Judge Stone's Most Recent Order on the 401(a) Suit is Interestingly Cryptic --YET Telling Also....

 Below is the 3 page order from Judge Stone, the Circuit Court Judge seated in Okaloosa County who is handling the County's Case regarding the 401(a) issue between the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Court, Pam Childers.  Although caught off guard by Jim Little's article on this topic (as the BCC was not made aware of this order before it made it into the PNJ Friday Morning)--I did note something from Little's article (and the Judge's order) which was somewhat interesting and telling:

"Stone also wants further arguments on how Florida law defines compensation and salary.  Stone noted that one law makes supplemental compensation illegal to elected officials, while the law that created the Florida Retirement System says that retirement contributions are not considered supplemental compensation under the law.  Stone said he doesn't find it 'reasonable' the legislature would've created the authorization for the retirment programs while also making contributions to them illegal"

Right.  (Imagine that I am saying that, a reaction to just that seminal quote above from Judge Stone's order,  really, really s-l-o-w-l-y)........   R-I-G-H-T.

read the order for yourself, below.

Attorney Troy Rafferty's Letter to the Clerk's Attorney on Behalf of the Board: BOOM!

 Here's the portion of a letter attorney Troy Rafferty sent out yesterday afternoon to the Clerk's office regarding the county's 401(a) plan:  It's a scorcher.

Big Name Law Firm to Provide Pro Bono Legal Representation on County's 401(a) Issue

 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.