At RTM Budget Overview Committee, Frustration over Legal Fees Heats Up, Again

At Thursday’s meeting of the RTM Budget Overview Committee, chaired by James Waters, the agenda featured a BET presentation of the proposed 2026-2027 budget for the town.

A motion made by vice chair Jennifer Andrews to reduce the town law department budget by $300,000.

While the motion failed, there was passionate discussion about the ongoing litigation between the First Selectman and the Board of Education.

The vote was 4-8-0, with the leadership of the committee all voting in favor of the motion to reduce.

Waters recalled that the BOC considered a similar motion albeit with a different amount a year earlier when the BOC became aware that the litigation had at the time cost the town $200,000. At the May 2025 RTM budget meeting, Waters explained the BOC was concerned about extraordinary legal costs including the lawsuit between the First Selectman and the school board as well as the Project Veritas investigation initiated in 2022 at the behest of First Selectman Camillo that cost the town $300,000 in legal fees.

At the time Camillo ordered the town conduct an investigation though there were already two other investigations underway including one by CT Attorney General, William Tong, that ultimately determined there was no discriminatory employment pattern or practice in Greenwich Schools.

The 2025 BOC motion to reduce law dept budget failed. The vote was 5-5-1.

Fast forward exactly one year and on Thursday, the motion from BOC vice chair Andrews from district 6 to reduce Dept 140 Law Dept, 100 personal services by $300,000 was seconded by Maya L Tichio.

Mr. Waters explained that as of the end of March, the numbers cited in Andrews’ motion included $192,644 in legal fees from the First Selectman that have been paid out of the law department’s budget, and $304,002 in BOE legal fees that have been invoiced but not paid.

“The town charter says she (town attorney) must approve legal expenditures,” Waters said.

Ms Andrews said the previous year’s BOC recommendation was for a small reduction in the law dept budget to make a point that the committee did not approve of the town versus town lawsuit.

“Now we’re here 15 months later since this started and we’ve spent $496,646. And this year it’s totaling about $25,000 a month,” Andrews said. “And the FOIA commission decided the meeting that took place was not in legal order, but now we’re taking it to the N’th degree. We’ve already gotten the answer that that vote probably shouldn’t have happened, but it has.”

“What is the end game of this lawsuit?” she asked. “Are we gong to try to it overturn Dr. Jones contract? And how much is that going to cost us?”

Andrews noted her motion was for $300,000 because law department had announced that was the amount of their budget that was unspent.

“It won’t effect the budget for them that much, but perhaps it could trigger some kind of an interim appropriation if these legal fees keep going,” she said.

The CT Judicial Branch website lists a trial date set for April 20, 2027 for the lawsuit.

“We could be $1 million or $1.5 million more in this lawsuit that the RTM doesn’t agree with. We had a BOC committee resolution that we want this to stop and it hasn’t. It keeps going and going. And to what end? Just so somebody can say I was right. I doesn’t make any sense to me. And I sense a pattern. With Project Veritas, there were three different people looking into that, that we had to spend money on that as well. We had ‘Signgate.’ Now we have this. When is going to end? Is this a way to get somebody to pay attention and stop?”

“Signgate” refers to a 2019–2020 scandal where then Greenwich Police Captain Mark Kordick was fired for placing fake “Trump/Camillo” campaign signs across town. Kordick lost his job and sued the town, alleging violations of his free speech and political retaliation. After years of litigation, Kordick settled his lawsuit against the Town of Greenwich for $650,000 in September 2023.

On Thursday, Harry Fisher from the BET urged the BOC not to approve the motion.

“It is my understanding that the BOE fees would be paid out of the BOE budget, not out of the attorney’s budget. So taking money out of the town attorney’s budget in a year when there’s going to be a higher amount of cases due to the reval – of people appealing the board of assessment appeals – I think it’s not a great idea. The fact that they had a $300,000 surplus is good news. That money comes back to the town.”

Steven Selbst, chair of the RTM law committee, “We’re certainly aware of the expenditure. No one on the law committee is happy about the level of expenditure. But this is litigation brought by the First Selectman. The First Selectman, as a matter of Connecticut law, is the chief executive of the town for purpose of commencing legal procedures. The First Selectman is within his rights to prosecute this litigation if he chooses to. The law department is the wrong person to be unhappy with.”

Selbst continued, “The law department’s function is to look at legal fees the town incurs, even if they’re incurred at the direction of the First Selectman, and to approve them if they are reasonable. Barbara Schellenberg and the town law department does not have discretion to say we don’t like the litigation – we’re not going to pay these bills. The consequence, as Harry (Fisher) said of making a symbolic cut to this department is meaning we’ll come back for an interim appropriation. The expenses are not going away.”

