Council debates new policy on contacting city attorney after high legal bills

Fairfax City Council debated a proposed policy to limit who may contact the city attorney after a month when legal invoices were notably higher than budgeted.

The proposed procedure would require at least two of a short list of city representatives to solicit legal counsel for matters charged to the city. Council members said the change was prompted by recent invoices that totaled $13,754 for the month, including $935 listed as a personal matter and $4,448 marked as "municipal matters" without further description. One councilor said they had never seen an invoice where significant portions were labeled only "municipal matters" and asked for more itemized clarity so taxpayers can see what legal funds are being spent on.

Staff said roughly $9,000 of the recent charges related to confidential personnel matters and therefore cannot be publicly detailed; the charges were initiated by staff and, according to staff, carried the support of more than one council representative. Council members acknowledged the tension between protecting confidential personnel processes and the public's interest in oversight of municipal spending.

Some councilors expressed concern that the proposed two-of-three authorization approach could unduly limit the administrator's ability to seek timely legal advice, especially in urgent situations. Several members suggested adding the mayor pro tem to the authorized list and including a tie-break or council-referral process so that, if there is disagreement among the designated contacts, the full council could be consulted.

Council asked staff to redraft Chapter 20 of the municipal code to reconcile the proposed procedure with existing code language that identifies when the city attorney may be engaged, and to return a revised draft at a future meeting. Staff said if an issue is confidential and urgent, a special meeting or closed session can be scheduled to authorize counsel.

Cindy Anderson, speaking from the public line, asked how a provision limiting council members' ability to communicate outside a formal meeting would work in an urgent situation when many representatives might be unavailable; staff responded that a special meeting would be called if immediate action were required.

Council did not adopt an immediate policy change and directed staff to prepare a redraft that clarifies who may solicit legal counsel, under what conditions, and how confidentiality and public accountability will be balanced.