Saying something is illegal after demonstrating the belief this same thing was legal by paying on it for years is a tenuous argument. Particularly high are the stakes---because if you are "right" and the "thing" you were doing was, in fact, illegal---well then you have to explain why you did it all those years. On the other hand, if the "thing" you used to do but suddenly, unilaterally stopped doing is deemed to be legal---well oops you are facing a different problem because such action might be deemed to be acting ultra vires.
Either way it's bad. Bad if you're right, bad if you're wrong. It's a two-way, unescapable grizzly bear trap. I describe my rationale for this in depth here , here, and here.
That's the position I believe Escambia County Clerk Pam Childers has been in for a while now. I harbor no ill-will toward her--I'm just perplexed by the way this has played out and the WHY it went down like it did.
It didn't have to happen this way.
And I'm particularly concerned about what has transpired with a bonafide, Board Approved contract that the clerk unilaterally terminated by failure to pay on it. That is a dangerous, slippery slope precedent that-- if allowed to happen unchecked-- has great potential for abuse. Thus my continuing interest in this matter. (and no, I don't take the 401a plan).
We each have to stay in our lanes as constitutional officers, that's my take.
So yesterday two rulings came down in the court case regarding the county and the clerk.
Both rulings went the county's way.
The Clerk's motion to quash was dismissed, and the lawsuit against Commissioners Barry, May, and Bender was also dismissed.
We will have to see what comes next, what the next ruling is.
But for today, anyway, things went our way.
4 comments:
“But for today, anyway, things went our way.” Who is the “our” in this legal process? The citizens of this county? No, it’s not us. Must be you and your three friends. The one thing you are right about is it didn't have to happen this way. Overwhelmingly the citizens have told the board no. We do not support the 401a. You, Barry, Bender, and May refuse to listen to the citizens. Y’all don’t represent us. You represent your wallets and your special interest. Justifications for the 401a rolled out bit by bit. “It was another board that approved this plan.” “The 401a doesn’t cost the taxpayer any more money.” “The 401a isn’t a lifetime payment.” “The problem isn’t the 401a and how much goes into our accounts, it’s that FRS pays so little.” Excuse after excuse after excuse. Then the board excepts legal representation pro bono from a high-powered law firm that just happens to be a county vendor. What does LPR have to gain?
This lawsuit does not benefit the citizens of the county at all. It can’t be justified. It should have been stopped before it ever started. Barry got caught misrepresenting himself in Tallahassee. That deserves further investigation. What I do know is no matter what the court rules this entire ordeal will last long into the next election cycle and will be an issue. The voters are not as stupid as you think.
Oh BS 1242.
Ever heard of representative government.
This is a one shot deal, same contribution either way.
One pot of money vs life time benefit with beneficiaries
Your everybody sees it logical fallacy is aparent and you fell for Underhills BS and it makes you feel important.
Why don't you stop spreading your lies. AA
Can't you even read an article and understand. No apparently not.
Case dismissed.
Give Andy a crayon.
12:42--obviously I am saying the ruling went our way and the our is the county--as currently there is litigation that was instigaated BY the clerk against the county--in case you didn't know that because, I don't know, maybe you've been sleeping under a rock? Yes--there is litigation that was initiated/forced by the clerk as she sought to unilaterally terminate a board contract where she does not have the power to do this. All I have ever asked is this one seminal question: Is the 401(a) legal? Nobody has been able to answer that but make no mistake that is the seminal question that must be answered before the rate of return question can be addressed. But that falls to us to do once we know whether or not the plan is legal for elected commissioners. Glad Judge Stone recognizes that as the lynchpin issue as well. Meanwhile, you, Mr. Anonymous poster, speak for nobody amd represemt nobody; run along now, back to your 12-member fan club on the hate site that has no influence nor sway on anything. LOL
What happened in the shade today.
Post a Comment