Important Factual Details Must Not Be Overlooked, Part I

As we saw in the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners where one commissioner, his secretary (who wants to run against me for my seat with the blessing and support of his boss), and one citizen (an ally of the current D2 commissioner and his secretary--as well as the former D2 commissioner and his secretary) teamed up to create a ruckus, a political stunt aimed at damaging me and creating a splash in the press---some important details never made it into the subsequent reporting on this issue.  Not surprising.

But important details must never be overlooked. To do so by one's political opponents is to be expected; to do so by the press is disingenous at best, deliberate and intentional with actual malice and in a false light at worst.  

So here is what is important for folks to know, in granular, factual detail.

1.  County records were stolen, this was investigated by the county, and is being investigated by Law Enforcement Authorities currently as I write this.

2.  Some of the records stolen are indeed bonafide, releasable public records.  However, many (if not most) of the files stolen and inappropriately disseminated are not public records and would never be released or released unredacted under any public records request made of the county, ever.

3.  The records within the stolen file that are bonafide public records were not requested of me by the lawyers representing Dr. Rayme Edler--otherwise they would have been provided.  We learned subsequently these texts were not requested because these lawyers opposing the county had already been provided this file by Jonathan Owens, unredacted, and outside of the discovery process in that case.

4.  On June 5th  the county attorney proactively reported this theft of files directly to the state attorney once it was determined that records had been stolen, disseminated by former employee Jonathan Owens unredacted, and subsequently possessed unlawfully by multiple individuals and entities.  

5.  An investigation into potentially criminal misconduct associated with this episode was launched and both the county and I have cooperated every step of the way.

6.  Florida Statutes, specifically 817.5685, provide that mere possession of another's personal identification information, unauthorized, is a misdemeanor.  If the unlawful possession by a person includes personal identification information on five or more individuals, it is a Felony.  The information within the stolen files contains such information on more than 5 persons.  A total of 23 citizens' information is contained in the stolen files.  Cancer diagneses and prognosis, medical information, personal identification information, and reams of files that would be unlawful to release.

7.  There does not appear to be an exception to this possession of personal identification information law allowing for the media to possess such information. (e.g. what specifically within 817.5685  would allow for the PNJ to possess the Driver's Licenses and Passports of my wife and children who are not even public figures?  What exception in that law allows the PNJ to keep my daughter's bank account number?)

8.  On June 14th County Attorney Alison Rogers, County Administrator Wes Moreno, and I met in my office with law enforcement investigators assigned to look into the unlawful theft of the property from the county and any other associated crimes.  The County and I personally signed a release on the spot allowing unfettered access to these files to investigate ANY crimes associated with these files by law enforcement.   (I have asked for a releasable copy of this signed waiver and would have published it here, but I have been told by law enforcement this is not releasable yet, until the investigation has been formally completed)

9.  I also provided my copy of my complete, unadulterated iPhone Download contained on a stick drive I had in my safe to law enforcement investigators as well----months ago.  And I consented--- by voluntarily providing this file--- for them to search it for any evidence of ANY crime.  I have nothing to hide, there is no "there" there as I stated at the last meeting.  

10.  An analysis of my downloaded phone file that I provided to law enforcement, originally produced in  February 2022, is an exact match of the file that law enforcement retrieved from the county's computer systemf a year and a half later in June of 2023--the hash files are identical.  This has been verified to me by the principal investigator in this case.

11.  I have also been told by law enforcement investigators that my file that I provided to law enforcement is NOT  an exact match of the file that Jonathan Owens provided to lawyers for Dr. Rayme Edler.  The hash files DO NOT Match, the original file has been manipulated.  This has been verified to me by the principal investigator in this case.

12.  The County's replevin/conversion  civil lawsuit for return of stolen county property from other entities (Jonathan Owens, Alex Arduini, Gannett, and others potentially via follow on amended complaints as necessitated by facts obtained in the soon to commence depositions in this case), authorized by the BCC via a 4-1 vote, will enable a comparison by law enforcement of the unadulterated county file to these stolen files

Another Inaccurate, Misleading, Garbage PNJ Headline: Par for the Course

"Mike Kohler Looks to Restore Trust in District 2 Commissioner's Seat" is how PNJ's misleading headline above should have read.....

Yesterday's electronic PNJ put out a story about soon-to-be sworn in County Commissioner-Elect Mike Kohler.  And once a reader was able to get by the BS headline--the story was well-written. (and don't worry, the PNJ are saving this piece, along with the garbage headline, for their Sunday edition....the only day they have any readership of their hard copy product to speak of.....

