Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
In Council Member Sam Sims’ recent article to the public, he attempted to address what he referred to as “rumors” involving the City of Grant and City Attorney. Sam’s tone suggested that the public’s concerns were exaggerated or misinformed. He called his version ‘The Boring Truth.’
Well, here is The Whole Truth—backed by documents, contracts, billing records, public records requests, and firsthand experience.
On Legal Services and the So-Called “Clerical Error”
Sam stated in his letter that the City’s “Professional Services” expenses were being interpreted as entirely tied to the City Attorney, suggesting a misrepresentation of the numbers in a previous letter comparing legal costs across cities. That statement does not align with the figures obtained through lawful public record requests. The figures I used were derived directly from lawful Nebraska Public Records Requests for ‘Legal Services,’ not ‘Professional Services.’ There is a legal and financial distinction between those two categories—a distinction the City should know.
To better understand what is buried under “Professional Services,” I submitted a public record request with the City Clerk for a breakdown of all vendors paid under that line item. The reply: “We are not obligated to provide that.” Yet other cities provided it freely. Why is Grant always the outlier when it comes to transparency?
Sam also claimed that what is being described as the City Attorney overcharging was nothing more than a “clerical error”—that the City Attorney refunded the overbilled amount and then formally requested to raise her rate to $275/hour in an amended agreement presented on July 8, 2025.
Let’s unpack that.
On December 13, 2023, the City of Grant signed a three-year agreement with the City Attorney, effective January 1, 2024, stating her hourly rate would be $250.00/hour outside the retainer. But starting in August 2024, billing entries began reflecting both $250 and $275 hourly rates—within the same month. A total of 24 billing entries were recorded, including:
• 1 retainer of $1,200.
• 5 entries for $250/hour.
• 18 entries at $275/hour.
On August 30 alone, three entries were for 0.4 hours: two were charged at $275, one at $250. Another entry for 0.3 hours was billed at $250.00.
This does not appear to have been merely a simple clerical error.
Sam stated, the State Auditor found “No Fault.” But if there truly was ‘No Fault,’ then why issue a refund at all?
And here is the kicker: In an email correspondence I received dated July 11, 2025, from the State Auditor’s Office, it was stated that the City of Grant and the City Attorney were working to resolve the billing discrepancy. This appears to be more than a clerical error.
During a phone conversation in which I participated, the State Auditor’s Office confirmed that they would issue a letter on this matter. Per the State Auditor, this letter will be made publicly available and can be obtained as an official public record through the City of Grant. To date, the City of Grant has not provided access to the letter, which raises questions about compliance with Nebraska Public Records Statutes.
Additionally, it is important to mention that on July 8, 2025, during New Business Item C, on the City Council Agenda, the Council considered and approved an amended City Attorney Agreement between the City of Grant and the City Attorney. If all the previous steps, including the billing rate discrepancy and refund—were truly above board as suggested in the so called “Boring Truth,” then what was the need for an amended agreement at all?
Council Member Sims stated that the City Attorney “raised her rates on all her clients” and that this was merely a clerical error when informing the City. But if the City Attorney entered a three-year contract beginning January 1, 2024, why would she feel the need to change the rate only seven months into the same agreement? The records reviewed raise questions about whether this was purely a clerical error. Furthermore, municipal contracts are not private freelance arrangements; they must comply with Nebraska law and cannot simply be altered by the contractor sending a letter announcing a rate increase. Such a unilateral action would ignore the required process of public approval and formal amendment, which exists to protect taxpayers and ensure accountability.
To make matters even more concerning, Council Member Sims himself stated on record during the July 8, 2025, Council Meeting that he was not aware of any rate increase until recently. Yet the City Attorney allegedly provided the City with a letter dated July 1, 2024, announcing that increase—a letter that two council members also stated they had no knowledge of. Even more troubling, that alleged letter was not included in a lawful public records request dated March 24, 2025, which specifically requested all contracts, retainer agreements, amendments or extensions to the original contract, scope of services or duties outlined for the City Attorney and compensation terms between the City of Grant and the City Attorney. The City’s response was received on March 26, 2025, and contained a one-page agreement, signed by the Mayor and City Attorney dated December 13, 2023. Later, on March 26, 2025, I personally met with the City Clerk and asked if there were any other documents connected to the City Attorney Agreement—specifically, I asked whether any amendments existed. The City Clerk’s response was clear ‘That is all there is,’—the one-page agreement. That response raises a serious question—how can a document so critical to the City’s financial obligations simply not exist in the official record? That does not appear to resemble a clerical error, it appears to reflect an apparent lapse in transparency and compliance with Nebraska’s Public Records Statutes (§84-712 et seq.).
