 |
| Three locally-elected officials are working on a project to construct a pedestrian overpass over Hwy 90 in Beulah--which could look similar to this one, above, from North Carolina... |
 |
| The released depositions into the recently settled lawsuit against the county regarding the county's failure to provide due process to a former employee are a window into a lot of dysfunction that was happening, apparently, in EMS in the 2018-2019 timeframe. Thankfully--most (if not all) of the players involved in this mess have moved on from the county or been terminated, and that department is now doing MUCH, much better with better leadership..... |
"Commissioner Bergosh:
Read the John Dosh deposition here
Read the Jimmy Maddrey deposition here
 |
| Tonight the Governor's Press Secretary fired back at PNJ Cartoonist Andy Marlette's misogynistic, racist cartoons. Her tweet was re-tweeted hundreds of times, and has now been subsequently re-tweeted by Matt Gaetz--and that re-tweet has been re-tweeted thousands of times..... |
When I wrote part I---I knew it wasn't right. A white, wealthy man flaunting his use of the "N-Word" in a nationally syndicated (Gannett) newspaper.
The clock might be finally, at long last, be ticking on Andy Marlette and the PNJ, however.
Because many have asked one simple question and received no good answer from Gannett or the PNJ:
How is it that white, priviledged liberal Andy Marlette can write racist, misogynistic cartoons left and right and never be called to task for it. It is ridiculous!
In fact--he's been rewarded! He's been given a lucrative, nationally syndicated cartoon strip recently. Incredible, and unbelieveable. He must make a TON of money for Gannett.
I know, I know, the first ammendment.
But why is it that Republicans get "Cancelled" for the slightest of infractions---while white, wealthy liberal elites like Gannett's syndicated cartoonist Andy Marlette can use the "N-Word" in cartoons and not be called out?
Well, again, this might be changing.
I've been calling him out for a while now.
Looks like others are now catching on. Apparently, Andy has insulted some powerful folks with HUGE online connections.
Late today, my phone blew up with texts about Andy Marlette being called out in the press and on twitter for his apparently racist cartoons.
Folks are tweeting about it--and some have thousands of retweets. Some are being tweeted to the editor in chief at Gannett and to the Pensacola News Journal. Good. He needs to explain how he feels comfortable drawing such cartoons and using the N-Word.
Let's stay tuned and see if the match that's been struck starts a fire.
 |
| "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"--Shakespeare |
Lawyers:
From time to time we all need them, just like a plumber. Like plumbers, they oftentimes are called in to clean up messes that stink--and then you get a huge bill for the service.
Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI said it well: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
I have a running schtick I employ from time to time: "I don't like lawyers, and there's only 1 Lawyer I trust!" (Soon, I'll be forced to modify this phrase, as in addition to my brother being a lawyer--in less than a year my oldest son will also be one upon his graduation from Marquette Law School in the Spring of 2022) So it will be "Theres only 1-- I mean 2---that I trust."
And of course I say that facetiously, in jest. It's humorous to those that know me and my brother. But in humor, sometimes, there is often a kernel of truth--so we will leave that right there....
Case in point and the focus of part I of this post--trickery, wordsmithed half truths posited as fact and posed to me as a question during my deposition by a shyster the county is using taxpayer money to pay.
It is all related to the recent settlement in Public Safety--necessitated by a timeline that plainly established the fact that the county's medical director at that time engaged in retaliation against a subordinate employee, exceeded her authority in constructively demoting/disciplining the subordinate, and completely usurped the chain of command of her organization by being insubordinate and deciding to initiate the filing of a state level complaint against a subordinate without bringing the department head or the administrator into the loop about this decision-----until she, essentially, had pulled the trigger on it by writing it all up and wrapping a bow around it.
Clear as crystal, it was retaliation, so far as I can tell and in my opinion. I believe this is the impetus for the lawyers for the insurance company all but begging the BCC NOT to take this case to trial and to settle it. We took their advice; we settled the case with Selover and subsequently paid him nearly $200,000.
During the last portion of my cross-examination by this creature on Jauary 18th---- she busts this statement/question out on me-------and I responded to her (p. 207 of the deposition):
"Q. Well, you are aware, are you not, sir, that
Dr. Edler sat down with Mr. Dosh, and with Mr.
