Supervisors Cap Defense Fees for Three Officials

Capping an unusually emotional debate, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday imposed an initial $250,000 limit on the legal bills the county will pay to defend each of two supervisors and the auditor-controller against misconduct charges related to the county bankruptcy.

A unanimous decision on the politically sensitive issue was reached despite significant differences among the supervisors, who for a time appeared unlikely to reach a consensus on the matter.

The board had deadlocked on the same legal fees proposal two weeks ago, when Supervisor Marian Bergeson, complaining that it lacked any mechanism to control costs, withheld the third vote needed for it to pass. Because of the obvious conflicts of interest, the two supervisors facing charges did not vote on the measure.

Along with Supervisors Don Saltarelli and Jim Silva, Bergeson agreed to vote for a plan Tuesday that sets an initial spending limit of $250,000 per defendant--a cap that can be exceeded with future board approval.

Supervisors William G. Steiner and Roger R. Stanton--who along with Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis face the civil charges--sat silently on the dais as their colleagues wrangled over the proposal.

“It was really an awkward situation,” Steiner said after the meeting. “I think you could feel the tension. . . . It was a tough issue for everyone.”

Still, Steiner said the outcome “provides enough flexibility that an adequate defense can be provided.”

Attorneys for the three officials have already submitted bills to the county totaling $360,000, even though the misconduct cases are still in their early stages.

Stanton’s bills total $79,680 and cover the period from Dec. 20 to Jan. 31. Steiner’s bills total about $125,000 and cover services from Dec. 20 to Feb. 29. Lewis’ bills for the same period add up to $155,295.

County officials have delayed making payment until the board approved contracts setting the attorneys’ fees. They will now analyze the bills to determine whether the charges conform with the county’s payment policy.

“We still have to go through them and cut out items that should not be paid,” said Dennis Bunker, with the county’s risk management office.

This is not the first time the Board of Supervisors has grappled with the ticklish question of whether to pay the defense costs of county officials accused of wrongdoing related to the bankruptcy.

In March, the board approved payment of up to $300,000 in legal bills for former Budget Director Ronald S. Rubino, who faces felony charges related to the financial crisis.

The board voted in December to pick up the supervisors’ defense bills. But it asked County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier to develop a plan to monitor and limit the county’s costs.

Mittermeier returned last month with a series of contracts that would pay attorneys as much as $295 a hour, which officials maintained was a lower rate than they normally charge. The plan also sought to keep costs down by requiring lawyers to break down their charges to tenths of hours and paying only one attorney when more than one attend the same hearing. But there was no cap on the total costs that the county could incur.

Bergeson balked at that arrangement and called for more substantial limits. On Tuesday, she proposed a $150,000 cap that also incorporated the measures proposed by Mittermeier.

Steiner, Stanton and Lewis “are entitled to a strong and good defense, but we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to keep a handle on costs,” Bergeson said. “I don’t think it’s right . . . to give a blank check with no idea how much this will cost the county.”

Her proposal garnered little support, and Bergeson refused to back proposals by Saltarelli and Silva to set the cap at $400,000 or $300,000.

Saltarelli questioned the fairness of severely restricting the defense costs, because the district attorney’s office has access to unlimited resources for its prosecution of the three officials. He also expressed concerns about imposing stricter spending limits on supervisors than on Rubino, who faces more serious accusations.

After about 15 minutes of debate, a frustrated Silva said: “I don’t know what else to do other than say we brought this up and voted it down.” He then called a 10-minute recess. Bergeson and Saltarelli used the break to quietly discuss their positions.

When the meeting reconvened, the board voted 3-0 for the $250,000 cap.

After the meeting, Bergeson defended her stance and stressed that the three officials could seek payment of additional legal bills if they exceeded the cap. She said such a request would require an analysis to determine whether it’s in the county’s best interest to continue paying the bills.

Steiner said it remains unclear whether he will need to seek additional payments, noting that some of the charges against him and Stanton have already been dropped and that the process is moving at a rapid pace.

While he disagreed with some of her conclusions, Steiner said he respected Bergeson’s desire to keep costs reasonable.

“This is a very tough issue. Obviously, it strains the board relationship,” he said. “But life goes on. We need to work together as a board for the county and not let any differences pull us apart.”

In other action Tuesday, the board approved a process for a major restructuring of local government drafted by Mittermeier.

The proposal calls for the county to join with special districts and cities in a quest to make government more efficient, consolidate some agencies, reduce the duplication of public services and contract out more business to the private sector.

It suggests a one-year process of public meetings and negotiations to craft a restructuring proposal that could go before the state Legislature and other governing bodies by summer 1997.

Supervisors and members of the public praised her plan. But Bergeson raised concerns about approving an $80,000 contract with the Diamond Group to help develop the plan further. Bergeson and Bill Mitchell, executive director of Common Cause, said they would prefer to have open bidding for the contract.

But the board majority approved the contract, noting that the consulting firm is familiar with the issues involved and has worked with the various cities and special districts in the past.