A Langley council meeting this week left attendees confused after the mayor vetoed a vote to table his cost-saving proposal to regulate council members’ access to the city attorney.

The following day, however, Mayor Scott Chaplin admitted that he didn’t have the authority to veto the action.

Each year, the council is allocated $15,000 to spend on legal services, with no restrictions. The mayor explained that the council was over budget by $1,095 as of September.

The announcement particularly shocked Councilmember Rhonda Salerno, who couldn’t fathom how that could happen and demanded to see the individual charges, something which Chaplin said he had been working on.

In an interview afterward, Chaplin explained the policy as “a guidepost” to make council members aware of how much they’re spending.

“Fifteen thousand dollars does not go very far,” he said.

According to Chaplin, talking with the attorney can cost $305 per hour or more, depending on the topic. The city contracts with Seattle-based law firm, Ogden Murphy Wallace, to fill the city attorney position. Chaplin said it’s unusual for the council to go over budget, but it makes sense since it’s been an extraordinarily litigious year for the city.

The policy, if approved, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

The policy would allow each council member two hours of attorney time per year without any restrictions. Most questions, according to the proposal, can be handled in five minute phone calls with the lawyer. If a council member has run out of unrestricted attorney time, he or she will have to discuss reasons for contacting the legal team with the city administrator first. If appropriate, the request is moved to the council for further approval.

Councilmember Harolynne Bobis said she was in favor of the proposal because it would foster transparency among the council.

Councilmember Thomas Gill said he wasn’t aware he could just contact the attorney without talking with the mayor or the administrator first. He said he believes the policy would solidify what current and future members can do. Councilmember Gail Fleming said she had no objections to limiting attorney time to two hours but wondered if it needs further research.

Three council members voted to table the item until further research and changes were done on the policy, a vote that Chaplin vetoed under the false belief that he could override the vote. This left the council perplexed, but the discussion continued nevertheless.

The council voted for a report on past charges and approved the policy unanimously.

The following day, Chaplin acknowledged his mistake with the council and said he would recommend that the council declare the vote invalid and put the policy proposal on the next regular meeting agenda for further discussion and possible action.