Spainhower, and reviewed all of the documentation that
she was going to submit to the Department of Health
before she submitted it? You're aware of that?
A. That's not the information that I have, no."
(I didn't have that information and the reason I answered the question the way I did was because I had been told, and everything I had seen, was that everyone was totally and completely blindsided by
 |
| The Flavor of the emails is: Angry.... |
My County Commissioner Email inbox is getting inundated with "form" emails from all across the state--desperately seeking help in conducting a "full forensic audit" of the 2020 election.
Each one is slightly different--these senders have obviously been coached not to do a "copy and paste" job. Some have extensive lists of news-site links, some have personalized greetings, others discuss differing opinions on the validity of the software used in the election, but they all have one common ask: A demand for a full and complete, forensic audit of Florida's 2020 election.
Here is the flavor of what these emails look like:
"Good
morning,
XXXXXXXXXXX
Florida Voter"
 |
| "N-Word" Using Andy Laughs at you, laughing all the way to the bank with the PNJ.. He'll patronize you and tell you to "Press "1" to leave a complaint.......Maybe they'll get back to you. Probably not....Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha |
A. All I recall that day was the meeting,
followed by Dr. Edler asking us to write up our review
of how the meeting went and then any kind of
observations that we had and that's all I remember. I
don't really remember what happened after that.
Q. Okay. Did you all in that meeting discuss any
type of reprimand or punishing my client?
MS. GUDAITIS: Object to form.
A. (By the Witness) No.
Q. (By Mr. Talbott) In that meeting, did you
discuss anything about limiting his ability to practice
or do certain procedures?
A. A meeting? No.
Q. During that meeting, did you talk about
reporting him to the Department of Health?
A. At that meeting, no.
Q. At some other time, did you talk about
reporting him to the Department of Health?
A. There was a time when Dr. Edler stated that
she may have to do that based upon what she seen, but it
was more of a statement, not more of a -- a asking us
for permission. She was kind of hemming and hawing
about whether or not to do it, so I don't know, I mean,
obviously, I know what her final answer is today, but at
the time I didn't know what her final answer was.
Our attorney, Matt Shaud, sent the following email indicating this entire transcript is/was a public record. I have removed the pages as recommended---even though legally this was not necessary to do:
"Commissioner Bergosh:
Attached please find William Hopkins’ deposition transcript. It does not appear to be subject to any applicable exemptions, but as Charlie noted below, this transcript also contains testimony regarding a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Those references are on pages 26-28, 43-44, and 88-90.
Thank you,
Matt Shaud
Assistant
County Attorney"
Read the transcript here
"Commissioner
Bergosh:
Attached please find Jana Still’s deposition transcript. There does not appear to be any applicable exemptions. However, this transcript also contains testimony regarding the xxxxxxxxxxxxx and the resulting xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Thank you,
Assistant
County Attorney"
Read the transcripts here, here, and here...
 |
| A new pet licensing system in the county is creating concern.... |
I've now been contacted by multiple citizens that are concerned that a Canadian company is now handling pet tag renewals in Escambia County. The chief concern is for the safety of personal information; some with whom I have spoken are concerned that their information will be "sold" to other entities and such information may subsequently be used inappropriatly or may generate unwanted sales solicitations.
I asked animal services director John Robinson about this, and about the "why" this change has occurred. From director Robinson:
"Escambia County’s pet license program has needed an
overhaul since I arrived in 2014. There were several issues including a low
compliance rate, a record keeping system that was all on paper and a failure to
meet Florida Statute requirements to send renewals to citizens.
We discovered there was no way to resolve these issues internally, without hiring several more people to run our license program. We determined that the best solution would be to outsource our license program to a company that does that. A solicitation for vendors was done and Docupet was selected from that process. Docupet is able to remedy all of the aforementioned issues and allow citizens to renew their annual license online.
There have recently been some concerns raised from one individual source that are inaccurate but keep coming up despite the my efforts and those of the former County Administrator, the County Attorney’s Office and the CEO of Docupet to address them.
The biggest false accusation is that Docupet will sell the information to other vendors. The contract between the County and Docupet does not allow for the sale of information and specifically states that the information can only be used to promote pet licensing and additional services, which are free lost pet service and the sale of designer license tags. I have also spoken with the County Attorney regarding this concern; the information belongs to the County and the information from the rabies certificates is even protected from public record request.
