Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners ask auditor to explain $5,500 attorney-fee payment tied to public-records challenge
Summary
A commissioner questioned a $5,500.73 attorney-fee line in the bills, and county staff and the prosecutor described that the charge likely relates to outside counsel handling a public-records lawsuit connected to a prior Bazetta Township matter; the board asked staff to confirm details with the auditor's office.
A commissioner asked the board to clarify a $5,500.73 line labeled attorney fees on the county bills, saying the description appeared to relate to a public-records request and asking why outside counsel was paid.
Staff members said the auditor’s office prepared the payment explanation but the auditor was on vacation and not present to answer. The county’s outside counsel and prosecuting attorney explained that the fee appears tied to a public-records lawsuit connected to prior work on the Bazetta Township matter, and that detailed attorney-client billing entries can contain privileged communications not normally released as public records. The prosecutor said outside counsel had been handling related public-records litigation and that the payment could be a final invoice related to that case (Prosecutor Bill Danso, transcript label 9).
Commissioners asked staff to check with the auditor’s office and to provide a clear explanation at the next meeting. One commissioner requested confirmation whether the auditor’s office reimbursed the county for any of those fees; the prosecutor said his understanding was that the auditor had reimbursed the county for some related expenses in a prior matter but that the public-records action was a separate legal action.
Next steps: staff agreed to consult the auditor’s office and bring back clarification on the purpose and status of the billing line and whether it is the final payment on the matter.
