DUBOIS – Legal fees dominated the discussion of DuBois City Council on Tuesday.
Council members previously tabled any action concerning $35,000 worth of legal fees on Monday, Dec. 11. But, they resurfaced again Tuesday with an additional fee under the invoice section on the meeting’s agenda.
It was noted that $35,000 represented a sum of four, different invoices, which included a:
-$10,000 retainer for an unnamed council member. Any unspent money at the conclusion of legal services will be returned to the city.
-$10,000 retainer for an unnamed council member. Any unspent money at the conclusion of legal services will be returned to the city.
-$10,000 retainer for an unnamed council member. Any unspent money at the conclusion of legal services will be returned to the city.
-$5,000 for an unnamed city employee who was interviewed by the grand jury investigating suspended City Manager John “Herm” Suplizio.
As of the meeting, there was a new legal fee, totaling $936. According to Interim City Manager Chris Nasuti, this fee was due to an employee having to travel for their interview versus having it done by phone.
Council Member Pat Reasinger did indicate that this particular interview was done in Pittsburgh.
Council then voted to approve the legal fees for a pair of city employees, as well as to pay $7,870.90 that would have been drawn from the requested $30,000 retainer, if there had been prior authorization.
Members of the public took issue with the council vote, as no council members abstained. It was also noted that Reasinger wasn’t a member of council at the time of the Suplizio allegations.
Councilwoman Diane Bernardo denied she was called for questioning or ever needing an attorney.
We didn’t all have lawyers, she said, because “not all of us needed lawyers.”
Some also felt the city shouldn’t be paying legal fees at all, adding if council members and employees were innocent they should have “nothing to worry about.”
Resident Kristen Vida asked if the new council would be under any obligation to pay more legal fees beginning in 2024.
There was a period of silence until Reasinger asked Solicitor Toni Cherry to provide explanation.
You can’t send someone to a grand jury without counsel, said Cherry. “… It’s just reality for the City of DuBois.”
Plus, she said “it wouldn’t be right” to not pay the fees since counsel agreed to represent council members under the assumption of coverage of fees up to $10,000.
Reasinger, however, said the invoice for the retainer was received before council formally voted on the $10,000 amount.
Cherry reiterated that it’s “customary” to enter grand jury questioning following legal preparation. “They’re volunteering information.”
Bernardo then cut off any additional public comments on this matter, citing it was occurring outside the public comment period.
The public disputed, saying there was no real time for public comment specifically concerning the invoice section of the agenda given the meeting setup.
Reasinger said in 2024, there would be a proper time set aside to discuss agenda matters prior to any council vote.
Council also discussed payment of legal fees totaling $17,000 to Gleason, Cherry & Cherry for the city’s defense against Sandy Township (pause of consolidation) and a group of concerned citizens (injunction).
Reasinger asked if fees would fall under one of the city’s insurance policies, but Cherry said those would only cover errors and omissions.
He then asked if these fees should have been covered by Cherry’s retainer as city solicitor. Cherry outlined the types of work included in her retainer, noting litigation wasn’t one of them.
Resident Shawn Lesky commented that it would’ve been cheaper if the city had just opted not to defend itself in both cases.
Cherry said the city can’t just ignore legal challenges, and that she did act quickly to prevent an escalation in legal fees.
When Cherry indicated her defense received city authorization, Vida said she didn’t recall any public vote. Reasinger also had no recollection of a vote.
If council never gave public authorization, Vida argued that Cherry essentially “volunteered” her legal services.
Cherry reiterated that she had authorization. Council then voted, 4-1, to pay Cherry for her defense work. Reasinger was the lone opposing vote.