I am of the opinion that the county ought to be able to sort out the issues with our 401(a) program. I don't take the program but multiple employees and several commissioners do.
However, as we have seen from the numerous cartoons and editorials on this subject--the local print media's "crack" two-person "editorial board" have their panties in a wad over this issue. They don't like it, damnit! is the sentiment.
Along the way, the PNJ seems to insinuate the employees and board members who take this plan are somehow acting nefariously and criminally.
The fact of the matter is the plan is legal. And because it is, the clerk of the court had no business constructively terminating the legitimate contract the board entered into with ICMA back in early 2016.
This is my interest in this issue. The board is the entity that contracts for service with service providers on behalf of the citizens and employees of the county, NOT the clerk. Her function is to keep the books and pay the invoices. If we do something illegal, she has an obligation to NOT pay the invoice. But she has a legal obligation TO pay legal invoices. If we allow, without any resistance, the clerk of the court to unilaterally void some contracts she "doesn't like" (after paying invoices on said contracts for nearly a decade)--that usurps our authority, resposibility, and areas under our purview. It is a bad precedent to passively allow, so yes, although I do not take this plan I won't stand by and watch our responsibilities be usurped inappropriately by the clerk.
On this particular matter, the clerk has waffled back and forth between saying payments under the board's 401(a) contract are "problematic"-or they are "Improper" or "Outside the General Law" and she finally gave her honest opinion "It's ILLEGAL" last month when I pressed her.
But now she is walking that back saying she didn't mean to say that.
What??
Meanwhile, we have presented her with multiple legal opinions that show, in great detail, that the plan is a legal one, the contract is valid. The one she used to pay, until she decided not to pay....
Still, she remains intransigent
Still, she won't honor the board's legitimate, legal contract. She won't make the payments. She is stuck now in a two way bear trap as I discussed in these posts here and here.
But we're trying to work with her.
Both attorney Alison Rogers (in writing, via an email) and I both offered to work jointly between entities to seek an Attorney General's Advisory Opinion. In both instances, the clerk rejected this good will offer to get the legality question answered. To put it a different way--the olive brance was broken in half and handed back to us.
That's alright.
Now comes word that one of the nation's leading trial lawyers from one of the nation's leading law firms will weigh in on the County's side, and work with the county to resolve this issue with the clerk on a pro bono basis.
Hopefully this doesn't have to go to court, that's not what anyone wants.
But if it does, it looks like we will be well-represented, and very well prepared.
Then, once we ascertain the legality, which is the central issue, we can address the rate and other issues that appear to be in need of adjustment. But step one has to be taken before step two. See attorney Troy Rafferty's letter, below, signalling his willingness to step in and assist the county for free.
Since this was drug over the coals what choice do you have but to answer the clerk. JAR still sets up a false equivalency on her hate page, ignoring that you all did raise the pay. She is a troublemaker. They have tied themselves in knots over the censure of their idol. D2_candidate is triggered also. Drama queens..
ReplyDeleteToo bad people don't know Pam Childers announced she had an attorney Matt Danhaisser so of course your legal department contacted council. The fact this law firm took it is they probably understand the power and authority an elected board has to set policy.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it was on the agenda ahead of time.
As a general observation I have made is most people commenting on ECW facebook don't know what they are talking about and are easily manipulated.
Even Underhill agreed and said that would silence the opposition or something like that. Then he sends in his intern to post it like it is nefarious.
Are you not fed up with Underhill games?
I recently came across Ronan Enright Solicitors and was impressed by their expertise in employment law. Their team of employment law solicitors has a wealth of experience in dealing with a wide range of employment law issues, from advice on employment contracts and policies to representation in employment tribunal cases.
ReplyDelete