« Ind. Decisions - Two cases decided today by Supreme Court | Main | Ind. Courts - Missing South Bend lawyer leaves clients angry, baffled »

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Ind. Gov't. - Two cities rack up attorneys fees - $11,000 and $1.2 million

Kokomo. Yesterday the ILB posted this entry quoting from an AP report that began: "Fighting a teenager's public records request will cost the city more than $11,000 in attorneys fees."

Here is another story, this one from the Kokomo Tribune by Scott Smith. Some quotes:

The bill has come due for the city’s decision to fight a public records request by Western High School student Ryan Nees — more than $11,000 in attorneys fees.

Howard Circuit Court Judge Lynn Murray awarded Indianapolis-based attorney William Groth the full amount requested for work performed on Nees’ behalf. Her fees order should drive costs for the city in the case to well over $15,000. * * *

City Attorney Ken Ferries — and later two attorneys from the Indianapolis-based Ice Miller law firm — argued the e-newsletter subscribers’ e-mail addresses should be treated the same as a city-compiled list of physical mailing addresses.

By law, government officials can limit access to lists of physical mailing addresses to inspection and hand-copying.

So city officials turned down Nees’ request for a copy of the list, saying the teen could come in and hand-copy it. McKillip also suggested giving out copies of address lists would leave the newsletter subscribers open to spam and computer viruses.

Murray, however, said the law governing access to government-compiled mailing lists doesn’t extend to e-mail addresses, as the city’s attorneys contended. She said the city must turn over either a copy or an electronic copy of the list.

“The city’s arguments here are of a policy rather than a legal character, and are more appropriately addressed to the Indiana Legislature than to this court,” Murray wrote. “The courts cannot fill gaps in a statutory scheme designed by the legislature.”

Shortly after Murray issued that ruling, the Indiana General Assembly amended the Indiana Access to Public Records Act to give government officials the right to withhold lists of e-mail addresses.

City officials decided against appealing Murray’s ruling. Ferries said the combination of the judge’s ruling and the fact the Indiana General Assembly was looking at further restrictions on public access to government-compiled e-mail addresses convinced the administration to end the matter.

City officials were warned they were probably in violation long before Nees filed his suit.

Indiana Public Access Counselor Karen Davis issued a nonbinding opinion last year, saying the restrictions which apply to mailing addresses did not apply to e-mail addresses. McKillip chose to ignore that opinion and test the case in court.

Fort Wayne. "City reveals $1.2 million attorney fees in attempt to acquire Aqua Indiana" is the headline to this story by Cindy Larson in the Fort Wayne News Sentinel. Some quotes:
The city of Fort Wayne has paid attorneys $1.2 million over the past three years in its efforts to acquire the Aqua Indiana water utility — and that’s a figure they’d rather the public didn’t know.

After a debate at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, council voted 5-4 to reveal the attorney fees, which the city claimed were confidential, privileged attorney-client material.

Last year, City Councilman Tom Smith, R-1st District, asked the city for a summary of all consulting fees it had paid for 2003 through 2005. The initial list omitted legal fees that have been paid for several City Utilities issues, including the Aqua Indiana matter. The city has been trying to acquire the water utility for years. * * *

Several weeks ago, the city provided a summary of legal fees paid for the Aqua Indiana issue and other utility-related legal matters, but it told council members the information should remain confidential.

The city is pursuing dual paths to try to acquire Aqua Indiana — it is seeking condemnation through eminent domain, and at the same time is negotiating with Aqua Indiana to try to reach a settlement. The reluctance to publicly reveal legal costs associated with the Aqua Indiana matter stemmed from a concern that doing so would give Aqua Indiana an advantage in any settlement by knowing how much the city already had spent on attorney fees. * * *

City attorney Tim Manges told council members, “I wanted to be careful with this issue,” but said ultimately it was the council’s decision as to whether or not to reveal the costs.

City Council attorney Phil Larmore disagreed that the legal fees were protected by attorney-client privilege, noting that it’s the client’s decision — in this case, the taxpayers — not the attorney’s.

Meszaros argued against releasing the figures on the legal fees at the meeting, which was televised live on Comcast Cable Channel 58. “We are in very intense settlement negotiations right now,” he said. “It is a vulnerable time in this process.” * * *

The majority of the legal fees spent on Aqua Indiana matters have been paid to the Bingham and McHale law firm, with $429,299 being paid to them in 2003; $398,838 in 2004; and $397,443 in 2005, according to a city document. Those fees were for condemnation litigation, settlement negotiations, rate-case opposition and other matters.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 19, 2006 06:54 AM
Posted to Indiana Government