Saving Tens of Thousands of Taxpayer Dollars (And Doing the Right Thing) Is the Public Purpose Served!

Defending employees wrongly accused of misconduct in the course of their employement while simultaneously saving tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills is always a vote and an expenditure of funds that serves a valid public purpose and that also is a lawful expenditure by the BCC

Not surprisingly, a blazing front page piece in today's pre-holiday PNJ completely misses the mark.

And it misses the point.

The purpose of the piece this morning is to vilify the BCC, former paramedic employee Matt Selover, and our attorney, and to lionize clerk of the court Pam Childers and our former medical director.  

This is accomplished via snippets of emails thrown into an article, adorned with subjective assessments of issues that were swirling around the EMS division at the time of this settlement vote-- where these snippets used by PNJ are not properly contextualized.

On its face and as presented, it doesn't look good.  That's the point for the PNJ.

But once the onion is peeled and all the facts are known, the rationale for the BCC's vote to pay Matt Selover's $6,900.00 fine is readily apparent to even the most casual observer/reader.  That is why the rationale, the basis for the payment vote by the BCC appears nowhere in today's hatchet piece by Jim Little.  But there is, was, and always has been a searing, unflinching and completely rational reason "why" the board voted to pay the fine-----it DID serve a very valid public purpose.

Saving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars (and doing the right thing) is the public purpose served!

Here is the story behind the story you will not get in this garbage pile article this morning in PNJ.

Former Escambia County Paramedic Matt Selover was railroaded on trumped up charges, deprived of due process, deprived of pay, unfairly demoted, and vilified and bullied by a former employee that made it a habit of doing this to folks with whom she disagreed. Along the way, this meniachal former employee that attempted to ruin Selover's career threw a host of allegations at a raft of now former employees with whom she had various beefs with during her short tenure.

At the end of it, all but one of the 6 now former EMS personnel this former reckless employee fingered and attempted to ruin---all but one were never prosecuted.  5 of 6 have clean records and have not been convicted of doing anything illegal---even thoughtheir collective lives were turned upside down and careers were damaged. (we're still cleaning up the mess caused by this whole episode, paying another $90K settlement to another wronged former EMS employee at our last meeting)

In Selover's case specifically--the evidence was OVERWHELMING against the county and the way the county treated him.  It was so overwhelming and blatant---- the horrible way he was treated--- that the county's own outside counsel and insurance adjuster BEGGED the county to settle for $200,000 because they estimated a jury award to Selover could have exceeded $800,000.  They also acknowledged the county would likely lose a suit if it went to a jury due to the overwhelming evidence pointing to the horric way Selover was treated by EMS staff, HR, Public Safety Supervisors, and the former County Administrator.  It was a disaster for the county.

So we settled with Selover over his due process lawsuit and we did so with insurance money, not tax dollars.

But even after the settlement, there was a DOAH administrative complaint that Selover was fighting based upon the charges levied against him by the county's former medical director.

IMPORTANT:  The county owed an obligation to defend him (Selover) in this matter and to pay his legal bills if he prevailed at DOAH, and therefore we would have been on the hook to do so had the matter at DOAH proceeded all the way through the hearing process.  We settle things all the time, all day every day, to avoid geometrically increasing legal bills.  No difference in this case.

The medical director levied multiple charges and accusations against Selover.

An expert witness, a more experienced and well-respected Medical Director, wrote an expert opinion disputing every single allegation made against Selover, one by one. Expert witness against expert witness.  

And to sustain a sanction at DOAH, the evidentiary standard that must be met is "Clear and Convincing."  

So had the hearing at DOAH continued forward, it is highly unlikely that Selover would have faced a sanction because the evidence against him by a doctor was disputed factually by another doctor.  Add to this that testimony would have been entered on behalf of Selover about other employees targeted by the former medical director and how those allegations never materialized,---and most believe there is no way he would have faced a sanction.  It would have dragged out though.

And the one sure thing is that the legal fees would have kept on going, up and up like a hot air balloon.  It could have cost taxpayers $30, $40, or $50K more.

Instead, Selover graciously accepted the deal for $6,900--- in which he did not plead guilty to anything and which also allowed him to keep his license and move forward with his career in a neighboring jurisdiction.

Selover's  acceptance of the deal and the concomitant savings in legal fees to the taxpayer that accepted deal enabled IS THE PUBLIC PURPOSE which formed the basis for the payment by the BCC.

