Jefferson County Sheriff asks supervisors to cover legal fees

FAIRFIELD – The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors heard a request from Sheriff Bart Richmond to have his legal fees reimbursed that he’s incurred in litigation to get his name removed from the Brady-Giglio list.

Richmond appeared before the board during its weekly meeting Monday, March 10, and told them that he has spent $40,000 in attorney fees to appeal a decision by Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding to place him on the Brady-Giglio list in June 2024. Richmond won his case when District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell ordered his name be removed from the list in an opinion issued Feb. 27. The Brady-Giglio list is a list of officers who a prosecutor deems unreliable.

  Buy Photo

RICHMOND’S PLEA

Richmond said he has spent half his salary defending himself in court against “false accusations made against me by Mr. Moulding,” and that he did not do the things Moulding accused him of when Moulding placed him on the Brady-Giglio list, which included accusations of interfering with an investigation of a use of force incident in April 2024. Furthermore, he said his legal costs are still climbing since Moulding has filed an appeal of Judge Farrell’s decision.

Richmond told the board that Moulding sent a letter to the Fairfield Police Leadership Team, Iowa State Patrol, Deputy Iowa Attorney General and others informing them of Moulding’s decision to place Richmond on the Brady-Giglio list, but as of March 7, Richmond had received no indication that Moulding had informed those same agencies that Richmond’s name had been removed from the list.

At that point, Moulding jumped into the conversation to address Richmond directly, telling him that documents related to his Brady-Giglio case were under seal.

“There is a gag order on this case that you requested, and that exhibit is part of that,” Moulding told Richmond. “At your request, you sealed all the evidence in the case, and that’s something you’re publishing.”

After those comments from Moulding, Richmond continued to say that his placement on the Brady-Giglio list was unjust and that the attacks on his character were unfounded.

“My character never faltered in any way,” he said. “No one should have to endure character assassination from anyone. I pray the board understands the significance of my plea.”

  Buy Photo

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE RESPONDS

Though Moulding was present in the room, Assistant County Attorney Elizabeth Estey did most of the talking on behalf of the county attorney’s office. She said that Iowa law does not allow the supervisors to fulfill the kind of reimbursement Richmond was requesting, since he was not incurring the legal costs in his official capacity as county sheriff.

When the supervisors had a chance to chime in, Joe Ledger seemed to be the most supportive of fulfilling Richmond’s request. Lee Dimmitt said he did not want anymore taxpayer money spent on the case, but he didn’t believe the law allowed the county to reimburse Richmond’s legal fees. Susie Drish said the case was “unfortunate” and that better communication on both sides could have solved the problem.

“I don’t want to spend taxpayer money,” Drish said. “We’re already having trouble with budgets.”

Ledger said he met with Moulding last week and asked how much time he had spent on this case, but didn’t get an answer.

“I’m starting to question some of this really tough,” Ledger said. “I’d like to find the money [for Richmond]. He wouldn’t have spent it if it wouldn’t have been for this mess.”

Dimmitt remarked that, while he had no authority to stop the court case, he saw no benefit to it continuing. But he also didn’t see how the county could fulfill Richmond’s request for legal fees.

“From a sympathy standpoint, I’d like to be able to help him [Richmond] out, but I have real reservations moving forward,” Dimmitt said. “It seems like it’s the right thing to do. Looking at the bigger picture, it’s fraught with pitfalls. You create a precedent if you work outside the scope of the law, because that would require us to potentially do the same thing for any other county employee, and maybe that expense is $100,000 or $200,000.”

Moulding jumped in to say that, in this most recent court case, Richmond was suing the county attorney’s office and so Richmond was the plaintiff, not the defendant. Estey said that was an important distinction since the county has a duty to defend when A county official is a defendant and acting in their official capacity. She added that Judge Farrell ruled that the county attorney’s office did not owe legal fees to Richmond.

Dimmitt asked Estey to clarify if the county could reimburse Richmond or if state law prohibited it.

“The statute doesn’t allow it,” she said. “The only statute you could look to would be the county’s duty to defend. Additionally, public funds have to be used for a public purpose.”

Estey spoke about a case in which a county supervisor had to defend themself against an allegation, and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the supervisor was not entitled to reimbursement of legal fees because they were not acting in their official capacity.

  Buy Photo

AUDIENCE SUPPORT

Seats in the supervisors’ room were full, with several people there to support Richmond. One man addressed Moulding directly, asking, “Are you willing to give up on this appeal, Chauncey?”

“I can’t answer any details of an ongoing case,” Moulding responded.

Other members of the audience spoke about Richmond’s character, his years of service, their disappointment in the Brady-Giglio case being brought, and urging the supervisors to pay Richmond’s legal fees. After listening to several members of the public speak, Dimmitt said he hoped both sides could move on.

“The conversation we’re having is not good for the county,” he said. “It might be great reality TV but this doesn’t benefit us. I’m hoping the county attorney’s office and sheriff’s office realize that, but I can’t make it happen as a member of the board of supervisors.”

Later in the meeting, Dimmitt clarified that both the sheriff and county attorney are elected officials, and while the board of supervisors allocates their budget, how those two elected officials spend their budget is up to them.

“The only jurisdiction we have is if they ask for a budget amendment,” he said. “The money is coming out of Chauncey’s budget because we [the board of supervisors] have not received any claims. The sheriff’s budget is not being challenged. None of the expenses [Richmond] has incurred have come out of his budget.”

VOTE TO TABLE

Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Myers said he’s found himself both in Richmond’s shoes and being represented by Moulding in a suit against the county. He asked if Richmond could submit his legal fees to ICAP (Iowa Communities Assurance Pool) like the county did when his office was sued. If that were approved, ICAP would cover 85 percent of the cost and the county would cover the remaining 15 percent.

Ultimately, the supervisors voted 3-0 to table Richmond’s request and to ask ICAP for input. The supervisors’ next meeting is March 24, and this issue will be on the agenda again.

After the vote, Dimmitt added, “In the meantime, I’d urge the parties to end this.”

Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com