Heated debate over public defender erupts at commissioners meeting

At the August 5 Board of Kimball County Commissioners meeting, the commissioners chose to move forward with contracts for Stacy C. Nossaman-Petitt as Public Defender and Lindsay R. Snyder as Guardian Ad Litem. However, at the August 19 meeting the Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC brought some concerns to the attention of the commissioners.

The commissioners were approached by the Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC in May of 2014, with a complete proposal for the public defender position. In order to make the application process a fair one, the commissioners appointed a public policy committee, Robert M. Brenner, Monte Nielan and David Bashaw, to oversee the application process. The committee then took on the responsibility of notifying the surrounding legal counsels. Notices were sent to contacts via the Nebraska Bar Association and Nebraska Criminal Defense Network.

The deadline to get applications and proposals in was June 30, 2014. The policy board received six applications and one was later withdrawn, so five were then presented. Three from the Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC, one from Snyder, and one from Petitt.

There was a large difference in the proposed amounts that each defender said they would work for monthly. This monthly difference added up to a $57,400 difference yearly. The correspondence between the board and the applicants was presented to the commissioners at their August 5 meeting at which time they decided to proceed with a contract for Snyder and Petitt.

At the August 19 commissioners meeting, Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC had requested to appear on the agenda in order to address the commissioners concerning a letter which they sent on August 8, which was received on August 11.

In the letter, Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC, represented by Audrey Elliot, Mark Kovarik, and Matthew Turman, expressed concerns with the process in which the applicants were dealt with by the policy board. Although feeling that the application due date was arbitrary, Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC complied with the necessary deadlines and interview processes well before the due date. However, according to the information provided them, they reached the conclusion that the other applicants were not required to meet the same “arbitrary deadline”.

“Based on information available to us at this time it appears that Mr. Brenner may have solicited bids from Ms. Pettit and Ms. Snyder after the June 30th deadline. These events are evidenced by the July 8, 2014 letter of Ms. Pettit and the July 9, 2014 email by Ms. Snyder as their correspondence is responsive to some sort of inquiry from Mr. Brenner and pertains to information provided to them,” the Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC letter said.

They went on to address the point that they had never received any information from Mr. Brenner and that they should have, given the transparent state in which the public policy board had decided to handle the application process. Public Policy Board member Nielan, spoke up asking where they had drawn the conclusion that Snyder and Pettit had received any additional information.

“What information did they have that you did not? Did you not have access to the public records and have information in order to place a bid along with your application?” Nielan asked.

These pointed questions being asked, Elliot took the opportunity to speak up concerning the lack of information provided as well as the non-compliance with the deadline.

“We were not provided with any information. All the information that we based our proposal on was information we, as a team, gathered well before the June 30th deadline. I might add that we are still overlooking in the Snyder/Pettit correspondence,” Elliot said.

After Brenner spoke up asking what the problem was with the correspondence, Turman, once again, pointed out that the dates on the correspondence with Snyder and Pettit were after the June 30th deadline.

“This email and this letter provided in the packet presented to the commissioners by their public policy board are clearly dated after the application due date. These correspondences clearly have bids in them and, therefore, are late for the date that your own policy board set,” Turman said.

Brenner explained while that was the only correspondence in the packet it was not the only correspondence received.

“It is the job of the public policy board to provide the commissioners with information that will allow them to make an informed decision with the best interests of the county in mind. Which is what the packet provided does,” Brenner said.

The Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis, PC, team then brought to the attention of the commissioners that the bids presented before them are based on two different contracts. One contract that was drawn up by the public policy board and the other drawn up by Kovarik, Ellison, and Mathis PC.

“In our contract, we take all the risk. We give you a set and definite amount that you would be paying us, no more. We wanted to provide you with the certainty of knowing what you would be spending on a public defender. However, with the ‘Brenner contract’, it is said that you would pay a considerably lower $87,600, but you are taking the risk. The county will be paying those court fees that will send that eighty-seven-six upwards, probably to about what we bid or even higher. This is because in the ‘Brenner contract’ you run the risk, where in our contract we run that risk, and you get one solid amount that you pay,” Turman said.

With the conversation between the attorneys and the public policy board being heated, the commissioners decided that it might be necessary to discuss this further at a later date.

“What I don’t understand is why you wouldn’t give Snyder and Pettit a heads up about today, so that they could come down here and plead their side of things, explain how they came to their proposed budget. You keep talking about them and speculating on how they got information. If you had told them to come, they could answer,” Commissioner Larry Brower said.

The commissioners ended the discussion due to time constraints and to prevent further arguments and upsetting comments.

Later in the meeting, the commissioners decided to move forward with their original decision of having Pettit as the public defender and Snyder as the Guardian Ad Litem. The chairman’s signatures were approved on the contracts.