Jefferson County Supervisors approve sheriff’s request for outside legal counsel

FAIRFIELD – The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors has approved hiring outside legal counsel to represent the sheriff’s office in administrative matters, a topic that generated a heated discussion among elected officials at Monday morning’s board meeting Sept. 8.

Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond asked the supervisors to hire Jon Thomas of Workforce Solutions to conduct an administrative investigation. Richmond did not go into the nature of the investigation, though it came out during the meeting that it involved two county employees who may be subject to discipline. The supervisors approved this request unanimously, which will cost the county $3,500.

Additionally, Richmond also asked the board to hire attorney Skylar Limkemann of Smith Mills Law to represent the sheriff’s office in administrative matters, specifically during Thomas’s investigation. This request was more contentious, and was opposed by Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding and one member of the board, Susie Drish. Ultimately, after a 40-minute discussion, the board voted 2-1 to allow the sheriff’s office to hire Limkemann, but would limit Limkemann’s time on the case to 20 hours, which would amount to $5,000 since Limkemann charges $250 an hour. Supervisors Joe Ledger and Lee Dimmitt voted in favor of the motion, while Drish voted against.

The debate revolved around whether the sheriff could rely on the county attorney’s office for legal representation. Richmond and Moulding are embroiled in a legal dispute that Moulding has appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, after Richmond won his case in district court to have his name removed from the Brady-Giglio list (a list of officials the prosecutor believes are unreliable) in February after Moulding placed him on the list last summer.

Because of this conflict between the sheriff and county attorney, Richmond said that hiring an outside attorney was necessary to ensure his fair representation. Moulding disagreed, saying he was obligated to represent the sheriff’s office in any legal matter, notwithstanding the Brady-Giglio case.

“I asked you if you need legal counsel and legal advice on this administrative matter, and you told me no, and now you’re here saying you need legal advice on this administrative matter,” Moulding told Richmond during the board meeting. “I’m confused about that. There is no conflict here, Bart. I am your lawyer.”

“You’re not my lawyer,” Richmond responded.

“I am loyal to you by code and by ethical obligation,” Moulding said.

Ledger then chimed in to say he could not believe what Moulding had just said.

“You’re in litigation with him, but you want to represent him,” Ledger said to Moulding. “I can’t believe you think that way.”

Moulding said he works with the sheriff’s office every day, and that he challenged Richmond to “point to a situation where I’ve steered you the wrong way legally.”

Ledger asked Moulding why he has not dropped his appeal of the district court’s ruling granting Richmond’s request to be removed from the Brady-Giglio list.

“If you drop this other litigation, things will move forward,” Ledger said. “I’d be scared to death to be in his shoes right now.”

Richmond said the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights gives the supervisors the authority to hire outside legal counsel to represent county officials, and he said he needed such counsel in this case to avoid “what I’ve been going through for a year and a half now.”

“I’m not going to be falsely accused of stuff, and I want to make sure it’s fair to everybody,” Richmond said. “There’s a conflict given the current litigation with the county attorney. The last time I disciplined an employee was almost a year and a half ago. Since then, I’ve been falsely accused and put on a Brady-Giglio [list], spent $54,000, and the case is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court that it’s unconstitutional and vague.”

Richmond said the conflict stems from the fact that, if he disciplines an employee and that employee appeals their discipline to the Civil Service Commission, the county attorney represents the Civil Service Commission. He also said that Moulding has been in contact with one of the employees who may be disciplined.

“Isn’t that a conflict? He’s discussing the case and discipline with this employee,” Richmond said. “I’m asking you to allow me to hire Skylar to represent myself and the office so it’s fair, impartial and independent, and we can get through this. I’m not going through it again in court, and I’m not going to continue spending my own money on a private attorney.”

Dimmitt asked Richmond what Limkemann would do exactly regarding Thomas’s investigation of the case. Richmond said that the main purpose would be to ensure that his rights and the rights of the sheriff’s office under the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights were being respected. Dimmitt was initially apprehensive about hiring outside counsel because he felt that the county already receives such legal services from the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool (ICAP).

“You are protected, as is your office, under ICAP,” Dimmitt told Richmond.

“I’m not being protected now by ICAP, am I?” Richmond responded.

After Ledger motioned to allow the sheriff’s office to hire Limkemann, Dimmitt said he would not support an open-ended motion, and that the supervisors needed to cap the time or dollar amount they would spend on outside counsel. He suggested amending the motion to limit Limkemann’s time on this case to 20 hours, and Ledger accepted that amendment.

Drish, the lone no vote, said she wished the sheriff and county attorney could meet and settle their differences, because their feud is costing the county money.

“I’m not going to vote for this because I cannot spend the money in good faith,” she said.

Like Ledger, Dimmitt said he is frustrated by Moulding’s appeal of the district court ruling, and said no one in the county benefits from continuing the litigation.

“Financially, this could ruin him,” Dimmitt said about Richmond’s legal expenses.

Moulding had stepped out of the meeting just before the vote, but when he returned, he learned that the supervisors had voted to approve hiring outside legal counsel. He asked the supervisors if they were going to hire outside legal counsel every time the sheriff’s office is involved in a case.

“It looks that way,” Drish said.

“What’s completely unfair to the Jefferson County taxpayers is to just keep hiring lawyers every time the sheriff doesn’t like the answers his elected county attorney provided,” Moulding said.

  Buy Photo

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