How one email changed the tone of a county-level fight over transparency
Why I clipped this moment
I’ve spoken at dozens of Warren County Board of Supervisors meetings over the past year. Most of the time, those moments dissolve into the flow of agendas, motions, and votes. But what happened on January 8, 2026, was different.
An email I wrote (meant to be procedural, cautious, and collaborative) became the center of a public, on-the-record exchange between a sitting supervisor, the county attorney, and the board itself. That exchange lasted nearly 20 minutes of a 45-minute discussion and ultimately helped shape the vote that followed.
I clipped the relevant sections into a single video because something important happened here — not just politically, but structurally.
This wasn’t about who was right.
It was about how the government actually reasons in public.
The exchange as it happened
This clip contains four things in sequence:
- My email being read into the public record
- Dr. Jamieson’s response email being read into the public record
- The county attorney is explaining professional-conduct constraints
- The motion and roll-call vote to repeal the policy
Everything you need to understand what happened is in that order.
What was really happening here
In the days leading up to the meeting, Dr. Jamieson launched a very visible public campaign in defense of the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy. He published a series of articles in The Royal Examiner explaining his view of what the policy meant and why reversing it would signal a retreat from transparency.
Those pieces included:
- Why Legal Reasoning Behind Legislation Must Be Public Record
- Closed Sessions: The Standard We Should Meet
- Categorical Legal Cost Reporting Is Common Sense
- What’s at Stake Thursday? Is Transparency a Board Priority or a Slogan?
Together, they framed the upcoming vote as a values test:
transparency versus secrecy, reform versus retreat.
That framing mattered — but it wasn’t the only way to see what was in front of the board.
What my email was actually doing
My email didn’t try to win that values argument.
It did something different.
It asked whether the mechanics of the policy created risks that the intent of the policy did not account for.
I wasn’t arguing against transparency. I was questioning how it had been operationalized.
Where Dr. Jamieson was building a moral narrative (what this vote means), I was pointing to process reality (how this system actually works under pressure).
That difference mattered.
Two kinds of transparency
What the video shows is not two people disagreeing about openness.
It shows two different models of governance colliding:
Dr. Jamieson’s model
- Transparency is a principle
- It must be enforced through explicit rules
- Legal reasoning belongs in public unless narrowly exempted
My model
- Transparency is a system
- It depends on how records, workflows, and incentives are designed
- If you get the structure wrong, rules won’t save you
Or more simply:
I was trying to fix how the room works.
He was trying to define what the room stands for.
Neither of those is wrong.
But they pull in different directions when a vote is actually on the table.
Why the board used my email
When my email was read aloud, it did something quiet but powerful:
It gave the board a safe off-ramp.
It let supervisors say:
“We’re not rejecting transparency — we’re worried about how this policy functions.”
That distinction mattered, especially for a new majority that inherited a policy passed just weeks earlier.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jamieson’s response (thoughtful and deeply researched) had to be read by him.
No one from the public stood up to echo it.
Not because it was wrong, but because it was framed as advocacy rather than governance.
What the vote actually said
The policy was repealed.
But listen carefully to the discussion and the attorney’s comments: many of the concerns Dr. Jamieson raised were acknowledged — just not inside that particular framework.
What the board rejected was not transparency. It was a policy architecture that placed legal counsel, FOIA interpretation, and litigation risk into a single, brittle structure.
Why this moment matters
This wasn’t a victory lap. It was a glimpse inside how public bodies think.
You saw:
- How constituent emails become part of the record
- How values arguments collide with operational risk
- How legal ethics shape what can be said
- How a board finds political and procedural footing
That’s not theater.
That’s governance.
And sometimes, a carefully written, non-performative email does more than a thousand slogans ever could.
Timeline
-
Supervisors Meeting: Not All Transparency Looks the Same
An ordinary email of mine became part of the public record when it was read aloud in a tense boardroom. This post reflects on how process, power, and transparency collided—and how quiet procedural questions reshaped a highly political vote.
-
Royal Examiner: What’s at Stake Thursday? Is Transparency a Board Priority or a Slogan?
Supervisor Richard Jamieson casts the January 8 meeting as a defining choice between openness and retreat, arguing that reconsidering the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy would weaken public trust by undoing requirements for written legal analysis, narrow closed sessions, and cost reporting.
