Council begins policy conversation on when and how members use city attorney resources

Council members spent substantial time discussing a staff-requested item about the appropriate use of city attorney office time and whether contacts and related billing narratives should be standardized.

The city attorney opened the item noting the purpose was to discuss policy rather than privileged billing details. "Just a reminder to the council that, the primary objective of the item is to discuss policy matters, and not get into matters that involve the attorney client privilege," counsel said.

The exchange began after Councilmember (speaker 4) raised a May 2025 invoice showing "3.9 hours" billed (about $1,100) and said he had not personally engaged counsel for that length of time. Council members expressed concern about transparency in billing narratives, who sees legal research, and whether a policy should require that legal research requested by one member be shared with others. The city attorney repeatedly cautioned the council about discussing billing contents in open session because that information may implicate attorney–client privilege.

Multiple council members indicated they want staff and counsel to propose written guidelines. Councilmember (speaker 6) moved to continue the matter and requested staff explore whether a closed-session review of the invoice and associated privilege issues would be appropriate; the motion was seconded and roll call was taken. The council directed staff to return with recommended policy language and any legal constraints related to attorney–client privilege and billing disclosure.

The discussion did not produce a final policy change at the meeting; instead, the council asked staff and legal counsel to research options and report back to the council for future action.