“I fully concur this lawsuit is not well advised,” Selbst added. “Taking on the law department is not the right way to do it. The issue, if people are unhappy about this lawsuit, and I’m sympathetic to people who are unhappy about it because I hate it too, is to go to the litigants. Go to the people on the BOE and to go the First Selectman and tell them to stop this. That is the most powerful lever we have. But it is not to take the money out of the law department. Barbara did not start this lawsuit. She runs her department efficiently. The fact she had a surplus means she managed the department well. I’ve worked with Barbara for five years. She is not the villain here.”

Schellenberg, who called into the meeting remotely, described the proposed reduction to her department’s budget as “punitive.”

She said it would present hardships not only to the department but would be detrimental to the town as a whole.

“We are contractually obligated to pay legal bills for outside counsel, and the rates for those attorneys have increased,” she said.

“We need outside counsel for matters that the law department does not have the expertise to handle, as well as conflict cases. The town BOE litigation is only one conflict. We have several other conflict cases for various reasons that we need to get outside counsel for. We’re seeing more of these cases lately.”

She said 2025 was a revaluation year and tax appeals were adding to the town legal bill.

“I don’t think there is anyone more than me, with everything I have gone through in this past year in dealing with this matter, would love to see this matter resolved,” Shellenberg said.

Waters said his understanding after speaking to Schellenberg earlier in the day was that the BET had the ability to pay those fees. “Correct me if I’m wrong,” he said.

“I did not say that. I said the BET has considered the matter. I’m not opining on the merits of this matter at all,” Schellenberg said.

“As you know town attorney has recused herself from this, and I believe the town charter says she must approve legal expenditures. So those have been submitted instead to the finance department. Apparently there is a mechanism for the BET to authorize payment of those fees?” Waters asked.

Waters asked if the BET had the ability to pay those fees.

Mr. Selbst said the charter said the town attorney has the authority to pay those fees.

Shellenberg said while she previously had said the BET could consider the matter, she would not opine on the matter.

Waters said, “The town attorney has recused herself and cannot authorize authorize payment of those legal fees (BOE legal fees) so they are sitting in limbo. That is not where where this cut is directed.”

Waters said he spoke to the school superintendent and learned there were funds set aside for the school board’s side of the litigation.

“The First Selectman’s side has been paid in full. These are just facts in the room,” he said.

Schellenberg clarified her recusal.

“I did try to bring in outside counsel to deal with the matter, and the former chair of the BOE and her attorney said the person was also conflicted in reviewing the bill.”

Waters said exactly one year earlier when the BOC was considering the previous budget, the fees were $200,000.

“Here we are a year later and they’re now $500,000. The RTM has very little saying in this process. We’ve seen SOMRs about this. This has gotten a lot of attention. We do have say over the budget. From my perspective, I’m probably going to vote in favor of this motion, and if the litigation is dropped by Monday night, I would be willing to withdraw this motion, but this ongoing action is unacceptable.”

The amendment to reduce the law dept budget by $300,000 was referred to a “blunt tool” by some BOC members.

“If someone has a better idea, let me know,” Waters said, adding that a SOMR passed without result.

Tom West said, “We’re focusing on the First Selectman’s side of the equation. We’re not focusing on the BOE side. Can we also suggest we take $300,000 out of their budget?”

“The only thing is the BOE side hasn’t been paid,” Waters said.

“We need to bring pressure on both sides,” Mr. West said.

“But it’s the First Selectman who brought the lawsuit on,” Ms Andrews said.

Stef Cowie asked about process. “You can’t put a condition at all? You couldn’t then say you have 30 days to get in a room, right here, while we sit and watch them talk about it?”

“No. We could do a Sense of the Meeting or someone could get could get 50 signatures to get something on the (RTM) Call, but our ability, for this motion, and in the May budget meeting, is on the budget. And there’s no conditions on anything,” Waters said.

“This motion is specific to that line item in the budget,” Waters said. “It’s not the First Selectman. It’s the Law Department. We did ask, and confirmed the First Selectman’s side has been paid and is paid out of this exact line item.”

Mr. West said the message should be sent to both sides.

Schellenberg noted the proposed reduction was for the next fiscal year.

“Most of the work is going to be done this year,” she said. “In the next fiscal year you’re probably talking maybe around $50,000.”

“The money is needed. The town is contractually obligated. Where am I going to get the money to pay for outside counsel?” Schellenberg asked.

The vote on the motion was 4-8-0 with all the BOC officers – Ms Andrews, Mr. Waters and Seth Bacon (Secretary) as well as member Ms Tichio from district 7 voting yes and the remaining members voting no.

Greenwich Free Press - Latest News from Greenwich CT

At RTM Budget Overview Committee, Frustration over Legal Fees Heats Up, Again

By: greenwichfreepress | 2 hours ago