-
Royal Examiner: Categorical Legal Cost Reporting Is Common Sense
Supervisor Richard Jamieson argues that quarterly, categorical legal-cost reporting will expose Warren County’s unusually high spending by showing who requests legal work and for what, while the response cautions that true accountability depends on fixing the underlying workflows, not just publishing expense totals.
-
Royal Examiner: Closed Sessions: The Standard We Should Meet
An article by Supervisor Jamieson defends strict FOIA-based limits on closed sessions through advance notice and written justification, while a process-focused response argues that compliance alone is insufficient unless governance systems reliably create durable, auditable records that prevent misuse and support real transparency.
-
Royal Examiner: Transparency, Meeting Rules, and Library Board Repeal Headline January 8 Supervisors Meeting
An article on the January 8 meeting highlights removal of a closed session, debate over the transparency policy, proposed rule changes, and a library board repeal, while a process-focused reflection shows how agenda structure and timing, not shifting values, determined who could participate and how effectively.
-
Royal Examiner: Why Legal Reasoning Behind Legislation Must Be Public Record
An article by Supervisor Jamieson argues that legislative legal analysis must be written and public under FOIA to support informed lawmaking, while a process-focused response cautions that documentation alone does not ensure accountability unless record creation, governance, and use are carefully engineered.
-
Royal Examiner: Transparency vs. Closed Doors: Warren County Policy Debate Heads Into the Spotlight
An interview with Supervisor Rich Jamieson outlines a transparency policy requiring public legal analysis and stricter closed-session rules, while a process-focused response cautions that real accountability depends on how information systems are designed, recorded, and preserved over time, not simply whether discussions occur in public or private.
-
Lewis Moten: Legal Policy
I agreed to have my views presented publicly, emphasizing accuracy and context. I clarified that my concerns focus on process, not opposition to transparency, and noted I was still evaluating whether additional policy layers were necessary beyond existing FOIA requirements.
-
Richard Jamieson: Perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy
A follow-up email from a county supervisor continuing a detailed defense of the Legal Services Transparency policy. It adjusted recipients, noted undisclosed BCC distribution, removed reporters, and expanded a point-by-point rebuttal grounded in FOIA law, governance norms, and legislative transparency principles.
-
Cheryl Cullers: Legal Policy
A county supervisor requested permission to present my written perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy during the January 8 supervisors meeting, acknowledging the value of the input and signaling that my comments would be incorporated into the public agenda discussion.
-
Royal Examiner: Why Is the Board Reconsidering Legal Services Transparency and Review?
An article by Supervisor Jamieson defends a transparency policy requiring public legislative legal analysis, while a process-focused response argues that stalled ordinances reflect information-handling failures rather than missing rules, and warns that poorly designed procedural layers can introduce risk, distort behavior, and weaken governance.
-
Royal Examiner: Transparency Can’t Be the First Casualty of a New Term
A Royal Examiner article warns that a new transparency policy may be undermined by closed sessions, while a process-focused response argues that true accountability depends on how records, exemptions, and workflows are designed and maintained, not simply whether meetings are public or private.
-
Richard Jamieson: Perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy
A public reply from a county supervisor reframing a private policy discussion into a transparency debate, copying other supervisors, staff, and local press. The message defends the Legal Services Transparency policy, cites FOIA law, and positions legislative legal analysis as part of the public deliberative process.
-
Royal Examiner: When the Law Is Made in the Dark, Democracy Suffers
A Royal Examiner article advocates for public access to legislative legal analysis under FOIA, while my response emphasizes that transparency alone is not enough. The design of record-keeping and disclosure systems matters because poorly structured processes can introduce legal, operational, and governance risks.
-
Richard Jamieson: Perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy
A brief reply from the WCFAC chair acknowledging the substance of my policy concerns, indicating a forthcoming detailed response to the full board, and referencing Virginia FOIA statutes and advisory opinions as relevant legal context for the discussion.
-
Lewis Moten: Materials for Our Data Review Discussion
A reply to the WCFAC chair explaining my custom data-analysis workflow, limits of automation without stable county data access, and rationale for separating policy concerns into a broader supervisory discussion, while keeping this exchange focused on tools, methods, and transparent financial analysis.
-
Lewis Moten: Perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy
An email to the full Board of Supervisors outlining concerns with the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy, arguing it creates legal, financial, and operational risks. Emphasized balancing transparency with attorney–client privilege, risk management, and effective governance.
