Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County commissioners vote not to pay legal fees for commissioner named in tort claim
Summary
The Scott County Board of Commissioners voted to deny county-funded legal representation for Commissioner Adam Beaumont after a discussion that his actions leading to a tort claim were taken in an individual capacity and without board authorization.
Get email alerts on the Ethics Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County commissioners voted Jan. 21 that the county will not pay legal fees for Commissioner Adam Beaumont in a tort claim alleging he used his office to pursue action against an individual.
Commissioner Randy introduced the matter, saying the county was named because "Mr. Bomar has used his position to go after someone" but that the action was taken independently and not on behalf of the board. He moved "that the county does not provide legal representation for Adam and that this is something that he should be taken care of personally, not the taxpayers." Alex Zimmerman, the county attorney, told the board the question depends on whether alleged conduct occurred in an official capacity, and said the board could set a policy.
Commissioners debated the legal standard, with one member noting that if an official is sued for actions taken in an official capacity, the county typically provides representation; if sued in an individual capacity, providing county-paid counsel is a policy choice. After a second, the motion was approved by voice vote; the recorded transcript shows the board declaring "motion carries." No roll-call vote names were recorded in the publicly read motion text.
The decision leaves potential costs of defending litigation to the individual named in the claim unless subsequent circumstances (for example, a court order or further determinations about capacity) change the board's obligation. County counsel advised the panel during the discussion but did not provide a binding legal finding on whether the pending claim, if filed, would be considered official-capacity or individual-capacity litigation.
The board moved promptly to other agenda items after the vote.

