ordered settlement; authorize a set amount to attempt a negotiated settlement (with instruction to appeal if the offer is rejected); or appeal the ruling to a higher court. The board selected the appeal option. The transcript identifies Mr. Bennett as a participant in the executive-session briefing but does not record him speaking during the public portion. Several colleagues were referenced by the chair by first name (Doug and Paul) but their statements do not appear verbatim in the public record provided.

The next procedural step is not recorded in the public transcript; the county will proceed with appellate filings and related legal work as appropriate, according to the board's vote.