-
Richard Jamieson: Materials for Our Data Review Discussion
A follow-up email from the chair of the Warren County Finance Audit Committee responding to my data analysis work. It acknowledges the tools I built, asks about automation, repeatability, and analytical methods, and reflects continued dialogue on audit practices and transparency following a public meeting.
-
Lewis Moten: Materials for Our Data Review Discussion
An email sent to the chair of the Warren County Finance Audit Committee outlining the tools, methods, and datasets used to analyze county financial records. It documents the technical context behind audit-related findings and a follow-up to a public meeting discussion.
Transcript (auto-generated)
Chapter 1: Constituent process
0:00I did want to read um Mr. Motton’s reply. I think you sent him u Mr.
0:07
7 secondsJameson an email asking him for his thoughts on this uh policy and I asked Mr. Moten and he said I had permission to read it.
0:16
16 secondsSo um it starts out Dr. Jameson, since you asked for my thoughts on the legal services transparency and review policy
0:24
24 secondsrecently adopted by the 3 to2 vote, I’d like to share my response with the full board so that everyone has the same information and perspective. I’ll
0:32
32 secondsaddress this separately from the questions you asked regarding my legal ledger research. Um, just to give reference, if you notice, Mr. Moten has
0:41
41 secondshas gotten quite involved with um helping research in a lot of things when it comes to the finances which I
0:49
49 secondsappreciate. I don’t understand all of he’s way over my head with his technology and I appreciate it but uh um
0:58
58 secondsI appreciate the intention to strengthen accountability and public confidence. My concern is not with the goal of
1:05
1 minute, 5 secondstransparency, but with the unintended legal and operational risk that this possible policy creates for Warren County. For context, I write as a
1:14
1 minute, 14 secondsresident actively engaged in county governance as someone who works closely with organizations significantly affected by county decisions. I also
1:23
1 minute, 23 secondscurrently serve on a public body and have previously held public office. This is not a le this is not legal advice, simply an informed observation.
1:32
1 minute, 32 secondsFirst, it is highly uncommon for a county to adopt a policy structured like this. Most local governments rely on existing state sunshine and foyer
1:41
1 minute, 41 secondsstatutes. There is no established best practice framework in which written legal analysis is presumed to be public
1:48
1 minute, 48 secondsunless challenged in which attorneys are routinely required to justify confidentiality or in which internal
1:55
1 minute, 55 secondsprocedural obligations are imposed beyond statutory for requirements. The policy and the way it’s been framed in
2:02
2 minutes, 2 secondsrecent discussions places structural and political pressure on the county attorney by effectively reversing the usual presumption of attorney client
2:11
2 minutes, 11 secondsprivilege requiring extensive writen legal analysis paired with an expectation that it should be disclosed
2:18
2 minutes, 18 secondsunless actively protective elevates transparency above legal prudence.
2:24
2 minutes, 24 secondsWritten legal memoranda substantially increases discovery risk, discourage candid legal guidance, and may weaken
2:31
2 minutes, 31 secondsthe county’s position in future litigation. Additionally, requiring confidentiality to be justified beyond existing standards creates the
2:40
2 minutes, 40 secondsimpression that privacy itself is suspect. The attorney client privilege exists to protect taxpayers and
2:47
2 minutes, 47 secondsresidents by enabling candid legal advice on sensitive matters, not to shield the government from scrutiny, but to ensure sound decisionmaking.
2:56
2 minutes, 56 secondsThe 48 hours close session requirement is also concerning. It limits the county’s ability to respond promptly to urgent negotiations,
3:05
3 minutes, 5 secondslitigation, developments, personal matters, or emerging threats. If repeated emergency meetings becomes the
3:12
3 minutes, 12 secondsworkaround, the policy becomes symbolic rather than functional while still exposing the county to unnecessary risk.
3:19
3 minutes, 19 secondsThe count the quarterly review of legal spending is a constructive concept when focused on financial oversight. However,
3:26
3 minutes, 26 secondscharacterizing or summarizing active legal matters publicly risk unintentional disclosing strategies and creates public misunderstanding.
3:35
3 minutes, 35 secondsPublishing expenditures supports supports transparency. Publishing a legal posture creates vulnerability.
3:44
3 minutes, 44 secondsThere is also a financial reality.
3:46
3 minutes, 46 secondsRequiring comprehensive regal uh written legal work for most policy action increases attorney workloads, slows
3:54
3 minutes, 54 secondsresponsiveness, and inev inevitably increases um and raises costs potentially undermining fiscal
4:02
4 minutes, 2 secondsresponsibility. If the goal is stronger trust and accountability, there are safer and more effective options such as
4:09
4 minutes, 9 secondsencouraging rigorous forya compl uh compliance and accurate documentation.