This licensing program began at the first of the year, so we are beginning to see renewal notices go out as required by state law. In my opinion we are already seeing an improvement in compliance and license revenue in just the first few months of operating the new program.
We have had some bumps along the way and change is hard,
even good change. I think that is what we are experiencing now. We have been
working on licensing messaging the last few weeks to help citizens understand
these changes. We will get CMR to help with that once we have it ready."
 |
| In 2021 in America--How is wealthy, white, and privileged Andy Marlette able to use the disgusting racial slur the "N-Word" in his cartoons--how is that acceptable? |
 |
| The deposition of Rayme Edler, who would have been called to testify and who was a fact witness, was damaging, very damaging to the County's case. Very Damaging. Read it, below |
Our case with former employee Matt Selover has settled, and therefore much of the discovery documents, depositions, etc., once redacted appropriately, will be released here.
The deposition of Rayme Edler was devastatingly bad for the county. It was a horror show. Although she had two lawyers falling over themselves to object to just about every question asked of her---Attorney J.J. Talbot was pedestrian, balanced, and methodical in the extraction of damaging information from Edler during this deposition. And unlike me, Rayme Edler would have been called to testify in any trial had we not settled. I never would have been called as I was not a fact witness, not an expert, and my opinions were not and are not relevant to the facts of the case. (a fact ignored by the attorney for the insurance company in her memo to the county, and a fact omitted from the PNJ coverage of this settlement) And had it gone to trial--by the insurance company's own estimation--the County could have been on the hook for up to $820,000.00 PLUS Legal fees. (That devastating fact was conveniently left out of the PNJ's hit piece on me published Monday).
With respect to the medical director at the time of this incident, I received the below opinion from Charlie Peppler about releasing her deposition transcript, which I will be linking to this blog post.
From Deputy County Attorney Charlie Peppler:
"Comm’r,
I have reviewed Dr. Edler’s depo transcript and there does not appear to be any exemptions applicable. You may wish to exercise your own discretion about testimony given by Dr. Edler XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on pages 173 through 177. Perhaps, redacting those pages with an explanation that they involve personal, sensitive matters of a former employee, but, again, that is your call, I couldn’t find an exemption for this testimony. (In my own opinion, I don’t think the trial judge would let this testimony into evidence on the grounds of relevance, but that is not the issue at this point). Other attorneys in our office are reviewing the depos of William Hopkins and Jana Still and they will get with you when they have finished their review. Regards, Charlie
Charles V. Peppler"
Read the deposition of Rayme Edler, with pages 173-177 removed on the advice of Peppler, here.
 |
| The "whether or not" this tree, a massive and very old Heritage Oak, will be removed question has spurned some passionate debate in the community.... |
 |
| When the critical root zone of this massive tree is analyzed--it becomes readily apparent that about 50% of the property is covered by the tree and its root mass. |
 |
| The County saved potentially $600K or more (according to attorneys working the case on behalf of the County's insurance carrier) due to our settlement with wronged first responder Matt Selover. PNJ did not report that; instead, their article on the front page of this morning's paper essentially blames everything about this case on Jeff Bergosh...... |
"individuals
at the County thought restricting his [Selover's] privileges may be discipline and trigger
due process. This prompted John Dosh (Dosh), former Interim Public Safety
Director, and Matthew Coughlin, former Interim County Administrator) to seek a
legal opinion regarding Dr. Edler’s authority to demote Selover. As such, Deputy County
Attorney Charles Peppler, drafted same and concluded that Dr. Edler lacked the
authority to demote Selover. Critically,
this is a weakness in our case as our defense is that the actions taken by the
County do not amount to a disciplinary action."
 |
| Ever wonder how an insurance company's lawyer, attempting to minimize her client's exposure, would advise a County that was exercising said insurance company's policy? Read this post and attached document and you will know. And it's fascinating. |
Although it appears this document (memo) from the County's Insurance Comapany's Law Firm was sent to our County Attorney's office on January 27th---I just got a copy of it late yesterday afternoon. It is a detailed, behind the scenes legal analysis of the case against the county brought by Matt Selover for multiple egregious violations of his due process rights and the shameful way he was treated. This is the kind of document the public rarely gets to see, however because we are a public entity subject to the open records laws and because the litigation in this case is concluded---it now becomes a public record and open for release. Heck, I never even knew this document existed I only was made aware of it by a source unaffiliated with the county who actually called me and asked me "What I thought about the memo?"