 But the headline they used and will be using tomorrow is garbage.  No, it is worse than that, it is BS, misleading Garbage.

 "Mike Kohler Looks to Restore Trust in Escambia County"

 After reading that headline, I expected to see yet another inaccurate, hatchet piece article running down the current commissioners--  because--to read that headline one would assume the county is in shambles and broken--and Kohler like a white-knight is coming in for a rescue job.  (In fairness, some do believe Escambia's Governance is a wreck:  The PNJ, a former PNJ cartoonist, a couple of downtown types, a downtown stockbroker, and about 12 people on one Facebook chat site.)

 Most normal human citizens don't share this dystopian and skewed view of reality, though. 

 Looking at the election, where the only incumbent Escambia County commissioner on the ballot won in a landslide, and looking at the recent survey the Studer group put out showing year-over year improvement in the public's perception of the county commission and the county's overall trajectory--what the PNJ and some foil-hat haters think about the commissioners and the county does not line up with what the average citizen believes.

I get a lot of email, phone calls, and feedback directly from constituents all day, every day. They don't hold back, either. Rarely do I get a complaint about the 401a, lack of a strategic plan, or the idea of consolidation or creating a "charter county" with a "strong elected administrator."  I never get complaints about firing former administrator Janice Gilley.  Nope-those are the issues of the PNJ and a handful of downtowners.  Normal folks are concerned with their own issues--traffic, over-development, and to a lesser degree--stormwater issues.  What I don't hear is ordinary folks upset about the PNJ's faux issues of anger above.   Never.

 Knowing all this and seeing the headline I was prepared for the worst.

 But the article did not attack the commissioners, at least not overtly anyway.  It was primarily a piece about the incoming commissioner and some of his priorities and goals once getting into office.  And the article is framed around his challenge in doing that due to his predecessor's horrible record and tumultuous, scandal-ridden tenure and departure under clouds of suspicion, ongoing litigation, and multiple ethics violations.

from the article:

"Kohler said for the first few months in office, he would focus on restoring trust in the District 2 office. “I really want to try to build a decent relationship with the other commissioners so that hopefully they'll work with me to get some stuff done in District 2," Kohler said. "I know the people in District 2 really feel like they've been underserved..Kohler said he hopes he is not "held hostage" by the actions of his predecessor, who he pointed out did not support him during his election campaign.  I'm hoping I can make some amends and just go in and prove to them that I'm not an enemy," Kohler said."

So, I asked Jim Little about the misleading headline.  I told him the headline should have been something like "Kohler to attempt to restore trust in D2 Commission seat" which he disagreed about.  He doubled down on the headline he used.  "I see your point, but I think the article conveys he is looking to restore trust in the D2 seat but also trust in the county for the residents of D2.  So, I think the headline fits the story" he stated.

 Another inaccurate, misleading garbage PNJ Headline--it's par for the course because they want strife, conflict, angst, and controversy.  They feast on it, and a headline like that magnifies a "position" that is not held by a majority of area citizens.  No matter, the PNJdoesn't care.  They will create it or attempt to manifest dysfunction in order to sell ads and papers--because they do not care about this community and the people that live here.  It's all about making a buck, meeting sales goals, and a desperate attempt to stay relevant.  It is disgusting and dishonorable, but legal, the way this paper plies its trade.  And they risk setting up the soon to be commissioner for a tougher start than needed by publishing this article this way.  They don't care though.  They want strife and division on this board, they are counting on it.  They leverage it to sell papers and ads.

If they (the PNJ) were offered a community guaranteed to be free of crime or any issues with locally elected leaders that served the citizens and functioned at a high level --but this scenario required them to go out of business---they would cast that perfect community aside for the ability to continue doing what they do---fostering discontent with fake, garbage "news", misleading headlines, unfair and inaccurate "editorials" and cartoons ONLY on their perceived philosophical rivals and those who their advertising patron(s) disfavor.

 No wonder the PNJ are shrinking; they're slowly going out of business, quietly and incrementally.  But it is coming.  They did (and continue to do) it to themselves.   This headline is another example of why.

PNJ's Local Preference Article and Editorial Miss the Mark

Two articles on local preference in the Pensacola News Journal totally missed the mark and ignored a very important fact--central to their "attack" on us.  Lazy, feckless journalism.....