He'd been wronged by the county, a $200,000 settlement had been made, the atrocious way his due process was withheld and the damage to him personally would have also influenced this decision at DOAH--it all would have factored in so it was most appropriate for the BCC to pay the settlement to completely make this former employee whole.  I am proud I voted to do it, I would do it again in a heartbeat, because it is and was the right thing to do.

We have to stand by our employees when they are bullied, targeted, vilified, and wrongly accused by rouge employees.  Always.  Sure, lawyers are human and make mistakes, and sometimes they reverse their opinions as our attorney did when she advised us that to make the payment "lawful" we (the BCC) had to vote it served a public purpose.  Which we did, and which payment DID serve a public purpose.

Staying in our Lanes

If we all stay in our lanes and do our jobs things will function effectively and efficiently.  If not, we are no better than a third-world dictatorship.....

Yesterday evening at the end of our regular BCC meeting (beginning at about 1:16:45 of this video) the board once again wrestled with an issue that should have never, ever been brought forward on another agenda.  It is a settled matter, all but the final payment of $6,900.00.  Or so it should have been.

Sadly, however, the issue had to be brought back for another go-round last night.

Way back on October 6th--- nearly four months ago---the board voted to pay the last of the costs associated with righting a wrong that was put upon a former employee.  Whether or not anyone agreed with the board's course of action on that matter, the bottom line is the county had to settle with that former employee because of numerous mistakes made by now former staff members that didn't do their jobs correctly, period.  His rights were violated, unfounded accusations were leveled against him, and his due process rights were tossed in a garbage can and lit on fire.   The insurance company and their attorneys wisely advised that the issue be settled for $200,000.00 as the case, if brought to a trial, could have cost the county as much as $800,000.00 in settlement fees + legal costs.

Feckless, glib individuals (to include a claims adjuster for the insurance company and even several former county staffers) who do not understand the way things actually work (apparently including several of the lawyers who purportedly worked on our behalf for the insurance company in defending the eventual lawsuit that was brought by this former employee) attempted to foist blame on me for the outcome.  Of course what they did and how they spread that message via their adjuster and even through former county staff was unethical and contrary to the professional, appropriate way a client is to be treated by their attorney (they are lucky no bar complaint was filed).  

But we were not their real client; never were.  Nope.  We figured that out once we received their emails and assessment of the case documents---after the fact.  You know, the texts and emails they never thought we would see.  No, their real client was always their insurance company that paid their salaries.  They didn't think too much of the commissioners nor did they care for me.  So what.  Do a job.  That's what I say.  Because the seminal, most important axiom of reality these "lawyers" never admitted to nor conceded was the fact that had this matter gone to trial-- I would have NEVER been called to testify at such a trial as I was not a fact witness to the events upon which I have opined and testified truthfully under oath during my deposition.  

They should have known that, and probably did.  

Yet they still assigned blame to a commissioner when the fact of the matter was I told the truth and they were dealt a bum case with fact patterns they didn't have the chops nor the will to overcome.  Period.

Setting that ALL aside, they brazenly claimed that my truthful testimony once I was deposed somehow "tanked the case"  Garbage, rubbish lie.

So after all that smoke cleared, the final settlement costs this former employee incurred in order to get on with his life and career totalled $6,900.00 dollars.  The board of county commissioners voted 3-1 that the payment of this sum be made to settle the costs with the state on behalf of this former employee. Further, the board also voted that in it's view this payment was appropriate and served a public purpose/interest.  

October 6th we voted that.   (See the discussion and vote beginning at 3:17:41 of this video)

But the clerk never paid it.  

Only when she was asked about the delay, 90 days later,  did her office gave a weak set of excuses about why it wasn't paid.

The clerk didn't bother to tell our attorney or any of us she had a problem with the payment for 90 days until she was prodded on it.

Why not?

Well, many of us suspect it is all related to other pending issues she has with the BCC.  Nobody knows for sure except her, but it doesn't matter now, because last night the board once again had to reopen this messy affair and discuss it.  And again, the board made a 3-1 vote.

This time, though, the 3-1 was made to allow our attorney to utilize the court to compel payment of this item.  I predict a writ of mandamus will be filed, and hopefully it will be considered swiftly in the circuit court so the previously BCC approved, lawful and appropriate payment------at long last----- can be made.

As I said in the meeting last night---I believe to not make that payment is an attempt at usurping the board's power.  It isn't right.  We all have to stay in our lanes and if we don't--things devolve and fall apart and we become dysfunctional like a third-world banana republic or worse.

More to come on this.  Much more.

County Attorney's Response to the Clerk's Non-Payment of a BCC Approved Expenditure.

This item should have been paid three months ago....Why wasn't it?

