The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 Tuesday to approve an amendment to the county attorney’s professional services agreement, following discussion over contract protections, compensation and public accountability. The amendment applies to the county’s agreement with Bradley & Komando, P.A., the law firm that provides county attorney services. Under the agreement, attorney Rich Komando is authorized to act as county attorney and provide legal services to the Board of County Commissioners, county administration and staff.
The agenda item was brought forward after Board Chair Clay Murphy negotiated changes to the contract following prior consensus from the board.
The approved amendment includes three primary changes: updating the firm’s name to Bradley & Komando, P.A.; tying future annual compensation increases to the same percentage increase approved for county employees during the county’s annual budget process; and adding a supermajority provision for certain contract actions, including termination without cause.
Under the agreement, Bradley & Komando is paid a flat $18,000 per month for general counsel services. Those services include attending regular board meetings, attending workshops and special meetings as requested, briefing commissioners, reviewing agenda items, drafting and reviewing legal documents, and providing general legal advice to the board and county staff.
The agreement also allows the firm to provide special counsel services at a rate of $250 per hour. During discussion, concerns were raised by Commissioner Ann Taylor about both the monthly fee and the hourly special counsel rate. Komando said the $250 hourly rate has not been used and is below other outside counsel rates cited during the meeting, including a special magistrate rate of $275 per hour.
A major point of debate centered on the new supermajority termination language. The provision requires a supermajority of the board to terminate the professional services agreement in cases involving adverse political consequences unrelated to the county attorney’s professional competency or work productivity.
What is a Supermajority Vote?
A supermajority vote requires a higher level of agreement than a simple majority. For the five-member St. Johns County Commission, a simple majority is three votes. A supermajority requirement would mean four commissioners must agree before certain action can be taken.
Supporters of the provision said the higher vote threshold is intended to protect the county attorney from political pressure. Because the county attorney advises the board, administration and staff on legal matters, supporters argued the position should be insulated from removal based on political disagreements, public pressure campaigns or shifts in board politics.
Opponents and critics may view the same provision differently. Requiring four votes instead of three can make it significantly harder for a future board to remove or replace the county attorney, even if a majority of commissioners believes a change is needed. In practical terms, a 3-2 majority could vote to approve the contract amendment, but a future 3-2 majority might not be enough to terminate the agreement without cause.
That imbalance is one reason supermajority requirements can raise concerns in government contracts. Critics may argue that they reduce accountability, limit the authority of future elected boards, and give one or two commissioners the ability to block a decision supported by most of the board. Others may worry that the clause could make it harder to respond to performance concerns unless those concerns meet the higher standard for termination “for cause.”
The debate reflects a broader tension between stability and accountability.
Commissioners also discussed whether a contract approved by a 3-2 vote could legally include a future 4-1 vote requirement for termination without cause. An Attorney General opinion was requested on that question.
Public comment was divided. Some speakers supported renewal and the supermajority clause, citing stability and Komando’s performance. Others objected to the 4-1 termination requirement, questioned the cost structure and raised concerns about favoritism and accountability.
The motion to approve the amendment passed 3-2.
