A months-long controversy over paying Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White’s attorney fees finally came to a vote March 19, but the results have been contested.
In what Christopher Bakes, her attorney, described as “bizarre and unusual circumstances,” Supervisors Jeff Engel and Kevin Goss voted in favor of paying $96,943 in fees to Bakes. Supervisor Dwight Ceresola voted no.
The other two members of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Greg Hagwood and Tom McGowan, were not present. They recused themselves March 5, citing conflicts of interest that prohibited them from voting on the issue.
Paying White’s attorney fees required a two-thirds majority to pass, said Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel. With two of the five supervisors recused from voting, approving fees for Bakes would have needed all three of the supervisors present to vote yes, Brechtel said. Despite the 2-1 vote for approval, the motion to pay the fees failed, he said.
When Engel questioned that, Brechtel agreed to research the law and report back to the supervisors.
Multiple memos, multiple conflicts
If Brechtel’s opinion holds, this will be the third time White has lost her request for payment to Bakes. County officials have blamed her for delays in annual audits, failing to reconcile and post investment activity, lapses in interest payments to agencies in the county’s investment pool, and inconsistencies in bank balance reporting.
Attempts to resolve the inadequacies have generated a convoluted and contentious dispute consuming hours of the supervisors’ time in the last seven months. At the center are are multiple conflicts of interest. The issues began with a Sept. 6, 2023, memo sent to White by Human Resources Director Nancy Selvage, Bakes said in his chronology of events leading up to the March 19 vote. In her memo Selvage suggested a “dereliction of duties” by White, and asked if she had any “physical impairments” or “limitations” to performing her responsibilities.
White had retained Bakes by Sept. 18, when he contacted Sara James, interim county counsel at the time. “All that Ms. White requested was a withdrawal of the letter and a public apology,” Bakes said. But James “continued to double down and insist that everything was done correctly,” he said.
James has told the supervisors that she found no conflict of interest between her office and White.
Other memos and emails followed, including a Sept. 28 letter from the Feather River Tourism Association alleging mishandling of investments by the treasurer and threatening litigation against the county. That email, Bakes said, was prompted by County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero. Bakes cited numerous violations of the Brown Act in his chronology, which included 47 items based on events, letters and emails, and tallied the accumulating fees per item.
By Jan. 1, Bakes’ fees totaled $65,703.50. By Feb. 20, they were $96,943 and still mounting.
‘How did all this happen?‘
Along with his chronology of events concerning White, Bakes brought to the meeting an undated and unfiled lawsuit naming Plumas County as defendant. He distributed it “as a courtesy” and told the supervisors he hoped he would not have to file it.
Supervisor Dwight Ceresola, the board of supervisors’ vice chairman and acting chair in Hagwood’s absence, seemed troubled by the threat. “Every time we turn around it’s more money,” he said, adding that he had trouble spending county funds in the absence of actual litigation.
“Maybe it’s our fault, or her fault, or a combination. But now we’ve got an attorney order every time we turn around. … How did this all happen?” Ceresola said.
Engel said he has watched meeting after meeting in which “you could cut the animosity in this room with a chainsaw.” The simple solution, he said, would have been a letter of apology to White “for that original letter from the HR director.”
“This whole thing was generated by this board and this board needs to solve it,” Engel said, moving to approve White’s attorney fees in their entirety.
Supervisor Kevin Goss said he, too, has been frustrated by the board’s handling of White. He and Ceresola had hoped to meet with her directly. “But we were told by our county counsel to not make that meeting because of a potential lawsuit. And so right then and there I thought, yeah, this is a lawsuit,” Goss said.
“I think this needs to end and it needs to end now so we can move forward with the business of the county,” he said. Goss seconded Engel’s motion to approve White’s attorney fees.
The vote on the motion came after Brechtel called for a five-minute recess. It came swiftly, with Engel and Goss voting approval and Ceresola voting no. Brechtel said he would move quickly on Engel’s challenge of whether the required two-thirds vote involved just the supervisors present or the entire board, including the two recused supervisors.
Throughout the meeting, Brechtel noted that Bakes was actually making two requests: one for payment of fees up to this point and another for the board to sign a contract for fees going forward. The three supervisors present voted to give him direction to work on a contract for Bakes to represent White should future issues arise.