Guidelines

I am one member of a five person board. The opinions I express on this forum are mine only, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Escambia County Staff, Administrators, Employees, or anyone else associated with Escambia County Florida. I am interested in establishing this blog as a means of additional transparency to the public, outreach to the community, and information dissemination to all who choose to look. Feedback is welcome, but because public participation is equally encouraged, appropriate language and decorum is mandatory.








Tuesday, December 5, 2017

What does 286.011(8) Fl Statutes Say? What Does it Mean?

ECSO demands raises, we gave raises.  ECSO wants more revenue, we offer a potential plan for more revenue and it is rejected and we are mocked.  We are attacked, our olive branches are being broken and given back, and now we are accused of violating the state open meeting law.  Incredible..
Our meeting on 10-23-2017 was legitimate, it was vetted six ways from Sunday by a team of lawyers, and still we are being accused of violating state statutes by the ECSO.  Here, below, is the relevant statute that was followed.   We followed the law, we vetted the meeting by calling the SAO before the meeting was held, so why are we now being attacked by the ECSO when they know the meeting comports with statute?

Read the relevant statute for yourself, below:


"(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity’s attorney to discuss pending litigation [emphasis added] to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency[emphasis added], provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) The entity’s attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation.
(b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures.
(c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter’s notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity’s clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting.
(d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session.
(e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation."

2 comments:

Bob C. said...

In a very recent interview Morgan's Chief Deputy Eric Haines stated that funding is not the problem, they had plenty of money to fund the deputies at the courthouse but there is a problem of having enough sworn deputies.
If money is not a problem then why is Morgan fussing about his budget which was INCREASED by the ECBoCC for deputy pay.
If, as Haines says, the Real Problem is getting sworn law enforcement officers to join the ECSO and then to STAY with the office it seems there is some larger "Problem" within that organization.
Maybe the Real Request for Investigation should be to find out why the sheriff cannot keep deputies onboard.

Jeff Bergosh said...

Bob C. I do not disagree with what you have stated here. I have heard from current and former employees, some very high ranking ones, that have said pay is an issue, but that this is by no means the only issue and many are upset over the culture there presently. Like you though, I found it interesting that Haines argued against the idea that a lack of funding was the issue at the podium--but through their appeal in Tallahassee, they make the opposite argument--the issue in the appeal is they don't have enough money. Which is it?