4:15
4 minutes, 15 secondsClearly listing close session participants and justification.
4:19
4 minutes, 19 secondsBriefly documenting when and why individuals exit close sessions emproving communication without disclosing
4:28
4 minutes, 28 secondsprivilege legal strategy. maintaining physical oversight without compro compromising legal posture.
4:35
4 minutes, 35 secondsTransport transparency is essential, but it must be balanced with risk management, attorney client privilege, and the duty to protect the county and
4:43
4 minutes, 43 secondsits citizens. I hope the board will consider or refine this policy to build public trust without creating unintended vulnerabilities or operational strain.
4:53
4 minutes, 53 secondsThank you for inviting input, for your time, and for your continued service to our community. Respectfully, Louisis E.
5:00
5 minutesMolten III. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Chapter 2: Legislative theory
5:05
5 minutes, 5 secondsMadam Chair, may I may I uh read the the response that I I wrote to Mr. Motton?
5:13
5 minutes, 13 secondsCertainly.
5:17
5 minutes, 17 secondsI This is my response to Mr. Motton and all of the uh other supervisors.
5:25
5 minutes, 25 secondsHello, Lewis. Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed written feedback on the legal services transparency and review policy. You’re
5:33
5 minutes, 33 secondsthe first person to offer substantive feedback on the policy, which provides me with a valuable opportunity to clarify what the policy actually does
5:40
5 minutes, 40 secondsand to address mischaracterizations that may confuse other supervisors or members of the public. I particularly appreciate that you put your concerns in writing,
5:49
5 minutes, 49 secondswhich stands in notable contrast to the absence of any written response from my fellow supervisors or from the county attorney. I am including representatives
5:58
5 minutes, 58 secondsof the local press in this reply on the same principle that you reply to all supervisors. The wider the distribution of information and dialogue, the better.
6:08
6 minutes, 8 secondsThe purpose of this response is not to dismiss your concerns, but to explain where I believe your characterization of the policy differs from what the policy
6:15
6 minutes, 15 secondsactually requires and to clarify the legal governance principles underlying it. Several of your objections appear to rest on fundamental misunderstandings
6:23
6 minutes, 23 secondsabout the relationship between transparency, current attorney client privilege, and the Freedom of Information Act. I hope this response
6:31
6 minutes, 31 secondswill be helpful not only to you, but my colleagues on the board and to interested members of the public.
6:37
6 minutes, 37 secondsBefore addressing your specific comments point by point, it is important to try to establish the big picture that underlies the policy and clarify what the policy actually requires.
6:50
6 minutes, 50 secondsSeveral days later, I think a week later, I I replied in a point by point um basis, which was extremely long, and
6:57
6 minutes, 57 secondsI’m not going to even read it here. Um but you have it and the other supervisors have the the point bypoint
7:04
7 minutes, 4 secondsbasis. The core driver, legislative transparency.
7:09
7 minutes, 9 secondsElected supervisors bear ultimate responsibility for policy decisions affecting the citizens we serve. We have a duty to understand the legal reasoning
7:17
7 minutes, 17 secondsunderlying our votes and to be able to explain that reasoning to constituents who inquire. This duty is particularly important when we are asked to adopt
7:24
7 minutes, 24 secondsordinances, amend the comprehensive plan, or make other significant regulatory decisions that become the law governing our community. When the board
7:33
7 minutes, 33 secondsconsiders whether to adopt an ordinance, we are engaged in legislative deliberation, a fundamentally public process under Virginia law. We must
7:42
7 minutes, 42 secondsweigh multiple factors, fiscal impact, community needs, practical implementation, and yes, also legal considerations.
7:49
7 minutes, 49 secondsThe Virginia Freedom of Information Act mandates that the public have access to our deliberative process and the factors informing our decisions. Except under
7:58
7 minutes, 58 secondshighly specific circumstances defined by statute, the public has a right to understand why we pass the laws that govern them. Legal analysis of proposed
8:07
8 minutes, 7 secondslegislation as part of that public deliberation, not a confidential matter requiring protection from public scrutiny.
8:14
8 minutes, 14 secondsThe fundamental distinction is between legislative analysis and privileged advice. Your letter repeatedly expresses concern about attorney client privilege.
