Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney tells Jefferson County board sheriff's requested fee payments were unlawful; supervisors urged to end dispute
Summary
The county attorney told the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors that prior payments of roughly $40,932 toward the sheriff's private lawsuit were contrary to law and warned that authorizing further payments would violate the public-purpose doctrine; supervisors debated whether to drop an appeal or seek repayment.
The Jefferson County attorney told the Board of Supervisors during a heated July meeting that prior payments to cover legal fees for the sheriff's personal lawsuit were unlawful and should be recovered.
"What the Sheriff is asking the Board to do is illegal and in violation of law," said the county attorney (Speaker 11) as he summarized a written memorandum citing the public-purpose doctrine and state precedent. He said $40,932 had already been paid and the sheriff was requesting an additional approximately $7,000 in appellate costs.
The county attorney said the statute cited by supporters does not authorize reimbursement of private attorney fees and noted that defense duties apply only when an officer acts in an official capacity. "This lawsuit was done in his personal capacity," he said, adding that those facts mean "there's no duty to defend and no duty to reimburse."
Supervisor (Speaker 1) urged an end to the dispute, saying the county and its residents gain nothing from the continuing legal fight and asking the sheriff to drop his appeal. "I would really beg you to drop this at this point and let's just move on from it," Speaker 1 said, urging private conversations among the principals.
Other supervisors and members of the public disagreed about the path forward. Some called for pursuing recovery of the earlier payment if it was unlawful; others said the board had limited options once money had been spent. A member of the public pressed the board to consider the cost to taxpayers and the importance of trust between the sheriff's office and the county attorney's office.
The county attorney recommended seeking repayment of the previous payment and advised against authorizing further expenditures tied to the sheriff's private suit, warning that the state auditor or attorney general could intervene to enforce repayment. No final vote was taken; the board agreed to table further action and several supervisors committed to meet privately to seek a resolution.
Next steps: supervisors asked the county attorney and the involved parties to confer and report back; the board tabled further action on new payments pending that follow-up.
