In a prior email regarding the tools I used to evaluate various reports and data, Supervisor Jamieson asked for my thoughts on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy. I had many thoughts, but they were off-topic for our original conversation. I also thought my thoughts would be better received if sent to the entire board of supervisors, since it was a policy concern. Although Supervisor “Jay” Butler was on his way out at the new year, he was still a supervisor. I did not have Tony Carter’s email address at the time, as his term had not yet started.

On January 8, 2025, Supervisor Cheryl Cullers read my email word-for-word at the Supervisors meeting.

Email

Dr. Jamieson and Members of the Board (BCC’d),

Dr. Jamieson, since you asked for my thoughts on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy recently adopted by a 3–2 vote, I’d like to share my response with the full Board so that everyone has the same information and perspective. I’ll address this separately from the questions you asked regarding my General Ledger research.

I appreciate the intention to strengthen accountability and public confidence. My concern is not with the goal of transparency, but with the unintended legal and operational risks this policy creates for Warren County.

For context, I write as a resident actively engaged in County governance and as someone who works closely with organizations significantly affected by County decisions. I also currently serve on a public body and have previously held public office. This is not legal advice—simply an informed observation.

First, it is highly uncommon for a county to adopt a policy structured like this. Most local governments rely on existing state sunshine and FOIA statutes. There is no established best-practice framework in which written legal analysis is presumed to be public unless challenged, in which attorneys are routinely required to justify confidentiality, or in which internal procedural obligations are imposed beyond statutory FOIA requirements.

The policy—and the way it has been framed in recent discussions—places structural and political pressure on the County Attorney by effectively reversing the usual presumption of attorney–client privilege. Requiring extensive written legal analysis, paired with an expectation that it should be disclosed unless actively protected, elevates transparency above legal prudence. Written legal memoranda substantially increase discovery risk, discourage candid legal guidance, and may weaken the County’s position in future litigation.

Additionally, requiring confidentiality to be justified beyond FOIA’s existing standards creates the impression that privacy itself is suspect. The attorney–client privilege exists to protect taxpayers and residents by enabling candid legal advice on sensitive matters—not to shield the government from scrutiny, but to ensure sound decision-making.

The 48-hour closed-session requirement is also concerning. It limits the County’s ability to respond promptly to urgent negotiations, litigation developments, personnel matters, or emerging threats. If repeated “emergency meetings” become the workaround, the policy becomes symbolic rather than functional, while still exposing the County to unnecessary risk.

The quarterly review of legal spending is a constructive concept when focused on financial oversight. However, characterizing or summarizing active legal matters publicly risks unintentionally disclosing strategy and creating public misunderstanding. Publishing expenditures supports transparency. Publishing a legal posture creates vulnerability.

There is also a financial reality. Requiring comprehensive written legal work for most policy actions increases attorneys’ workloads, slows responsiveness, and inevitably raises costs—potentially undermining fiscal responsibility.

If the goal is stronger trust and accountability, there are safer and more effective options, such as:

• ensuring rigorous FOIA compliance and accurate documentation
• clearly listing closed session participants and justification
• briefly documenting when and why individuals exit closed sessions early
• improving communication without disclosing privileged legal strategy
• maintaining financial oversight without compromising legal posture

Transparency is essential, but it must be balanced with risk management, attorney–client privilege, and the duty to protect the County and its citizens. I hope the Board will reconsider or refine this policy to build public trust without creating unintended vulnerabilities or operational strain.

Thank you for inviting input, for your time, and for your continued service to our community.

Respectfully,

Lewis E. Moten III

Policy

The policy in which I was speaking about is here: