Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County commissioners direct counsel to pursue appeal in Excel power pathway matter
Summary
On June 10 the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to direct county legal counsel to work with outside counsel to file an appeal in Elbert County District Court related to a decision in the Excel power pathway case; the transcript uses both “PUC” and later “PUD” when referring to the decision.
Elbert County commissioners voted unanimously on June 10 to direct county legal counsel Lance Ingalls to work with outside counsel to file an appeal in Elbert County District Court concerning a regulatory decision in the Excel power pathway case.
County legal counsel Lance Ingalls told the board that the executive session included a legal discussion about the possibility of an appeal. "Appeals are limited to purely legal issues and they're limited to the record that was before the PUC," Ingalls said, adding the board had discussed the "likelihood of success" and "the possibility somewhere down the road of considering a stay of execution of the order." Ingalls told commissioners he needed a formal motion to provide clear direction because executive-session advice alone does not constitute a public decision.
A commissioner moved that the board "direct our legal counsel, Lance Ingalls, to work with outside counsel ... to file an appeal in Elbert County District Court." Another commissioner seconded the motion; the board then recorded three affirmative votes and the motion carried. The transcript records the regulatory decision using both the acronyms “PUC” and later “PUD”; the board did not clarify the acronym in open session.
The action directs county counsel to coordinate with outside counsel to evaluate and, if appropriate, file the appeal. Ingalls said the county had discussed the legal issues and the limits of appellate review but did not provide additional factual details about the underlying decision in open session. He also noted the board had discussed the possibility of seeking a stay of the order at a later time.
No timetable for filing was provided in open session, and the record does not identify which commissioner made the motion or which seconded it by name. The board adjourned after taking the action.
