After about 40 minutes of closed session deliberations, the Crow Wing County Board agreed Tuesday to settle the lawsuit it faced from County Attorney Don Ryan over his 2017 budget.
The settlement permits the county attorney to hire an additional legal assistant as of September and to hire another county attorney in 2018.
"I believe that such an agreement is reasonable, and based upon my work in this area, reasonable and in the public interest," said Scott Anderson, the private attorney hired to represent the board in the budget appeal. "I think it is an outcome that we might end up with at trial, too, and therefore we reach that point without the cost of expense and time of a trial."
Ryan, who was elected county attorney in 1994, alleged in his December 2016 suit the budget the board approved was not reasonable for the duties required of his office. The workload expected of his employees continues to increase, he said, and the delivery of justice in a timely manner was suffering.
"Appealing my budget wasn't really something that I think any county attorney ever really looks forward to," Ryan said by phone Tuesday. "I just got to the point where we need more people to be able to provide the services that Crow Wing County citizens deserve, and I did what I believed I had to do in order to uphold the oath I take and to provide the support to the citizens and my people. I'm happy we've been able to come to a resolution."
ADVERTISEMENT
Commissioners discuss
After Commissioner Rachel Reabe Nystrom made the motion to accept the settlement agreement and Chairman Doug Houge seconded, commissioners Paul Thiede and Paul Koering explained why they intended to oppose the resolution.
"We've had several conversations about data-driven results, and I will say that I do not feel as though our county attorney has particularly been forthcoming in data that shows us a clear and undivided picture of what it means to manage that office effectively and with data that proves that case," Thiede said.
Thiede said it was difficult for the board to measure effectiveness of the office without the data to demonstrate it. Although he'd seen "glimpses" of Ryan embracing the culture leading to seven years of property tax levy reductions, Thiede said it was less than he'd like.
"I believe it feels like lawyers and judges are dictating public policy in budget matters in this case," Thiede said. "I think there's little chance of our winning, except in reinforcing with the public that some budget matters are not within the abilities regardless of our political philosophy here because I think there are outside forces that sometimes force us to take positions. ... I've had no illusions to believe that we would prevail in a court case with lawyers and judges, when we're using data and measures of efficiency that arguably those silver-tongued lawyers can present in a much better way than I can."
Koering said he also lacked the "silver tongue," harkening to his roots as a dairy farmer from the southern part of the county.
"In this country we really have a lot of great freedoms, but I think the most important freedom we have is we have the freedom to go the ballot box and vote for who we want to be our representatives and to run our government," Koering said. "I'm one of five people who are elected to be in charge of the taxpayers' dollars. To be the custodian, the protector, of the taxpayers' dollars. Not the county attorney, not anybody else, not the county engineer. ... I'm really kind of appalled that the county attorney or the courts have to get involved when the people have spoken when they voted us five in to be in charge of their budget."
Koering said he thought it was wrong state law dictated a bench trial in the case of a budget appeal, adding if he ever ran for the state Legislature again, the first bill he'd introduce would change that requirement to a jury trial "so that the voters have a choice in this rather than the courts deciding this."
ADVERTISEMENT
"I'm kind of sad today, that it had to get to this point," Koering said. "I'm going to make sure in the future, when we have budget negotiations, that I understand the numbers and I understand what the county attorney is presenting us."
Commissioner Rosemary Franzen said the settlement was "very distasteful" to her. Franzen said despite this feeling, she would vote in support of the resolution accepting the settlement.
"I think it's very unfortunate that the county attorney didn't supply more comparison data to help us with this decision, but this is taxpayer money and I don't want to invest in additional resources if this is the best outcome that we could expect if we went to trial," Franzen said. "I will vote to accept the proposal, even though I'm not happy about it at all."
Nystrom described the situation as awkward and likened it to disagreements among family.
"This is like we're a family and now the squabbles are public," Nystrom said. "For me, I have no appetite for a lawsuit with our county attorney's office and our colleagues. We have come to a reasonable solution I think and it's, let's get on with the business of Crow Wing County and serving our 60,000 residents."
Houge said he felt the agreement was in the best interest of the taxpayers.
"I believe it is a fair settlement that I am going to support," Houge said.
In a roll call vote, the resolution passed 3-2, with Thiede and Koering opposed. The resolution also authorized the board chair to sign a written agreement once one was drafted. Following adjournment, Anderson said he was on his way to meet with Ryan to assure everyone was on the same page, and a judicial conference was scheduled later Tuesday afternoon. That conference was canceled in light of the agreement, Ryan said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ryan said the financial impact of the agreement was yet to be determined, but did amount to an increase in his office's budget. The cost of the settlement coupled with the legal fees for the private attorney hired by the board would represent the total impact to taxpayers.
A 2017 budget amendment submittal for the county attorney's office would depend on the pay level at which a replacement employee for a retiring legal assistant was hired.
Background
Both budget proposals Ryan offered in 2016 were rejected by the county's budget committee. Instead, a modest increase in Ryan's budget to account for cost increases of sexual assault exams and costs expensed to his office for the county's new initiatives was approved by the county board.
As part of Ryan's proposals, Finance Director Jason Rausch prepared data to show the caseloads of attorneys in the county attorney's office.
Ryan's request would have resulted in a budget increase for the county attorney's office of $189,410. Assuming no other changes were made to the county's budget, this would have been a .38 percent increase in the county's overall property tax levy over 2016. Instead, the county board passed a property tax levy with reductions for the seventh straight year. The value of Ryan's budget request that was not approved amounted to .21 percent of the county's $83.27 million budget.
Ryan's authority to seek legal remedy if dissatisfied with his office's budget is written into state statute. This is not the first time Ryan has raised concerns with his office's budget. In September 2015, Ryan told the board continued cuts to his office's budget were not possible in his view. He asked for a similar increase in staff for the 2016 budget.
