December 28, 2012

Commissioner Wichman

asked Commissioner Schinhofen to conduct the meeting.

Commissioner Borasky

asked if a quarterly report would be provided to see how the cost factor was working out. Pam Webster said absolutely, but a big savings this year was not anticipated. The results would be seen in the following year. Commissioner Borasky said a report every six months would be sufficient.

Commissioner Wichman

said there was a typographical error in paragraph 4.A. Mr. Kunzi said the quarterly payment should be $31,250.00. Anthony Greco said Mr. Kunzi does have a dog in this race. According to the Sheriff’s Office he has an 87% conviction rating, meaning the public defenders he was trying to give the contract to have a 13% win rate. Gerald Kendrick read a statement prepared by Anthony Greco advising of the federal lawsuit Mr. Greco filed regarding poor representation by the Nye County Public Defender, including the four named attorneys, mistreatment by the Sheriff’s Office personnel, and violations of the public code of conduct by the lead attorney in the public defender firm.

Mr. Kunzi

cautioned someone’s character issues could not be discussed without proper notice to that person and to do so would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

Commissioner Eastley

noted the disclaimer on the Board of County Commissioner’s agenda regarding public comment and how Commissioner Schinhofen had the ability to use that to control public comment.

Commissioner Schinhofen

instructed Mr. Kendrick to stop reading the statement as it could be seen as slanderous or a personal attack and to give it to the Clerk. Peter Helfrich thanked Mr. Kunzi for trying to resolve the issues with the defense attorneys with this proposal, but stated one of the firms had at least 40 people that had issues with more on the way and these were all people who deserved proper, respeciful representation and did not get it. Carl Joerger stated this would not save any money because the conflicts would still exist. He said the Board could have given the firm the 90 day notice when it was learned it was breaking up. He felt that there were contracts with blank names, but it sounded like Mr. Kunzi had already decided who the four attorneys would be.

Commissioner Schinhofen

reminded Mr. Joerger that part of the vote today would be to hand that to the County Manager to decide. December 28, 2012 3. For Possible Action Discussion and deliberation regarding termination of contract for legal representation of indigent criminal defendants: offering separate contracts for indigent legal services; and authorization for County Manager to award legal service contracts, execute contracts and manage indigent defense program.-Cont’d.

Mr. Joerger

said he heard the only way the attorneys would be willing to walk away from their contract was if they would get the new contracts.

Commissioner Eastley

noted the agenda clearly stated the action to be taken was the termination of the contract for legal representation and authorizing the County Manager to award those contracts. The Board had nothing to do with the awarding of those contracts.

Mr. Joerger

said the agreement could only be terminated with the 90 day notice or unless they agreed to terminate, and the only way they would agree to terminate was if the Board agreed to award them the individual contracts. He noted the various contract terms the firm had not complied with and stressed that the history needed to be looked at before an individual contract was awarded. Harry Kuehn from Gibson & Kuehn reflected that a while back there was a discussion about modifying their agreement with the County, which was good until June 30, 2014. There was a discussion about instead of the public defender representing one person in a criminal action, the firm would be dissolved and become four attorneys who could represent four different people. Mr. Kuehn said they were approached with a proposal that he hoped the Board would consider and they hoped to do the same quality of work they had done for a long time. Thomas Gibson stated he ran the office, which was why he was never in court. He said Gibson & Kuehn would be dissolving and he hoped they would pick up the additional contracts and do the same job they were doing before but with the additional benefit of saving the County a lot of money. Mr. Gibson stated he had a personal vested interest in this. He was committed to giving people the best legal representation possible and despite how people’s feathers might get ruffled the bottom line was serving the community, serving the Commission, doing their job, and serving the State Bar effectively. He promised to do that.

Mr. Kunzi

clarified there was nothing underhanded being done here. He thought the Commission needed to understand that this was modifying the existing contract and this could not move forward in its present format without doing so. He emphasized that the current contract would be changed and although there were a lot more requirements in the new contract than in the old contract, there was still the same 90 day termination clause. If there were problems with how the contract was being done any one of the individual contracts could be terminated with 90 days notice. The legal position of the County was not changed in any form by modifying the existing contract and allowing it to be split into four contracts with the suggestion of splitting another contract into two December 28, 2012 3. For Possible Action Discussion and deliberation regarding termination of contract for legal representation of indigent criminal defendants; offering separate contracts for indigent legal services; and authorization for County Manager to award legal service contracts, execute contracts and manage indigent defense program.-Cont’d. partial contracts to give the County an additional two attorneys to provide public defender services.

Commissioner Borasky

asked if Mr. Kunzi was comfortable to move forward with the way this was written. Mr. Kunzi said absolutely.

Commissioner Borasky

made a motion to approve; seconded by Commissioner Eastley; 4 yeas. Commissioner Schinhofen voted no.

Commissioner Eastley

asked Commissioner Schinhofen for the rationale on his dissenting vote. Commissioner Schinhofen said he had some questions about conduct and was prepared to vote in the affirmative, but after the public comment he had to vote no.

Commissioner Eastley

made a motion to approve; seconded by Commissioner Hollis; 5 yeas.

Commissioner Eastley

made a motion to approve; seconded by Commissioner Wichman; 5 yeas.

Chair Nye

eou Clerk I Deputy