Jefferson County Supervisors approve money for sheriff’s legal fees

FAIRFIELD – The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to reimburse the attorney fees of Sheriff Bart Richmond during its meeting Monday, March 24.

Supervisors Joe Ledger and Lee Dimmitt voted in favor of the motion to reimburse Richmond’s legal fees, which now amount to just under $41,000. Supervisor Susie Drish was the lone “no” vote, arguing that state code did not allow the county to reimburse Richmond for his legal fees.

Richmond first requested reimbursement for his attorney fees at the supervisors’ meeting on March 10, arguing that this was money he spent defending himself after Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding placed him on the Brady-Giglio list in June 2024, a list of law enforcement officials the prosecutor believes to be unreliable. A district court judge sided with Richmond and ordered his name removed from the list on Feb. 27.

Ledger made the motion to reimburse Richmond’s legal fees, saying that, since Richmond had filed his case against the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office to get his name off the list, he could not use the county attorney’s office as his legal counsel, forcing him to hire his own attorney. He said that he met with Moulding to discuss the case in early March to inquire about how many hours and dollars the attorney’s office had spent on the case.

Ledger said that Moulding indicated he would meet with the other two supervisors independently to receive this information. Drish said she had not met with Moulding, though at Monday’s meeting clarified that she had talked to him over the phone but not met with him in person. Dimmitt said Monday he had not met with Moulding to discuss the case.

Ledger said that he was informed that the county attorney’s office had been working on this case after hours and not involving county staff, but Ledger said he later learned that county staff were involved.

Ledger said he was still asking for the hours and dollars spent on the case to be presented to the supervisors, and for any appeals of the district court judge’s decision to cease. Moulding had filed an appeal of the district court’s decision to the Iowa Supreme Court. Ledger asked Assistant County Attorney Elizabeth Estey if she knew whether or not that appeal was still active or if it had been dropped, and she said she did not know.

Moulding was not present for Monday’s meeting. The Union reached out to him after the meeting, and Moulding confirmed that he was continuing to pursue his appeal of the district court’s decision on Feb. 27 that removed Richmond from the Brady-Giglio list. He said Richmond’s lawsuit against the county attorney’s office rested on a new statute with “questionable constitutional validity” and that those constitutional issues need to be sorted out by the Supreme Court.

On the matter of how many hours or how much money his office had spent on this case, Moulding responded that Richmond was the one who sued the county and that, while the county covers insurance in the event it is sued, he chose to take the case himself instead of farming it to outside legal counsel. He said that, had he done that, the county would have owed thousands of dollars more in legal fees. Moulding said he has not kept track of the hours spent on the case since he is a salaried official.

When asked about the supervisors’ decision to pay Richmond’s legal fees in the case, Moulding said, “It is extremely unique for a county to pay for a person’s attorney who sues the county. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it or anyone else has ever seen it.”

Dimmitt said the supervisors have no jurisdiction on whether the county attorney appealed the decision or not. He asked Ledger how the county should pay Richmond’s legal fees, such as which fund it would come out of. Ledger said his motion would cover Richmond’s legal fees so far but no future legal fees, and “if Chauncey pursues it, take it out of his salary to pay Bart.”

A member of the audience asked the supervisors if they could stop the county attorney’s office from spending any more money on the case. Dimmitt said they could not since the county attorney’s budget is outside their jurisdiction, unless the county attorney asks for more money than was appropriated to his office.

Dimmitt acknowledged that the county was looking for ways to cut the budget, and pointed to their action earlier in the meeting not to fill a vacancy in the secondary roads department through at least the end of the fiscal year. That’s why he wanted any reimbursement of legal fees to be for a set amount. Ledger’s motion called for the $40,932 in reimbursement to come out of the supervisors’ budget for the next fiscal year, and to be given to Richmond once he presents invoices for that amount. Drish said in explaining her vote against the motion that the state code only allows reimbursement to a county official for a public purpose, and that this did not qualify.

  Buy Photo

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

  Buy Photo