Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ripon fire board votes to demand work‑product records after questioning roughly $30,000 in legal bills
Summary
Board members questioned an itemized legal invoice tied to detachment/attachment work, discussed possible fiduciary breaches by outside counsel and voted to request copies of counsel’s work product before deciding whether to pursue further action or an RFP for legal services.
The Ripon Area Fire District board voted to request copies of work product from outside counsel after several members raised concerns about an itemized invoice tied to recent detachment and attachment work.
At a lengthy discussion, a board member said the district has paid “20 some thousand dollars” and that about $10,000 remained outstanding; the same member said they had asked counsel for proof of work and “then he wouldn’t give it to me,” adding that counsel’s written response included billing justifications but not the requested supporting materials. The member recommended the board review the work product before deciding whether to pursue other options.
Other members pressed for specifics. One board member said they could not “point to $30,000 worth of attending meetings and what came out of that” and asked for a clearer accounting of what tasks generated billed hours. Another board member said the itemized billing showed non‑meeting time that left the board asking what those hours produced.
The board debated next steps, including whether to seek an outside opinion or to file a complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation. A board member characterized the concern as a possible breach of fiduciary duty and suggested the board consider an RFP for future legal services. Several members cautioned that the board should first obtain the requested documents and review them.
The motion that “all board members would like a copy of the work product” from counsel (named in discussion as Von Briesen) passed on a recorded voice vote. Board members agreed to schedule follow‑up consideration — including adding an RFP for legal services to a future agenda — and to determine whether any further action, such as contacting regulatory authorities, would be appropriate after review.
The board did not take any enforcement action at the meeting; members framed the vote as a document‑request step to inform any later decision.