Well, I didn't, because I hadn't, because I'd not seen it.
But apparently others had seen it -------and this was probably the genesis of some late night calls between our former HR director and a bean-counter insurance bureaucrat last month.... oh well.
So, now being aware of its existence--I called the county attorney late yesterday afternoon and got it in 5 minutes flat. And I spent hours last night reading it.
But why was this memo never shared with myself and my counterparts at our June shade session, though? Why were some staffers and apparently at least one other commissioner provided this document---but not the rest of us? Who leaked this memo unlawfully to outside entities before the lawsuit was settled and this document was actually subject to release?
I will get answers to these questions, I have already asked. I do have idea, though. And thankfully, that individual is no longer employed with the county. Let's put it that way.
Meanwhile-this document will make it's way to the written press very soon--- and I am fairly certain portions and snippets will be cut and pasted into an article that will purport to make me the "bad guy" of this case. "That guy Bergosh supported Selover and would not go along with our defense strategy!!" will be the flavor.
So be it.
The facts are clear, though: we wronged this first responder, disciplined him inappropriately, denied him due process, retaliated against him after he filed a harrassment complaint against his medical director, bungled that complaint and subsequently damaged him emotionally and physically--all the while stomping all over his rights and abandoning county policy and past practice. That's why we settled with him, and the insurance company (not Escambia taxpayers) paid him a $200,000.00 settlement.
Here are some "low"lights from this insurance company lawyer's memo--illustrating just how weak her case was and why:
"Critically, one of our biggest
weaknesses is the fact that between April 23, 2019 and May 1, 2019, there is no documentation whatsoever supporting the
Board's alleged decision to
1) restrict Selover's clinical privileges and 2) that Dr. Edler decided to report Selover
to the-Department of Health."
"After he [Selover] filed the complaint, he testified that he worked without any issue for 22 or 23 days until he was advised his clinical privileges were restricted on May 15, 2019. He testified John Dosh and Leon Salter advised him that Dr. Edler restricted his job duties on May 13, 2019. Notably, as noted above, this is a significant weakness in our case as this occurred over three weeks after the QA/QI meeting."
"Dr. Edler told the [April 23, 2019 QA/QI] board to write up their thoughts and she would decide what to do. He [William Hopkins] recalls her telling him to write up the meeting and their observations, but it seems like they did not decide what actions to take regarding Selover at the meeting. They did not discuss reprimand or about limiting his ability to practice or do certain procedures. They also did not talk about reporting him to the FDOH."
"We believe Plaintiff may be able to establish that Plaintiff through high-ranking officials ratified the alleged due process violations allegedly committed by Dr. Edler because it did not reverse her actions despite having reason to do so based on Peppler's legal memorandum and Spainhower's report. Accordingly, should this court determine that Selover's due process rights were violated, the County may be subject to municipal liabili ty."
"..there is a chance that the Court will find that his [Selover's] position change from paramedic to EMT-regardless of no pay change-constituted disciplinary action or adverse employment action since be was perceived by his peers to only be an EMT, his ability to work overtime as a paramedic was limited, and his pay was essentially reduced. We have highlighted in depositions that the policies and procedures define "demotion" as having your pay rate decreased-which did not happen to Selover. However, Bergosh's deposition highlights the
 |
| Rick Figlio's assessment of Doug Underhill's latest request for taxpayer money to fund his legal costs looks a lot like this picture, above.... |
Like a devastating wrecking ball job--- with the "building" being Doug Underhill's amended complaint and petition for Writ of Mandamus in the circuit court (another attempt to get his legal fees paid by the taxpayers)---Tallahassee powerhouse attorney Rick Figlio demolishes every argument Underhill makes. Piece by piece, item by item, line by line, down to the granular and then the atomic detail. I mean, it is an absolute evisceration.
Local businessman David Bear requested this written opinion from his attorney Figlio, and recently received it.
I am copying the opinion here for interested persons to download and read what a well-written, concise, and solid opinion this is. It's going to spell trouble for Doug and his quest for taxpayer funding for his legal costs and fees---if the county's response looks anything like this well written rebuttal (which the county's opinion now should 😜). Big trouble for the quest for cash from Underhill.
