The Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 on Friday to retain outside legal counsel to assist in determining whether newly elected County Attorney Brad Miller may have a potential conflict of interest regarding employment matters related to his own office. The special session followed Wednesday’s regular meeting, where the original agenda item was withdrawn after Chairman Miller cited communication from the County Attorney’s Office about a conflict on an appointment matter. During Friday’s meeting, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Sherry Leckrone, recently appointed by County Attorney Brad Miller, advised the board that “there may be a potential conflict of interest” based on their executive session discussion.
April 2nd Withdrawal and April 4th Special Session
On April 2nd, the Board of Supervisors withdrew agenda item 8, which proposed retaining outside counsel to determine whether the County Attorney had a “conflict of interest” or “lack of harmony” regarding employment matters. Chairman Stephen Miller announced the item’s withdrawal, citing communication from the County Attorney’s Office about a conflict related to an appointment matter.
The board then scheduled a special session for April 4th with an expanded and more detailed agenda. Unlike the single item on April 2nd, the April 4th agenda broke the process into three distinct steps: first, an executive session to discuss the potential conflict; second, a vote on whether the Board believes a conflict exists; and third, a decision on retaining outside counsel based on whether the County Attorney agrees or disagrees about the conflict. This restructured agenda outlined a more structured procedural approach for addressing the potential conflict issue.
Pre-Inaugaration Planning Raises Concerns
Public concern stems from an October 2024 conversation between then-Vice Chairman McClure and outgoing County Attorney Kent Volkmer, who had served in that role for 8 years, two months before Miller took office. McClure asked Volkmer to provide an opinion on “the ability to seek outside legal advice on matters we might not see eye to eye on with the county attorney. A disharmony issue, I believe.”
Volkmer responded with apparent amusement: “If I don’t agree with what I’m telling you, I’m trying to tell you how to work your way around me?” McClure confirmed, “That’s right. That’s what I want you to tell me.”
This exchange, occurring before Miller’s inauguration, raised serious questions about why a supervisor would seek advice on bypassing the authority of an incoming elected official months before they even took office. Adding to these concerns, McClure had actively campaigned against Miller in the election. The timing of this conversation, paired with the recent agenda items, has fueled public speculation about the board’s intentions toward Miller since his election.
Defining “Conflict of Interest” vs. “Lack of Harmony”
During the April 4th meeting, Vice-Chairman McClure offered a definition of conflict of interest from the “Romley versus Dalton decision,” citing Ethics Rule 1.7A: “A conflict of interest exists if one, the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; Or two, there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”
The original agenda had mentioned both “conflict of interest” and “lack of harmony,” but discussion focused primarily on the conflict aspect. This shift in terminology from the original agenda is notable, as “lack of harmony” echoed McClure’s October 2024 reference to a “disharmony issue.” The April 2nd agenda specifically mentioned seeking counsel to determine if the County Attorney had a “conflict of interest or lack of harmony that precludes him from representing the County,” and while “lack of harmony” still appeared in the agenda item for April 4th, the approved motion text focused exclusively on the potential conflict of interest question.
Neither meeting provided a clear definition of what constitutes “lack of harmony” or “disharmony” in a legal context, leaving questions about how such a subjective standard might be applied. When voting on the final motion, Supervisor Serdy expressed concern about the wording being “open-ended as if there would be other matters,” noting he heard “matters” used in plural. McClure acknowledged, “We have employment matters at this point. There are two people at this point.”
Public Reaction and Support for Miller
During public comments on April 2nd, numerous citizens voiced support for Miller. Many expressed concern that the board might undermine an elected official who had only been in office for a few months.
Thomas Silva, a county resident, played an audio recording of the October 2024 conversation between McClure and Volkmer over the speaker system in the board meeting room. After playing the recording, Silva stated, “So I don’t want you to use advice from the ousted attorney to undermine Brad. And I don’t want you to use advice from outside attorneys to undermine Brad, especially in the area of employment.”
Mike Fowler, a military veteran who supported Miller’s campaign, described the County Attorney as a fellow Marine with “integrity” and being “forged by honor, integrity, and most importantly in a leader, compassion.” Another resident, Wayne Bush, stated, “We don’t want a rubber stamp in here that does whatever the Board of Supervisors wants him to do. We want a county attorney that stands up to crime.”
Several speakers praised Miller’s work establishing a Special Victims Unit and lauded his early efforts to address crime, particularly his actions against child predators and human trafficking in the county. Barbara Silva noted problems her friend encountered when applying to work for Miller, suggesting administrative barriers in the hiring process.
Executive Session and Limited Public Information
The April 4th special session began with an executive session regarding the potential conflict. Following this closed-door discussion, Supervisor Serdy expressed frustration, not about the existence of a potential conflict, but about the lack of transparency: “There’s a lot of information that was in there that the public does not have. I don’t like executive sessions. I wish that that whole conversation was held out here in public.”
Serdy further added, “We could give them an idea of why this all came about,” indicating his preference for greater public disclosure about the nature of the employment matter being discussed.
Chairman Miller along with the other supervisors resisted waiving privilege: “I would not at this time waive that information. That information can be waived at a later date. I think there could be more discovery to this. And I just think in the best interest of not only the Board of Supervisors, but the County Attorney’s Office as well… we should make a motion and move on.”
Final Vote and Clarifications
Before the final vote, Supervisor Serdy sought clarification about the limited scope of the motion: “This would be a one-off legal advice from outside counsel. This would not be retaining any outside counsel to take away the duties of what our attorneys do for us. This would be one time advice. Not hiring anybody to take any duties from the duly elected county attorney.”
Vice-Chairman McClure confirmed: “This is not wholesale removal of the county attorney. This is a case by case basis, that’s what this is.”
The board approved the motion to retain outside legal counsel in a 4-1 vote, with Supervisor Serdy casting the lone dissent. According to the official minutes, the board approved that:
- The County Attorney may have a potential conflict of interest
- Outside counsel should be retained to represent the Board of Supervisors
- This counsel will determine whether the County Attorney has a conflict that prevents him from representing the County on employment matters in his office
- The County Manager is authorized to retain this legal counsel
- The counsel is authorized to take necessary steps to determine if the County should retain outside conflict of interest counsel
Supervisor Serdy cast the lone dissenting vote after expressing concern about its scope and requesting clarification. His concerns centered on the motion’s wording being too open-ended, particularly the use of the plural “matters” rather than specifying the exact employment issues at hand.
Looking Forward
The County Manager now has authorization to retain outside legal counsel specifically to provide an opinion on whether a potential conflict exists – not to conclusively establish that one definitely does exist. This is an important distinction, as the Board has not yet declared an actual conflict, only acknowledged the possibility of one that requires investigation.
If outside counsel advises that a conflict likely exists, the Board may take additional steps to address the situation, though no specific outside firm has yet been selected. The motion’s language about “taking such steps as necessary” leaves open what actions might follow the initial determination.
While specific details of the employment matters remain undisclosed due to executive session confidentiality, the board has stated that its actions are intended to remain narrowly focused on specific employment matters rather than a broader attempt to circumvent the County Attorney’s authority.
