In a recent government meeting, significant discussions arose regarding the payment of legal fees amounting to approximately $85,100, which have been the subject of contention among board members. The state's attorney indicated that a court order would be necessary for these payments to be processed, leading to confusion and debate over the appropriate course of action.

The legal fees in question stem from services rendered by the law firm Benford Graham, which were incurred in response to subpoenas related to an ongoing audit. The board members expressed frustration over the handling of these invoices, particularly regarding the decision to withhold them from the finance committee for review. One member highlighted that the legal counsel had advised against submitting the claims, stating that it would require a court order to proceed.

As the discussion unfolded, members questioned the rationale behind not presenting the claims to the finance committee, emphasizing that all submitted claims should undergo proper scrutiny. Concerns were raised about the potential conflict of interest involving the current legal counsel, prompting calls for external legal advice to clarify the board's obligations regarding the payment of these invoices.

The meeting underscored the complexities of navigating legal and financial responsibilities within government operations, as board members grappled with the implications of their legal counsel's guidance and the necessity of adhering to established procedures for financial oversight. The outcome of this discussion remains uncertain, as members seek further clarification before making a decision on the payment of the disputed legal fees.