Matt Coker: What authority does delegation's 'control group' hold?

To The Daily Sun,

In an effort to better understand why the delegation spent $20,000 over what they budgeted for their defense against the suit brought by the Gunstock Area Commission, I decided to submit a right to know request for around 87 emails between Norm Silber, Mike Sylvia and the attorney retained to defend the delegation. Silber responded by identifying himself and Sylvia as the "control group" and claiming attorney client privilege between the control group and their legal representation. According to Silber I’m not entitled to these emails. At this point I'm turning to the delegation to follow up and ask some questions. Rep. Tim Lang asked Silber on Nov. 16, 2021, if the funds would be used for anything other than a defense of the delegation. Silber responded saying the funds were only for defense. Why then is the first item on the attorney's bill dated Nov. 15, 2021, "RE: Proper Plaintiff for commissioner removal"? Assuming the invoice reflected services already rendered, had they already used the funds that the delegation had yet to approve trying to remove GAC commissioners? Equally concerning, Silber and Sylvia claim to be the “control group”, can anyone point to where the Delegation voted for a control group to be established? What authority does the “control group” hold?

Regardless, attorneys were hired to defend the delegation not just the control group of Sylvia and Silber. There should be no problem releasing the emails to the delegation to show they stayed within the scope of what was intended to be funded.

If I were sitting on the delegation, I would feel these are the questions I would need answered in the name of transparency. I would owe my constituents some answers after two of my colleagues spent $20,000 more than budgeted for my defense.

Matt Coker

Meredith