Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor presses for itemized legal spending, holds over $300,000 retention for special counsel
Summary
A contentious discussion over a resolution to continue retaining the law office of Vincent Toomey for town matters (TB3) centered on transparency: the supervisor asked for a categorical breakdown of the $300,000 total legal spending and proposed splitting ethics-related payments from other personnel matters; he said he would hold the TB3 resolution to seek that detail.
Supervisor (speaker 2) asked the board for a categorical breakdown of the $300,000 the town has authorized for the law office of Vincent Toomey, focusing on what portion has been used for the ethics-board matter. He said the public had repeatedly requested itemized information and that splitting the allocation into separate resolutions would increase transparency.
"What I'm asking for before we vote on this is if we could say, out of the $300,000 we've used, $90,000 for the, you know, whatever it is," the supervisor said, proposing clear line-item categories for public review.
Town staff (speaker 3) responded that the town is in compliance with state and FOIL rules and noted many matters Toomey handles are at early investigative stages where names and details may not be appropriate to publish. Other board members debated both the practicality of publicly itemizing ongoing legal matters and the principle of transparency. Some argued that naming individuals in personnel matters could harm privacy and that legal constraints prevent disclosing granular details.
The discussion became heated when the supervisor suggested splitting TB3 into two resolutions so the public could see how much was spent on ethics-board matters versus other personnel-related legal work; he said he would hold the measure over until that change was made. Multiple board members voiced frustration with the situation's duration and the perceived cost of continued legal representation before the ethics board.
No formal vote on TB3 was recorded during the work session; the supervisor announced he would hold the resolution over to request a split and additional clarifying detail. The debate included repeated references to TB1 (the underlying ethics-related item) and to procedures such as Article 78 that some members said would have been the appropriate legal path for challengers.
The board did not adopt the TB3 retention during the session; supervisors and staff agreed to return with further information and proposed formatting (separate line items) before any final vote.
