Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outside Legal Opinion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Motion to require outside counsel opinion fails after debate over confidentiality and feasibility
Summary
A motion to compel outside counsel (referred to variously as Bodmin PLC or Bowman in the transcript) to provide a written legal opinion by a near-term date failed after commissioners debated confidentiality, feasibility and whether staff should be tasked with producing billable-hour comparisons.
A motion to obtain a written legal opinion from outside counsel was debated and ultimately failed after commissioners split on whether a near-term deadline was practical or appropriate.
Commissioner Brady moved that the city’s outside counsel provide a written legal opinion — initially suggesting a May 31 deadline or the agenda cutoff date — to help the commission prepare for potential closed‑session discussion. "I need something so that I can be an informed decision maker," one commissioner said during debate. City attorney "Mister Francis" cautioned that closed session is appropriate only if the author of the opinion is present to discuss it and said he could not assess feasibility without more information.
Commissioners raised concerns about attorney‑client privilege, the work required to prepare comparative billable‑hours data and whether the commission could or should force an external firm to meet a deadline. After debate, a later motion referencing the outside firm (spoken of in the transcript as both "Bodmin PLC" and "Bowman") was put to a roll-call vote and failed.
The failure leaves the commission without a formal, near-term written opinion from outside counsel; several commissioners urged staff to continue working with the firm and to provide whatever information is available so the commission can consider closed‑session options if needed.
