Bridgeport Council Okays $5,000 to Receive Executive Summary, Report on Months-Long City Investigation
By Jeff Toquinto on January 22, 2026
Bridgeport City Council opted to provide additional funding to an ongoing internal investigation being carried out as part of a several months-long legal matter resulting from the dismissal of former City Manager Pat Ford.
/Council%202026/Council%201-21-26%20Ihlenfeld.jpg)
It was one of two items on the agenda for a special City Council meeting Wednesday.
After meeting in executive session with William Ihlenfeld of Flannery Georgalis, LLC, Council reconvened and agreed to allocate up to $5,000 to provide a full report and executive summary on the investigation. Council was in executive session for more than an hour discussing the matter.
The current investigation started as the result of a former city employee alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act when still employed with the city. During that investigation, Ihlenfeld said he found other issues that may need looking into, which is the ongoing “investigation B.”
Costs of the initial investigation, or “investigation A,” were a reason cited by City Council for dismissing Ford. Council approved $25,000 for the investigation involving the former city employee, but it has been stated that Ford allowed costs to exceed $75,000 without Council approval./Council%202026/Council%201-12-26%20Matheny%20Durst.jpg)
Council, last year, approved another $25,000 for Ihlenfeld’s firm to continue with “investigation B.” Ihlenfeld told Council prior to Wednesday’ decision that his firm could provide the governing body with what they already had or continue the investigation. To continue, additional funding had to be approved.
“We would be requesting more money,” said Ihlenfeld before going into executive session. “We’re right up against (the $25,000 allocated) and we stopped.”
There was no time frame announced for when the summary and report would be given to Council.
The $5,000 decision impacted one of two items on last night’s special meeting of Bridgeport City Council. Both items deal with legal matters involving Ford.
Before going into executive session on each item, Council member Chris Kinney asked if lawyers in both cases could give a “brief update” on issues that were not considered confidential and could be for public consumption.
Tiffany R. Durst, with the Morgantown office of Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, went first and discussed the first item on the /Council%202026/Council%201-12-26%20Kinney.jpg)
agenda – the ongoing case of Ford vs. City of Bridgeport. It was hopeful that Durst would have been able to talk to Council, in public or executive session, about the next step to take in the process. However, that did not happen.
agenda – the ongoing case of Ford vs. City of Bridgeport. It was hopeful that Durst would have been able to talk to Council, in public or executive session, about the next step to take in the process. However, that did not happen.
It was possible that Harrison County Circuit Judge Joseph F. Shaffer Jr. would have handed down a decision on whether the case between Ford and the city would be done in third party arbitration or will go to trial. The city is seeking the arbitration route, while Ford is seeking to litigate the matter between the two sides. Shaffer had not ruled on the matter as of the end of the workday Wednesday.
Shaffer had told both sides after a hearing Friday he would likely have a decision “early this week,” said Durst. It could come today, tomorrow, or even next week.
“We do not have any rulings from the court at this time,” said Durst. “We are in a waiting pattern until the court issues a ruling.”
Durst did answer questions that were either brought up in Friday’s hearing or part of the legal record. She said Ford has not withdrawn, as part of his relief being sought, a request to be reinstated as city manager.
As for the next step, she said that it will depend on the ruling. She said both sides have the right to appeal the ruling. Durst was not sure if /Council%202026/Council%201-21-26%20Rominger.jpg)
an appeal would go the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals or the West Virginia Supreme Court, but that it could be appealed.
an appeal would go the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals or the West Virginia Supreme Court, but that it could be appealed.
Following Durst’s comments, Council asked Ihlenfeld to address them on the status of the aforementioned “investigation B” that had $5,000 approved that could bring it to a conclusion.
“We have been hard at work since the last time I was here and the Council gave my firm authorization to proceed with the second part of this investigation to primarily look into contracting practices and procedures of the city,” said Ihlenfeld.
Ihlenfeld said the work has involved interviewing witnesses as well as reviewing “a large number” of emails and documents. Ihlenfeld said progress was made.
“We have made preliminary findings. Some of them specifically related to personnel that would be appropriately discussed in executive session,” said Ihlenfeld. “We have made findings that we believe will save the city money.”
Ihlenfeld said he believed the investment of taxpayer dollars has already produced dividends. He also said he was ready to provide preliminary results prior to going into executive session.
Durst went into executive session on the first item on the agenda at 6:13 a.m. Council reconvened without any action at 6:44 p.m.
A few minutes later, Council went back into executive session with Durst again, but this time with Ihlenfeld who was discussing the investigation portion of the agenda. Both Durst and Ihlenfeld departed before Council reconvened.
Editor's Note: Top photo shows William Ihlenfeld addressing Council Wednesday, while Mayor Robert Matheny, standing, talks with Tiffany Durst prior to the start of last night's session in the second photo. Council members Chris Kinney and Jaclyn Rominger, in the next two photos respectively, are shown asking, or just after asking, questions of the attorneys.
