Residents criticize legal bills, question use of county funds for out-of-state filings

During the public‑comment period several residents demanded more transparency on bills submitted by outside counsel. One commenter asked: "Why are the taxpayers being asked to pay for research that's being done in Texas that has nothing to do with our county or the running of our county?" The same speaker said two days of outside‑counsel work were billed for more than $3,100 and urged the board to scrutinize vague invoices.

Another commenter defended Auditor Grant and said she had asked for itemized invoices before signing off on payments. "Grant has not refused to pay legitimate county expenses. She has asked for basic clarity and itemization on those invoices before signing off on public funds," the speaker said. Multiple public speakers called for line‑by‑line disclosure of what services were rendered and asked the board not to 'blindly sign off' on outside counsel invoices while county accounting issues remain on the state auditor's radar.

A separate attendee said they possessed attorney‑client privileged documents that raised questions about whether some work should be charged to county taxpayers; the commenter urged the board to avoid paying for privileged or improper work. The board acknowledged the concerns but did not make a final payment decision during the meeting; supervisors noted they wanted to prevent further legal action while ensuring due diligence on invoices.

The meeting record shows the board later approved the Donna McCormick invoices through 05/29/26 after brief discussion; one member recorded a 'nay' but the motion carried.