Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

We are in the district of Iowa, in the county of Madison. The case before the court is entitled Madison County Board of Supervisors against Michel Brandt, in his official auditory quality. The verbal trial must reflect that lawyer Michael Ball represents the supervisory board and that lawyer of the county, Steve Swanson, represents Michel Brandt in his auditory quality.

This case concerns a petition from the Council of Supervision of the County of Madison for an order of mandamus and a request for injunction. In essence, the Council of Supervision of the County of Madison requests the court to order the claim of the county due by the county. In other words, it is not discretionary. in order to decide that every child at this time, as well as the children in the supervisory board, be paid personally. The second set of requests is an injunction request, which is sent essentially to the court, to order these invoices.

The council has filed an opposition. And in the meantime, the council asks the court to disqualify the lawyer of the county, M. Swanson, to represent the auditor. There is no opposition to the file, but M. Swanson, I suppose you oppose this request. Yes, sir.

This is a motion by one of the supervisors of this court, Mr. Swanson.

I think the lawyers should resolve this question before the court can examine the rejection motion. And the opposition is the one of the council, isn't it, Mr. Boll?

M. Swanson agrees.

So it's the motion of the council. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The council has submitted its disqualification motion. The court has noted that there is no written opposition to the file.

From the council's point of view, this is a non-contested motion, while understanding that these arguments can be advanced today.

Your counsel assumes that the issue of disqualification has essentially been intermitted by the court in the Brantby case.

This is the case CV036143.

A little over a week ago, our court made a decision in which the lawyer had counted. Stephen Swanson has been disqualified for making complaints.

This case concerns the defense that has complaints. Subsequently, rule 32.1.7 under section A, paragraph 1, requires the same result, namely disqualification. The county attorney also has several clients in this dispute, the county auditor in his official status and the supervisory board, who only carries out his claims in his official status.

On page 3 of the decision of the court, this one has concluded the existence of a competitive interest in this case, and we think that the case is even more so. We do not want to oppose an auditor of the court. These are not two members of the board of trustees. As an auditor, it is the director of the county.

We believe that disqualification is required under rule 32.1.7 under line 1.1, as indicated.

So disqualification is not only appropriate, but required by the rule.

The council, in its request to be filed on July 23rd, has declared that no public documents should be used by the council.

That being said, the court has obviously closed the order of the court on August 4th. And while the Board continues to maintain that the costs, during costs for the defense are inappropriate under the Walsh-Weave climate case, which is to say that if mandamins by the Board to require an act that the Board has itself directed, we believe the costs should not concur to require that a public official to hold through a mandamin.

The council understands if the court, according to the logic of its decision on August 14, ordered the county to pay for the defense. However, the council would simply support that the court should not order the county to support the legal defense costs in this case.

Welch.

And that's all I have for the moment, in your honor, unless you have any other questions.

Well, we'll come back to that.

Let's now move on to the county attorney, M. Swanson.

Sir, you do not object to the fact that there are two variations on the defaults.

And did the supervisory board consent to what you represented? The auditor. Yes, sir.

Did the auditor give you a written consent to what you represented, even if you are the county attorney?

I don't think, I don't think it's required, as I said in my memory for the other case. Because you don't think there is a conflict of interest?

I don't think there is a conflict of interest.

In this case, as they treat me with an external advice, they totally kept me away from any meeting with the latter.

Je n'ai jamais été impliqué dans aucune conversation avec le conseil externe. Je n'ai aucune information confidentielle sur ce qui se passe avec le conseil externe. Je n'ai jamais participé à aucune discussion à ce sujet.

Vous apprenez des informations de l'auditeur. Qu'est-ce qui est utile au conseil externe ?

Les garderies vous secrètes ? Je suppose que je... Ne pas être accusé d'un crime ou quoi que ce soit pour qu'il ne soit pas au courant.

No, what I'm asking is that if you want to give us your information, your quality, etc.

Sir? Advice? I mean, it's isolated. It's an independent case. So I won't tell them about it, because I don't represent them in this case. So if I took information that would be useful to them in this world of amusement, I wouldn't inform them, because I represent the audience. Say you don't inform your client, count it. Information useful to count. There is a jurisprudence that supports this, but it is the figure in my memory of the other case.

Who thinks he can pursue who he wants.

that then this person can use the accounting funds to pay a lawyer, but that the unfortunate party he decides to pursue has to deal with it alone. And that's what they seem to be doing here too. And so your client, the county, uses a law created by the legislature to attempt a trial. In this specific case, I didn't have a choice in this case. They chose their lawyer to file the complaint, and I don't think they have the right to do so, but they chose their lawyer, which is mentioned in Morocco as an inescapability, but they chose a lawyer to attempt this trial against the auditor. I also represent the auditor. I represent all the elected officials in the context of their functions.

So I also represent the auditor. We know that this case is different from ours.

I have no information on the part of the supervisory board.

Something else, Mr. Slocum.

You know, I can submit my memory again, if you wish, for this case. It will be largely the same, or even identical, to the original memory of the other case. And I will ask you to examine it before making a decision. If I was accused, I would ask again. Because I don't think it's fair if I'm disqualified at a time like this. If the county attorney is disqualified, the court can approve, at the expense of the council or the county, an external attorney. And I will ask the court to do the same thing as in the other case, and to approve the county's fees so that the auditor can hire a lawyer. And so, regarding the memory you deposited in the other case, the CB 036-2043 wanted me to consider the memory as if it had been deposited in this case. I can deposit it again if you want me to deposit it again in this case.

Well, if there is no change, I would like you to deposit it again.

Do it.

Do you intend to modify it? I leave you the possibility to do so if you want. I do not suggest doing it. Because I assume that if you deposit the same memory as in the other case, the council will ask you to deposit its own. Yes, I could modify it a little, so I think I have to modify it a little. Is a report before Wednesday noon this week sufficient? And Mr. Bold, would you like to answer? We would like the opportunity to answer, but I can transmit it to the court by Friday noon, if that suits you. And if you would like to address the question if a disqualification is ordered, if you want to deal with the question of the payment of overtime in advance for the successor council, Please do so.

Anything else in the name of the Council? We will therefore be happy to deepen these questions by writing. We believe that a disqualification is justified by a paragraph 1. And Master Johnson?

On the same note, ladies and gentlemen, I will deliberate once these memories have been deposited and I will make a written decision as soon as possible.