Highlights from the document:
“I believe that each of the
counts of the Amended Complaint
has little legal merit. I
would characterize Count II, seeking recovery of fees under section 111.07,
Florida Statutes, and Count
III, seeking mandamus, as specious because each of these counts relies
on either a fundamental
misconstruction of Florida statutes, settled precedent, or both..
the Board’s decision to pay
legal fees is an
inherently discretionary act,
which would preclude issuance of a writ of mandamus as a matter of
axiomatic Florida law. It is
also clear from the attachments to the Amended Complaint that no
amount of argument or evidence
can overcome the Amended Complaint’s plain deficiencies..
Count I likewise fails to
state a claim for which relief
can be granted. In order to be
entitled to reimbursement under the common law, Underhill must
plead and prove that the
litigation for which he seeks reimbursement (1) arose out of or in
connection with the
performance of his official duties and (2) served a public purpose. Thornber
v. City of Ft. Walton Beach,
568 So. 2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1990). The claim’s failure relates to the
second prong, as the Amended
Complaint acknowledges that the Defamation Suit alleged that
Underhill committed the
intentional tort of defamation against one of his constituents and further
acknowledges that Underhill
was not vindicated in the action, but rather was able to escape liability
irrespective of guilt by
virtue of the trial court’s finding that he was immune from suit. Put simply,
commission of the intentional
tort of defamation against a constituent cannot be said to “serve a
public purpose,” and the
Amended Complaint does not allege Underhill was innocent—only that
he was immune..
Underhill’s request for
mandamus must fail. Mandamus is a civil
remedy to compel a public
official to discharge a ministerial duty. Browning v. Young, 993 So. 2d
64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). To
prevail, the party petitioning for mandamus must plead ultimate
facts showing (1) the public
official has a clear legal duty to perform a ministerial act; (2) the
petitioner has a clear legal
right to have the duty performed; and (3) the petitioner does not have
another legal remedy available.
See RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Bch., 736 So. 2d 1211, 1213
(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirming
dismissal of petition for mandamus to compel city to inspect
certain property and enforce
land development regulations against a private property owner).
Here, Commissioner Underhill
does not, and cannot, allege facts to support a clear legal
entitlement to the payment of
his attorneys’ fees, and, therefore, cannot state a cause of action for
mandamus. A party seeking
mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to performance of the
act requested. Butler v. City
of Melbourne Police Dep’t, 812 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
A “clear legal right” must be
one not subject to differing reasonable interpretations. See Sancho
v. Joanos, 715 So. 2d 382, 385
(Fla. 1st DCA 1998)....."
 |
| We are nearing completion of the 4-lane project for 9-Mile road in Beulah. Some residents have noticed some issues....But overall the project is a vast improvement over where we were 5 years ago! |
For the most part and from the best I can tell---- the reception has been very good. I know I love it as it definitely has made my commute easier and the traffic less significant in the morning and afternoon particularly.
--Even at 5:00 on a weekday---the traffic exiting from I-10 headed west onto exit 5 from the afternoon comute is no longer baking cars up dangerously onto the shoulder of I-10 eastward one mile back toward Pine Forest Road. That, is a GREAT thing.
--Traffic is moving the two miles or so between exit 5 and Beulah road very fluidly in the afternoons
--Traffic going Eastbound on 9 Mile Road in the mornings from Beulah Road to exit 5 is moving very smoothly as well.
But there are some kinks some have reported to me and that I have noticed that can hopefully be worked out as we move toward completing this project:
--The timing of the signals at Heritage Oaks and Navy Federal Way are not optimized--(e.g. they apparently run all weekend on the same pattern as the weekday--even though NFCU employees, by and large, are not as big of a presence on the weekends. One resident has asked: "Why can't we make those signals flashing "yellow" for the 48 hours of the weekend going east and west on 9-mile when hardly any traffic is coming out of the NFCU campus; give the outgoing cars a flashing "red" on Navy Federal Way and Heritage Oaks? Sounds reasonable to me.
--The barrels at Beulah Road and 9 Mile create what to some motorists appears to be a view hazard or blind spot. Four days ago, a sedan pulled out in front of a motorcycle at that very spot and there was a