Also, it is important to note that following a phone conversation with the State Auditor’s Office on July 8, 2025, I submitted a new public records request that same day—specifically requesting any letter, memo, email, or other written communication sent by the City Attorney to the City of Grant notifying the City of an intent to increase the hourly rate. The City Clerk’s response, received on July 11, 2025, stated “No record exists,” and was signed by both the City Attorney and the City Clerk, dated July 10, 2025.
The alleged letter finally came to life only after, yet another public record request dated July 14, 2025, in which I specifically requested:
• Any letters, emails, memos, meeting minutes, or digital correspondence that contain or reference the City Attorney’s intent to increase the hourly rate;
• Any cover letters, email time stamps, or delivery receipts showing when such notice was received or acknowledged by any City of Grant official;
• Any calendar entries, notations, agendas, or reminders referencing the receipt, discussion, or acknowledgement of this rate change;
• Any notes, internal memos, or communication logs documenting the City of Grant’s knowledge or internal handling of the notification;
• Any records provided to the Nebraska Auditor of Public Accounts establishing or referencing this notification.
The City Clerk’s response, provided on July 16, 2025, read as follows:
• The alleged letter dated July 1, 2024, from the City Attorney to the City of Grant was provided.
• No record exists.
• No record exists.
• No record exists.
• See Neb. Rev. §84-712.05(5)—not accessible via access to records request.
This response was again signed by both the City Attorney and the City Clerk, dated July 16, 2025.
It is particularly concerning that no record exists showing when this notice was received. Many documents reviewed from the City of Grant bear a date-received stamp showing when they were officially logged by the Clerk’s Office—a practice I have personally observed. Yet, in this case, no such record or timestamp exists for a document of such significant importance to the City’s financial and contractual obligations.
Again, I ask:
If there was truly ‘No Fault,’
• Why was there a refund?
• Why was the contract rate not followed consistently?
• Why not release the Auditor’s letter?
These unanswered questions appear to form a consistent pattern—one that extends beyond billing and contracts.
On Nuisance Properties and Due Process Denied
Sam also referenced “recent attacks” against the City and City Attorney, suggesting that public criticism stems from a handful of nuisance properties. That is a convenient oversimplification. Here’s The Whole Truth:
Three properties were designated as nuisances by WCNDD. However, Sam did not specify the reason for the involvement of legal counsel. For full disclosure, my family is the owner of these properties.
The property owner requested a punch list of specific steps needed to bring the properties into compliance. WCNDD and the City refused to provide one. After legal counsel got involved, WCNDD insisted all communication flow through the City Attorney. The attorney asked, very plainly, for specific guidance. The only response was a vague regurgitation of the ordinance—no actionable list.
On May 30, 2023, the attorney formally asked that if no list would be provided, a meeting be scheduled at the property to identify violations. The request was ignored.
On July 6, 2023, the attorney followed up. The City Attorney finally responded on July 7, 2023, stating “We commend your client on the progress; however, your client has been given enough time to clean up the nuisance violations, and the City of Grant has no choice but to move forward with the abatement process.”
Again, this does not align with the May 30 request, which clearly sought an in-person inspection involving WCNDD, the property owner, and the attorney—an opportunity to clarify what exactly remained out of compliance. That request was never acknowledged, let alone fulfilled.
On July 10, 2023, an abatement crew arrived at one of the properties. When asked what they were there to do, they responded:
According to the abatement crew’s own statements at the property, they had not been given a list.
They proceeded to empty a trash receptacle that was already serviced by the City’s trash program and then billed the property owner $65.00 in dump fees.
The final invoice across all three properties totaled $465.00, including:
• $75.00 in administrative fees ($25 for each property)
• $195.00 for labor at a property where the abatement crew did nothing
• $65.00 in dump fees
• $65.00 labor charges at each of the two other properties where cleanup was completed by the property owner’s own crew
The abatement crew was not informed about what needed to be removed, did not document any violations, and failed to complete the specified tasks as previously outlined by Council Member Sam. Nevertheless, the costs were still billed to taxpayers and property owners.
Even more concerning: The City Superintendent was trespassed by the County Sheriff that day from one of the properties.
So, What’s Really Going On?
This is not about attacking anyone. This is about accountability, contract enforcement, and due process. There is a continuing perception among citizens the City operations lack transparency.
If the City believes everything is above board, release the Auditor’s letter.
If the billing mistake was just a clerical error, explain the inconsistency.
If abatement actions were justified, produce the punch list and proof of work.
And if everything is truly fine, why are these facts so difficult to uncover?
The Boring Truth is a deflection.
The Whole Truth is uncomfortable.
But it is also what the people of Grant deserve to know.
Marlin Wendell
Grant, Nebraska