Middlebury selectmen extend town attorneys 90 days and agree to run RFP after debate over legal spending
July 20, 2026 | Middlebury, Naugatuck Valley Planning Region, Connecticut
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Middlebury Board of Selectmen voted to appoint the town’s current legal firm for a 90-day extension while the town prepares a request for proposals for future legal services.
Speaker 2, who presented a multi-page summary of the town’s legal spending, said the town’s legal budget “starting in 2016, the total legal budget was about 115,000 … the budgeted amount for 2026 is a 128,000.” He argued that much recent legal work was outside the town-attorney retainer and warned that replacing counsel mid-litigation could increase costs: “we would end up spending more money to have people catch up on an RFP than if we would just proceed the way that we are,” he said.
Selectman (speaker 3) pushed for transparency and competition, stating it is “a good way of doing business” to solicit proposals and “we owe it to the taxpayers” to see alternate bids. After discussion, speaker 2 moved to appoint Barbara M. Schellenberg and Zabel Schellenberg (firm name as provided in the meeting packet) as town attorneys starting Aug. 1 for 90 days while staff draft and run an RFP; the motion carried on a voice vote recorded in the transcript as repeated verbal “Aye” responses.
The vote does not bind the board to accept any particular RFP response: several members emphasized that a contract resulting from any RFP would require subsequent board approval. Speaker 3 recommended extending the current firm’s contract for the short period (30–60 days) if needed while the RFP is issued and reviewed.
During public comment, Bill Callahan alleged problems with a prior RFP, saying that in a past process “they chose his own company” and described what he called conflicts and an inside job; he urged the board to use an outside, independent panel to evaluate bids if the town proceeds. The board did not take formal action on those allegations at the meeting.
What comes next: staff were directed to draft an RFP, publish it publicly and return to the board for review of proposals and for any contract approvals. The board then moved to an executive session on pending litigation (Barton Junior v. Town of Middlebury).
Speaker 2, who presented a multi-page summary of the town’s legal spending, said the town’s legal budget “starting in 2016, the total legal budget was about 115,000 … the budgeted amount for 2026 is a 128,000.” He argued that much recent legal work was outside the town-attorney retainer and warned that replacing counsel mid-litigation could increase costs: “we would end up spending more money to have people catch up on an RFP than if we would just proceed the way that we are,” he said.
Selectman (speaker 3) pushed for transparency and competition, stating it is “a good way of doing business” to solicit proposals and “we owe it to the taxpayers” to see alternate bids. After discussion, speaker 2 moved to appoint Barbara M. Schellenberg and Zabel Schellenberg (firm name as provided in the meeting packet) as town attorneys starting Aug. 1 for 90 days while staff draft and run an RFP; the motion carried on a voice vote recorded in the transcript as repeated verbal “Aye” responses.
The vote does not bind the board to accept any particular RFP response: several members emphasized that a contract resulting from any RFP would require subsequent board approval. Speaker 3 recommended extending the current firm’s contract for the short period (30–60 days) if needed while the RFP is issued and reviewed.
During public comment, Bill Callahan alleged problems with a prior RFP, saying that in a past process “they chose his own company” and described what he called conflicts and an inside job; he urged the board to use an outside, independent panel to evaluate bids if the town proceeds. The board did not take formal action on those allegations at the meeting.
What comes next: staff were directed to draft an RFP, publish it publicly and return to the board for review of proposals and for any contract approvals. The board then moved to an executive session on pending litigation (Barton Junior v. Town of Middlebury).
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