In August of 2018 The Escambia Board of County Commissioners discussed local preference for projects the county was sending out to bid.  We discussed the topic and we agreed this was a noble aspiration--local preference.  Keep the money local--who woudn't support this?  We also discussed that we wanted to expand opportunities for small/minority owned businesses to contract with the county--and we would do this by widening the pool of qualified small business entities, women-owned businesses, service disabled veteran-owned businesses, and minority owned businesses competing for our jobs.  All of these goals were great, and the vote to affirm the county's commitment to these things was a 4-1.  It was discussed at a Committee of the Whole-- and subsequently we ratified the language from the discussion meeting at the following regular meeting.

We were so supportive of this (and I remain supportive of these goals, btw.) that we baked this requirement into our interlocal agreement with the city of Pensacola when we provided the additional funding needed to complete the ST Engineering Aerospace jobs project at the Pensacola Airport.

So there is no doubt that there is support for this concept from the county.  There is now, and always has been.  Everyone should have a crack at landing county contracts--not simply a select few.

Here is the information from that meeting.  And here is the language from the local preference resolution.

But there are a couple of things to remember and to clarify----especially as Jim Little of the PNJ writes an inaccurate account of what we actually approved.  And then subsequently the "crack" 2-person editorial board use Little's inaccurate piece to attack the county for "not following their own rule!"

But Wait!  We never codified this into an ordinance.  We adopted a resolution.  It was not a rule.  Because there are issues with a specific rule at the local level that would have to be fleshed-out.

#1--such a rule may not be lawful for many of our procurements if any federal grant money is used--as local preferential set-asides are not allowed at the local level with federal money according to our attorney. (although the federal government does use set asides in their own procurments....)

#2--the language itself is/was vague and aspirational--so even if passed as an ordianace (which it wasn't) it would have been difficult to enforce on a prime contractor.

So it was never added to our code of ordinances.  

This would have required two meetings-- culminating in a publicly noticed, scheduled hearing.  

But that never happened.  

I'm not saying we shouldn't--maybe we should, and maybe we will.  

Again--no value judgement on the merits--that discussion should happen.  My judgment is only on the PNJ for once again painting the commissioners in a false light, creating a straw man, and knocking it down in another attack on the county based upon a story that is not accurate.  

Jim Little often writes good articles that capture the essence of what is happening in the county.  Here, however,  he totally and completeley missed the mark.  I'm told he never even reached out to the county

Doing What is Right Part III: A Completed HR Report from 6-24-2019 is NOT a Public Record?

How long must an employee suffer and be punished for making a valid, sustained complaint against a supervisory employee?

As I have chronicled in Part I and Part II of this series--there appears to be an issue percolating around an Escambia County employee that filed a harassment complaint against his supervisor.

Ever since his complaint was filed--it appears as if he has been stymied, stigmatized, and deprived of due process rights as mandated in county policy and relevant collective bargaining agreements.

I was contacted by this individual in November after this employee tried over and over to get resolution on his situation utilizing his chain of command with no success--for nearly 6 MONTHS!.

Nobody was listening.

I listened, and I am listening.

I have received a copy of the five page HR investigation summary of this employee's harassment claim against his supervisor.  The report corroborates what this employee claims.  This report was completed, and recommendations were made for resolution, on June 24th of this year.

But then the report was shelved.  Nobody did anything with it, and the employee asked over and over and over for a copy.  He asked over and over and over to get back to his job.  He was stymied.  Nothing was given to him for five months.  Meanwhile, he was prevented from working shifts he traditionally has worked and this has had the net effect of reducing his income by 15-18% over what he has earned in the past.

So upon my receipt of the report, I immediately thought I would publish it--after all, it was inactive and nothing was being done on it.  Jim Little of the PNJ saw part I on my blog and made a public records request for the 5-page report.  So I asked our attorney if it was a public record releasable on my blog and also to the PNJ.

Here is what I asked of our attorney:

"As you know, Jim Little from the PNJ has made a public request of me for the email string below as well as the embedded photographs within what I am forwarding to you in this email—which includes the first five pages of an HR document from June (?) of this year apparently.  Because I want to comply and I always do comply with the state public records statutes—please supply the specific statutory exemption that applies and which precludes me from sending the below string specifically--- to include the photographs embedded-- to Jim Little in answer to his public records request.  Please be specific. 

As you and I discussed, I know this does not comport specifically with county policy—but that in and of itself