BRADENTON BEACH – City officials acknowledge the city is responsible to pay former city attorney Ricinda Perry $23,782 for services she provided in September and invoiced the city for in October.
However, the mayor and city commissioners do not intend to pay the remainder of the $167,674 in bulk invoices Perry sent the city in October for services she provided dating back to January 2025.
Perry retired as city attorney on Sept. 18.
During the Feb. 19 city commission meeting, City Attorney Erica Augello was authorized to send a letter to Perry regarding the invoices in question. The letter states the recent audit of Perry’s invoices conducted by City Treasurer Shayne Thompson revealed “false or incorrect billing entries.”
According to the letter to be sent to Perry after Thursday’s meeting, her unaudited invoices totaled $167,674, the audited invoices totaled $139,685 and the resulting difference is $27,989.
In a Jan. 9 memo Augello sent Mayor John Chappie and the city commissioners, Augello stated, “The audit revealed that entries were made for services that could not have possibly occurred on the dates as indicated, that time entries for several days exceeded the number of hours in a day, that entries were not billed at the appropriate rate as agreed upon or that time entries were for unapproved non-legal services,”
The commission-authorized letter states, “The billing, as presented, has been audited and has been found to include false or incorrect billing entries. By way of example, there are a multitude of entries for discussions with staff members on weekends or other days when the staff member was not working, entries that exceed the number of hours in a day, entries that were billed for unapproved non-legal work related to permit reviews, plans reviews, etc., entries for storm-related work that were billed at higher than the negotiated $150/hour rate, entries for conversations with outside counsel that were not captured on outside counsel’s invoices, entries for completing assignments where no work product was received or otherwise not completed as billed, as well as other similar type entries.”
Augello referred to Perry’s existing engagement agreement with the city, which was drafted by Perry and stated her invoices would be submitted monthly and paid monthly.
“From a legal perspective, I think the city is on good footing with saying you’re not responsible for paying those invoices because she’s in breach of her own contract that she drafted,” Augello told the mayor and commissioners.
Augello added that the city does have the ability to negotiate an agreement, but reiterated, that based on the engagement agreement, the city would be able to defend any challenges from Perry in a court of law.
“I will say, I want you to keep in mind that this is a contract just like you would have with anyone else and I want you to treat it like you would any other contract,” Augello told the commission.
CITIZEN, COMMISSION COMMENTS
Two citizens spoke during public comment and they both supported strict adherence to the contract, as stated in the engagement agreement with Perry.
“My feeling is that the city attorney should stick to legal matters,” Evelyn Stob said.
“If an invoice is supposed to happen monthly, then it should be monthly,” Elayne Armaniaco said. “There’s just too much leeway given and there was certainly too much leeway given with this former city attorney.”
Mayor John Chappie agreed that the city should stick with the contract as written.
“I’m alarmed at the audit,” Commissioner Deborah Scaccianoce said. “It’s disappointing because you put your faith in your city attorney to represent the city and do the right thing and then this happens. This was a breach of trust. We trusted her. She breached that trust.”
“It’s amazing that someone would send an invoice out having spent 26.1 hours in a day. That math never added up,” Commissioner Scott Bear said. “We need to be on record that we have concerns about her invoicing and provide the opportunity to negotiate. She deserves to be paid but pay what’s realistic.”
Bear questioned a contract provision that provided a 12% fee for late payments.
Newly appointed Commissioner Robert Talham questioned the possible legal costs the city might incur if the matter is taken to court.
In response, Augello said, “If this does to go court, there is an attorney’s fee provision. If this has to be enforced in a court of law, and the city is successful, she will be responsible for paying the city’s reasonable attorney’s fees. If we lose, we will be responsible for paying her attorney’s fees.”
Augello then said, “My letter says based on the city’s contract with Ms. Perry, she is in breach because she didn’t get her invoices to the city within 30 days as required. Based on what was presented to the city, the city has the obligation to audit those invoices and make sure they are appropriate.”
