Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects $30,000 payment to outside counsel tied to subpoenas after ethics concerns
Summary
A motion to pay a $30,000 invoice to outside counsel for subpoenas and related legal work failed after council members questioned bidding, potential conflicts and whether the underlying accusations were without merit; the city attorney told the council case law permits council participation in the vote.
A motion to pay invoice #2271993 for $30,000 to Ora Carrington Sutcliffe, put forward to resolve subpoenas related to an on-call pay investigation, failed after extended questioning and an ethics exchange.
A commissioner said subpoenas placed on the city were “without merit” and that a $30,000 settlement payment was offered; the commissioner moved to pay the invoice. The motion generated questions about whether the city or individuals were the client for the engagement, whether the attorney was competitively procured and the apparent discrepancy between hours recorded (about $155,000 in time) and the reduced bill of $30,000.
One council member raised a potential conflict under Section 13-3(a) of the city code of ethics, saying a vote to pay the attorney might violate the benefit clause. The city attorney responded that there is published case law indicating a council member may participate in such a vote.
A council member put a district attorney office quote on the record that a lengthy investigation “could not determine who changed the language” of a resolution, and the commissioner who moved the payment asserted the accusations were without merit and that there was evidence of who acted. After discussion the Chair called a vote; the motion did not pass.
The debate included scrutiny of whether the attorney or law firm mentioned had political ties and whether the payment constituted a gift; the city attorney said the decision about participation by council members had been previously addressed in written opinion and minutes from July 2. The motion failed on the council floor and no payment motion was approved.