8:24
8 minutes, 24 secondsThese concerns rest on a fundamental conflation of two distinct categories of legal communication. Category one is privileged legal advice.
8:32
8 minutes, 32 secondsLegal strategy, pending actual disputes, pending litigation, contract negotiations, or specific legal transactions. This type of advice may be
8:42
8 minutes, 42 secondsprotected under FOY’s attorney client privilege exemptions. I’m not going to read the exemption number uh or close
8:48
8 minutes, 48 secondssession to for the provision on specific legal matters.
8:53
8 minutes, 53 secondsCategory two, legislative legal analysis.
8:57
8 minutes, 57 secondsLegal analysis of proposed ordinances, statutory interpretation for policy development, assessment of regulatory approaches, and general legal
9:05
9 minutes, 5 secondsconsiderations informing legislative choices. This is public policy deliberation, not confidential legal
9:11
9 minutes, 11 secondsstrategy. My policy addresses category 2. FOYA already protects category 1. The
9:19
9 minutes, 19 secondserror in running throughout the letter is retreating all legal analysis as if it were privileged legal advice. It’s not. When the county attorney analyzes
9:28
9 minutes, 28 secondswhether we have a statutory authority to adopt a groundwater ordinance or explains the legal framework for
9:35
9 minutes, 35 secondsregulating agurism or compares alternative approaches to a zoning text amendment, he’s providing legislative
9:42
9 minutes, 42 secondsanalysis to inform policy choices that will be made by members of the board. This is not privileged communication.
9:49
9 minutes, 49 secondsIt’s part of the public deliberative process by which we make laws. Foye already defines what’s protected. Your
9:56
9 minutes, 56 secondsletter suggests that my policy somehow undermines or reverses attorney client privilege. This is fundamentally misunderstands how FOYA operates and what my policy requires.
10:08
10 minutes, 8 secondsVirginia code 223700B establishes the foundational principle.
10:12
10 minutes, 12 secondsThe provisions of the chapter shall be liberally construed to promote an increased awareness by all persons of governmental activities and afford every
10:21
10 minutes, 21 secondsopportunity to citizens to witness the oper operations of government. Any exemption from public access to records or meetings shall be narrowly construed.
10:32
10 minutes, 32 secondsUnder FOYA, the default is public access. Exemptions are narrow exceptions that must be specifically justified. My
10:40
10 minutes, 40 secondspolicy ent operates entirely within this statutory framework. Section 1D of the policy states that written legal work
10:49
10 minutes, 49 secondsshall be publicly available except as specifically exempted under FOYA and that work product may be withheld from
10:57
10 minutes, 57 secondspublic disclosure when the county attorney specifically cites an applicable FOYA exemption with explanation on how the exemption applies
11:05
11 minutes, 5 secondsto the particular content. This does not reverse anything. It codifies exactly what FOYA already requires. Public
11:14
11 minutes, 14 secondsaccess is the default and any exemption must be specifically justified under statute. Moreover, the Virginia Foyer
11:21
11 minutes, 21 secondsCouncil has been explicit about the limitations on using legal matters and exemption to close meetings.
11:29
11 minutes, 29 secondsin advisory opinion AO0107 which is from 2007 which incidentally was a town of Front
11:38
11 minutes, 38 secondsRoyal uh closing a session to talk about water and sewer policy.
11:45
11 minutes, 45 secondsMoreover, the Virginia Foye Council has been explicit about using legal matters.
11:49
11 minutes, 49 secondsAccording to the AO107, the council stated in a 1986 opinion, the attorney general stated that the
11:56
11 minutes, 56 secondslegal matters exemption requires more than a desire to discuss legal matters and may not therefore be used as a
12:03
12 minutes, 3 secondscatch-all exception to the FOYA acts opening meeting requirement and does not justify the discussion of general policy
12:11
12 minutes, 11 secondsmatters and executive session absent an appropriate legal issue. The council further explained, “The legal matters
12:19
12 minutes, 19 secondsexception applies only to discussions of specific legal transactions or disputes and may not be used to justify closed
12:26
12 minutes, 26 secondsmeetings involving more general issues, even though those issues may eventually have legal consequences.
12:34
12 minutes, 34 secondsThis is critical. Issues that may eventually have legal consequences do not qualify for close session. Proposed ordinances are precisely such issues.
