Tensions boil over as Jackson County moves to solicit proposals for legal services

Jackson County’s second meeting of the month ended in a bruising, 40-minute debate over who should control the selection of the county’s next legal counsel and how much legal work should flow through the attorney’s office. The exchanges were sharp, the alliances shifted in real time, and the outcome sets the county on a path to solicit outside proposals for legal services amid talk of potential litigation.

Early in the meeting, the friction was already visible. Item 23 had not yet been called when County Attorney Michelle Jordan and County Administrator Jim Dean clashed over how legal review is routed in reference to whether Commissioner Dr. Willie Spires should recuse himself from a vote.  “I’m not sure. This wasn’t submitted to legal, so I wasn’t given an opportunity to review the agreement ahead of time,” said County Attorney Michelle Jordan.

“Mr. Spires, if I could, you know, when in doubt, recuse yourself. That’s my opinion,” said County Administrator Jim Dean.

“That’s not the law, though. The law is that you have to vote, unless you are required to abstain. Again, Mr. Dean doesn’t have a doctorate in law,” said Jordan.

The board members quickly began sparring with each other as well. “What you said was that we’re not capable,” said Commissioner Paul Donofro.

“No, you’re not,” replied Commissioner Dr. Willie Spires.

Those early moments framed what would come later: a public argument over process, authority, and trust that culminated in a split vote and a new selection plan for legal services.

When Item 23 finally came up, Administrator Dean presented it simply: approve an RFP for contract legal services and name a ranking committee to score the proposals. The stated goal was to update an RFP the board had previously considered and restart the process.

Commissioners immediately split on principle. Commissioner Donnie Branch reiterated a position he says he has held for months: bid out everything. “It’s nothing against anyone. It’s not against the county attorney,” Branch said. “I think all of y’all know that I’ve made it very evident in the last six months that I think we ought to bid everything out. I don’t always get there, but I think we should do it. Just so we know. I have no problem with Ms. Jordan’s legal ability. I just would like to know what somebody else would charge us. That’s all.”

Commissioner Paul Donofro reminded colleagues that he originally opposed going out for an RFQ, preferring to benchmark what peer counties pay. He said new developments changed his mind. “There are things that have transpired … that puts into question as to whether this is the right situation that we need to be in. And I think at this point in time, I would vote in favor of going ahead and moving forward with putting the RFQ out and seeing what happens.”

Chairman Jamey Westbrook echoed the cost-conscious impulse while warning that Jackson County’s scale and needs may not match larger counties.  “This county is limited in funds, limited in money,” Westbrook said, adding that he tends to “bid and quote” in his business and sees value in exploring the market.

From the audience, Susan Koppleman urged the board to work together and keep legal decisions within the law, citing Bay County’s higher attorney pay and praising Jordan’s work.

As the board discussed whether to even seek proposals, the underlying fight surfaced: how much county work is supposed to be routed through the attorney, and who decides that.

Jordan told the board that under the draft RFP, the attorney is expected to review all agenda items. In practice, she said, only three items that night had reached her office. She said she no longer has access to the agenda platform and does not receive drafts until the public does. Jordan warned that the dynamic would deter applicants.

“There are so many agenda items every single meeting that typically would have come through legal,” she said, adding that the ordinance template approved earlier had errors she would have corrected. “No attorney is going to be wanting to sign up for this on a regular basis.”

Dean responded that the document before the board was an RFP, not a contract, and said outside counsel had reviewed the language.

Commissioners then split over whether legal should touch most items at all. Donofro argued that many routine purchases within an adopted budget do not require legal review. Spires pushed back, saying commissioners are not trained to make those calls without legal eyes on the details.

That exchange triggered the night’s sharpest moment between Spires and Donofro, with Spires stating that commissioners are not capable of making legal decisions and Donofro objecting to the wording. Westbrook repeatedly stepped in to cool the temperature.

The second fault line was who should rank and recommend the next attorney. Staff had proposed a committee of four community members, attorneys Herman Laramore, Frank Bondurant, Mark Sims, and City of Marianna Finance Director, Kimberly “Kim” Applewhite, plus one commissioner. Chairman Westbrook later asked Commissioner Donnie Branch to serve in that role.

Spires opposed that approach on principle, arguing the attorney works for the board and should be chosen by the board. “We are the Board of Commissioners. We need to hire the attorney, not someone else,” Spires said.

Jordan told the board that while she was comfortable being evaluated by commissioners, she was not comfortable with a committee stocked with people who have personal or professional ties to Administrator Dean. “Those people don’t know county law. And they have relationships, personal relationships with Mr. Dean,” Jordan said. “As an applicant [that] makes me uncomfortable.”

Dean replied that he has many friends in the county and said staff tried to build a fair, impartial panel. Donofro defended the integrity of the named volunteers and said he believed they could evaluate qualifications fairly.

The board cycled through two motions with a detour into parliamentary confusion. Here is where they landed. Commissioner Dr. Willis Spires made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners would be the body to select and hire the attorney with a second by Commissioner Edward Crutchfield. After discussion about what process would follow and whether the motion also addressed ranking mechanics, the board did not give it majority support. The clerk and chair noted confusion, and the board moved on.* 

* Note: The exchange included an attempted hand vote and several requests for clarification. The motion did not carry.

Commissioner Donnie Branch made the motion to approve RFP 25-2605 for legal services; authorize the chair to sign; and appoint the ranking committee of Herman Laramore, Frank Bondurant, Mark Sims, and Kimberly Applewhite, plus Commissioner Donnie Branch; the committee will return a ranking to the board, which retains the final decision. Chairman Jamey Westbrook relinquished the chair to vice-chair Donofro and seconded the motion. The motion passed 3–2 with Commissioners Spires and Crutchfield dissenting.

During the debate, Administrator Dean cautioned that there is potential litigation involving the county and said the selection-committee design had been run past outside counsel who had discouraged having the board itself serve as the ranking body in this instance. Spires objected to the idea that commissioners should step back from choosing their own lawyer because of potential claims, saying that would undercut their core duties.

When Jordan asked what pending case existed, Dean said it would be inappropriate to discuss details because the matter was not on the agenda and because the county’s representative on that issue is not Jordan.

The board then returned to the process question and proceeded to the vote on Donofro’s motion.

Threaded through the entire discussion was cost. Crutchfield pointed to comparisons with other counties and worried that opening the market could drive up Jackson County’s legal bill. Westbrook said the board must be careful with taxpayer dollars but conceded that different counties may not be apples to apples.

Jordan noted her own proposal and argued that misrouted work, not fees, was the real pressure point. Branch stayed fixed on the principle of testing the market.

With the 3–2 vote, Jackson County will advertise RFP 25-2605 and convene the five-member ranking committee that includes Laramore, Bondurant, Sims, Applewhite and Commissioner Branch. That panel will score proposals and bring a ranked list back to the board. The board can accept the ranking, negotiate with the top firm, or go another direction.

Jordan indicated she expects to apply, though she warned her proposal would not mirror her current fee structure given how legal work is assigned under the current administration.

The meeting also established a public record of the process dispute: whether legal should receive all agenda items by default, who decides what goes to legal, and who should judge attorney qualifications. Those choices will matter when proposals come in and when the county’s next legal agreement is negotiated.

The board chose to move forward with a competitive process and a citizen-heavy ranking committee, over objections from Spires and Crutchfield and despite Jordan’s concern about appearances. The debate exposed deeper rifts about who controls legal workflow and how insulated the selection process should be from county administration.

The board now awaits proposals. When the ranking comes back, the same questions about independence, cost, and authority are likely to return to the table.