 |
| Sometimes even when it looks like a "slam-dunk" is a "sure-thing"---- it doesn't mean it will ultimately happen though.... |
The awkward and uncomfortable silence (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) that followed Commissioner Doug Underhill's motion for payment of his legal fees to his lawyer last Thursday was certainly something I neither relished nor enjoyed. The Sound of Silence. Like Simon and Garfunkel's tune. Silence that was deafening.
But, to channel Yoda: "Silence there was" -- when Underhill made the motion for payment (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) of nearly $25,000 in legal fees. Complete, total, unambiguous silence. So his request died for a lack of a second, and his attorney remains unpaid for nearly a year and a half's work.
The case has been ruled upon by a local circuit judge and also affirmed unanimously at the 1st District Court of Appeals. This is why this request is coming now for us to act.
But back in November of 2019-- I made a motion to set aside an amount of money to repay these legal fees to Doug Underhill if he was successful in the suit AND if he demonstrated that he had paid his attorneys and was current on his bills to his lawyer. At that meeting, at that time, Doug Underhill did not second my motion, and my motion to set aside these funds, under the conditions in my motion, died for lack of a second. One could speculate as to the "why" the Commissioner who's fees were in questions would not have seconded a motion to assist with payment of these fees---because it was an odd thing to occur. But it happened, and now we fast forward a year and three months and the motion this time was made by Doug-----and it died for lack of a second.
And now--because the board did not take action to pay the overdue legal invoices Thursday--this will undoubtedly head back to circuit court. We will be sued for payment of these fees.
So we will see what that filing looks like. The county will answer and will defend against this, I am told. If a writ of mandamus is received, it is my understanding it may be appealed.
The question will come down to whether or not our local ordinances and rules will be upheld--or will a state statute be cited successfully to trump our policy and unilaterally compel payment of these fees to the attorney who represented Commissioner Underhill but who has not yet been paid by Commissioner Underhill.
A quick review of the relevant county policies in force during the time the conduct at issue occurred which drew the lawsuit reveals the then social media policy was not being followed by the Commissioner who got sued.
Looking at the Board's revised rule/policy on repayment of legal fees--it remains unclear as to whether or not 1.) repayment/payment of fees policy was followed and 2.) the policy compels the board to pay if a commissioner requests repayment due to the successful defense of an issue in court (i.e. it appears as if the board will have five different courses of action to take under our policy---to include denying the payment of fees and making alternative findings.)
An additional question this whole mess dredges to the surface is the hypothetical conundrum that may ensue if the court does in fact issue a writ of mandamus to the BCC to pay Commissioner Underhill's unpaid fees. Questions such as:
1. Would the board have to take additional vote(s) to pay---or could the board vote to appeal the writ of mandamus? (could this thing go back and forth through the various courts and courts of appeal like Forest Gump's ping-pong balls going back and forth over the net?)
2. Would/could the clerk of the court independently at her own discretion proactively/pre-emptively pay the legal fees once such a judgment is/was issued to the BCC ordering the payment?
OR
3. would the BCC have to vote again to authorize the payment by the clerk to Doug's lawyer all the past due bills --- as ordered (hypothetically) by Judge Pitre?
Too many questions. One thing that is certain though: Payment of these past-due, unpaid bills from the BCC directly to Doug's lawyer may not necessarily be a "slam-dunk......."
5 comments:
I wish the Board would have censured him for running his trap and libeling citizens online two years ago, Commissioner Bergosh. Can't help but think that might have assisted in this scenario. He's running around social media on his "truth telling" lie when the judge did not rule on the merits, or rule that Doug Speaks Truth, but on immunity. Doug has a long history of not wanting to pay his attorneys. Not a good practice for somebody who requires them as often as he does.
--Melissa Pino
I don’t understand why the Board is NOT paying for those attorney fees.
As a citizen of this county, I want the public to know that our elected officials can not be intimidated by the threat of spurious lawsuits.
And the social media policy at the time was antiquated and absurd. You should realize that fact as well as anyone, Commissioner Bergosh.
Defending the citizens living in Wedgewood was a selfless act. Commissioner Underhill in no way benefited personally. Still the commissioners have allowed he and his family to stress over legal bills that are a result of him executing the duties of his elected office.
I don’t understand the BCC’s stance on this issue.
Were his remarks within the “scope” or “responsibility” of a County Commissioner as required by the polic.
D3 brought up in the earlier request that if the judge ruled that this was Doug’s responsibility then he’d vote to pay. Dismissing is not a ruling that his actions were the responsibility of a County Commissioner.
The four of you would know what that responsibility is more than anyone else.
I agree that legal bills should be paid as described. If this suit had come from a BCC action or motion to have a legal institution determine that Mr Miller was guilty of these actions would be one thing. But to spout something off on social media is another and he should bear that responsibility.
Underhill was om social media as citizen Doug and in a conversation and SM joined in then Doug went ad hominem toward him. I'm sure the board has had enough of him being the group on Escambia Citizens Watch facebook not only talking about them in an unprofessional crude manner, NOT in the conduct of county business but attempting his propaganda
Although the attorneys won the case in the court of law on immunity, it was a bad call by the judge. IMO
DU wasn't "asking the hard questions" or even talking about Rolling Hills as a commissioner. He was being an bully.
If you as a board were dealing with Rolling Hills, that would be another story.
Right after that he stopped using his private account and switched to the commissioner account.
It was in a public forum for all to see.
Don't reward him with taxpayer $.
The comments were April 24, 2019 under a discussion about ST. Note underhill still tries to act like it was in his course of duty with the writ of mandamus. He is being deceitful as usual saying it was about Wedgewood.
"Scott Miller
So the strategy should have been to convince people to get aviation training that didn’t have a corresponding employer in the hopes that someone will decide to open a world-class MRO?
· 1y
Douglas Underhill
Scott Miller
the strategy should have been to spend money on infrastructure and public safety. Lol, only the "Mouthpiece of Rolling Hills" refers to ST as "world class". Let's be honest...it's the Kiker's U-Pull-It of the aviation industry.
2
· 1y
Scott Miller
Douglas Underhill
Interesting that you think that you can only validate your premise by undermining people who questioned you with personal attacks. Is that because you don’t believe the premise yourself when you’re trying to distract people from really examining what you’re saying?
Perhaps if you’d be a little less combative you could get support for your ideas on their merits instead of alienating people who might actually support your ideas.
At the end of the day you’re going to find out the hard way that if you continue to alienate your friends we’re going to wind up with nothing but enemies.
7
· 1y"
Post a Comment