12:44
12 minutes, 44 secondsThey are policies with legal implications, not legal disputes requiring confidential strategy. My
12:52
12 minutes, 52 secondspolicies close session procedures literally quote the Foye Advisory Council guidance. I’m being criticized for codifying what the Foye Council has already told us is required.
13:06
13 minutes, 6 secondsYou write that the attorney client privilege exists to protect taxpayers and residents by enabling candid legal advice on sensitive matters, not to
13:14
13 minutes, 14 secondsshield the government from scrutiny, but to ensure sound decision-making.
13:19
13 minutes, 19 secondsI agree with the second part of the statement, but not the first. Attorney client privilege exists to protect the county’s legal position in actual disputes and transactions.
13:29
13 minutes, 29 secondsit does not exist to enable candid advice on legislative matters by keeping that advice from public the public whose laws are being written.
13:39
13 minutes, 39 secondsYou also write that the policy places structural and political pressure on the county attorney. This characterization reveals a fundamental disagreement about
13:47
13 minutes, 47 secondsinstitutional rules. The county attorney serves the board of supervisors. His role is to provide us with legal information we need to fulfill our
13:55
13 minutes, 55 secondsduties. The board, not the attorney, determines what information the board needs and what actions to protect the
14:02
14 minutes, 2 secondscounty’s interests. Having our attorney follow an explicit formula for closed session motions sets a high bar in
14:10
14 minutes, 10 secondspublic. Foyer narrowly construed and a doc and to document his legal analysis for significant matters is not pressure.
14:19
14 minutes, 19 secondsIt’s reasonable process.
14:22
14 minutes, 22 secondsIf these basic professional requirements constitute pressure, then accountability itself is being framed as problematic.
14:29
14 minutes, 29 secondsNothing in the policy requires extensive written legal analysis, creates presumptive public disclosure of
14:37
14 minutes, 37 secondsprivileged advice, or prevents use of closed sessions. The policy requires documentation for significant matters,
14:45
14 minutes, 45 secondsbasic fiscal oversight, and explicit compliance with the FOYA advisory council’s actual requirements pertaining to close sessions.
14:56
14 minutes, 56 secondsI do appreciate the letter that you sent. It was it was well thought out and it offered an opportunity to reply and I appreciate the opportunity to read it.
Chapter 3: Legal risk
15:07
15 minutes, 7 secondsChairman, [clears throat] yes, sir. colors. Can I speak briefly on this?
15:11
15 minutes, 11 secondsSo, I’ve spoken before in prior meetings about my duty of confidentiality to the board and that is is a written rule that
15:21
15 minutes, 21 secondsnot just I but every any lawyer that would ever work for Warren County has to comply with the Virginia rules of professional conduct.
15:29
15 minutes, 29 secondsAnd specifically with relation to this issue, confidentiality of information. A lawyer shall not reveal information
15:37
15 minutes, 37 secondsprotected by the attorney client privilege or other information gained in the professional relationship, the
15:45
15 minutes, 45 secondsdisclosure of which would would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client unless the client consents after consultation.
15:55
15 minutes, 55 secondsSo, I can’t say things that are embarrassing about Warren County or
16:02
16 minutes, 2 secondslikely to be detrimental unless you, the board, consent after consultation. And with a public body, the only way you can
16:11
16 minutes, 11 secondsconsent after consultation is to know what I’m going to say um in private.
16:19
16 minutes, 19 secondsAnd with respect to written work product, at any point if the board wants me to draft something, I I will draft
16:25
16 minutes, 25 secondsit. Um I do uh minor projects for board members. Uh a very large project, I
16:32
16 minutes, 32 secondswould check with the chair or county administrator and I did and and as a result of that did not uh draft a a very
16:41
16 minutes, 41 secondslong memo, which would have been a huge project in response to the well ordinance. But again, at any point if
16:48
16 minutes, 48 secondsthe board wants to spend county funds doing that, the board just needs to direct me to do so.
Chapter 4: Policy repealed
16:55
16 minutes, 55 secondsI move the board of supervisors to repeal the resolution for legal service transparency and review policy. Is there a second?
17:04
17 minutes, 4 secondsI’ll second. Roll call. Mr. Henderson. Dr. Jameson. No.
17:09
17 minutes, 9 secondsMr. Henry, I.
17:10
17 minutes, 10 secondsMrs. Collers, I.
17:11
17 minutes, 11 secondsMr. Carter, I. Mr. Standmire? No. Motion passes.
