Charles County is on the hook for more legal fees related to an appeal made by Commissioner Thomasina “Sina” Coates (D) about her being barred from voting on the job status of County Administrator Mark Belton.
At the March 12 Charles commissioners’ meeting, a budget transfer was presented to the board asking for $426,300 to pay for already incurred expenses from the legal battle.
“We need to carry over the unspent FY2023 funds — $205,200 — these are funds that we thought we were going to spend in FY23 due to timing of these bills,” Acting Director of Fiscal and Administrative Services Jake Dyer said. “In addition, since that time, we’ve also incurred an additional $46,100 to support some legal fees that have occurred.”
“We have another $175,000 that we need to pay for, the county’s cost, for the Coates decisional appeal,” Dyer said.
Between fiscal 2023 and 2024, this will increase the total lawsuit budget to $1,571,200, the budget transfer request says.
The situation revolves around the job status of Belton, who has been on indefinite leave for over a year after issues publicly arose that Coates, who is Black, allegedly made racially abusive conduct toward Belton, who is white.
Coates was censured for her conduct in June 2020, and was not allowed to participate in any vote that pertained to Belton’s job status. After Coates tried to participate in a vote on his job status in late 2022, another commissioner revealed the earlier censure, and since then legal fees have been rising.
Kevin Karpinski, an outside attorney who was present virtually for the meeting, said, “The county code has a provision in it that specifically provides for when an elected official and/or employee is sued, the code imposes a statutory obligation on the county to pay for that defense.”
Commissioner Ralph E. Patterson II (D) asked, “Just to clarify for the viewing public is aware, we’re the defendants in this, and who is the plaintiff?”
Karpinski responded, “Pending in the appellate court of Maryland, Commissioner Coates is the appellant/plaintiff, but really the appellant continuing to advance the case.”
There was a motion to pass the budget transfer, initiated by Commissioner President Reuben B. Collins II (D) and seconded by Commissioner Amanda Stewart (D).
Coates, who only attended this portion of Tuesday’s meeting, albeit virtually, temporarily disconnected due to technical difficulties and paused the vote. When she came back, she asked Karpinski if there was any conflicts with her voting on the matter due to it funding her appeal.
Karpinski said that this was a non-discretionary item and the county is obligated to go ahead and fund it.
Commissioner Gilbert “BJ” Bowling (D) said before the vote, “Just to clarify, we’re voting to pay a bill we’re obligated to pay because of Commissioner Coates’ appeal.”
Karpinski again said, that based on county code, they are obligated to pay.
Bowling, Collins and Stewart voted in favor of the transfer, while Patterson and Coates voted against it, resulting in a 3-2 split.
It was not immediately clear why either of the two voted against the payment. Southern Maryland News has tried multiple times over months to talk to Coates about the ongoing legal battle, but she has not returned any requests for comment.
Next, the commissioners discussed covering the costs of an interlocutory appeal — an appeal of a non-final order issued during litigation — from Coates.
The decision to cover the interlocutory appeal was a discretionary decision for the commissioners, according to Karpinski.
“At the end of the day, what I’m trying to do is make this clean,” Collins said. “I’ve made it clear that beyond the final order, I will not support any further money coming from the county on this. What I’m trying to do is clean out what is already in existence, and from my vantage, the interlocutory appeal was filed before the final order.”
Coates recused herself from voting on this decision in order to follow a prior ethics commission decision that she should not vote on anything relating to funding her legal costs further.
“Just to be clear, how much is this for?” Bowling asked.
“This item that we are referring to would increase the budget $55,500,” Dyer said.
Collins sought a motion, no motion was made, and the meeting was adjourned.
Most Popular
Comments / 0