I wrote extensively last week about what I felt was an unnecessary, unprofessional withholding of payment by the clerk's office of a duly approved and voted-upon item by the BCC.  The County Attorney has now sent the below response to the Clerk and her attorney to address this failure to make the payment.  Hopefully, payment will be made without ANY further delay, as it should have all along....From the email:

"First, let me express how extremely disappointed I am that you did not extend the courtesy at the earliest opportunity to advise of your concerns with this expenditure relating to Mr. Selover’s attorney’s fees and administrative fine.  As you know, the Board voted to authorize this expenditure at its October 6, 2022 meeting. Since then, more than three months have passed, and until now, you have not contacted me regarding this matter.

 Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §125.17, the Clerk shall make payments as directed by the Board of County Commissioners.  The Board is the elected legislative body that determines what expenses serve a public purpose and, unless illegal, those payments shall be timely made.  Under home rule authority, it is not necessary to demonstrate specific statutory authorization to make payment; instead, upon legislative authorization, payment shall be made unless illegal.  While you have provided statutory authority for payment of public officer and employee attorney’s fees, that authority is clearly not preemptive or exhaustive as illustrated by the common law theories regarding those expenses.

 There is no authority of which I am aware finding the payment of attorney’s fees or a fine illegal or inappropriate.  To the contrary, there is a strong public policy in favor of financially supporting public sector employees who become engaged in legal jeopardy arising out of their public sector employment.  To not defend such employees would discourage public employment as such employees are often asked to perform duties that are subject to legal challenges for various reasons.

 Mr. Selover’s attorney’s fees and the fine at issue were associated with an administrative action, rather than a criminal proceeding, that was directly related to his employment with the County.  The settlement agreement made no finding of grossly negligent conduct, bad faith, malicious purpose, or willful and wanton disregard of human safety.  Moreover, the settlement was entered into for the purpose of effecting an expeditious resolution rather than incurring the costs of a lengthy proceeding. 

To require a public employee or former employee to undergo an evidentiary hearing to avoid a fine instead of entering into a settlement agreement as a condition for authorizing payment is contrary to the public policy and would, undoubtedly, result in unnecessary expense.  It is also relevant to note, on occasion, the County must pay fines or penalties assessed against the County, whether arising out of the actions of its employees or otherwise.  Thus, assuming proper legislative action, it stands to reason that public funds may be used to pay fines assessed against a public employee when those fines arose out of his public employment.

 Additionally, although you have not communicated any concerns, it is my understanding the Clerk has not yet processed payment of Kate Kenney’s attorney’s fees, which the Board voted to authorize on  October 20, 2022.  I assume the issue of expenditures for fees or other expenses incurred by Public Safety employees was the subject of Ms. Childers discussion with the JLAC auditors after our meeting on Friday afternoon.  If so, I point out that only the elected legislative body can make a legislative determination as to what serves a public purpose.  That said, if the auditors provided specific advice on this issue then it should be shared between our agencies in the unified effort to perform and accomplish the public’s business. 

 Thus, I respectfully request the payment authorized by the Board on October 6 be processed as expeditiously as possible."

 

Why Has This Not Yet Been Paid by the Clerk?

 

Why are our payments being "handcuffed" by the Clerk?  Lawful payments voted upon by the BCC must be made, in timely fashion, by the clerk.  The ridiculous, vindictive, and petty scrutiny combined with the failure by the clerk to honor and make lawful payments approved by the BCC--or at a minimum immediately notify us that the payment would NOT be made-- is not only unprecedented--it is unscrupulous and unprofessional in my opinion.

On October 6th of 2022---more than three months ago---the Escambia Board of County Commissioners voted-by a 3-1 margin-to pay admisistrative costs and fees resulting from the former Escambia County Medical Director's witch hunt directed toward one former employee.  This wronged former employee was forced out of county employment and his reputation was maligned by multiple staff members-- including the former medical director-- and he was left with very few options. So in order to continue his career and maintain his paramedic's license (and to save what could have been years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that the county would have had to pay on his behalf) he took a settlemet deal with the state.  

We (BCC) previously had to pay this same wronged  former employee, Matt Selover,  a six-figure settlement due to the deplorable way he was treated by his supervisor at that time, the now former medical director.  And the mistreatment of this former employee was not just at the hands of the former medical director;  all levels of admin from HR all the way up to former Administrator Janice Gilley left Matt Selover hanging out to dry and sold him down the river like yesterday's garbage.  And his 13 year career was ruined.

It was the metaphorical equivalent of a ship's crew celebrating on the deck of the ship, sipping champagne, while a deck-hand crew member was drowning just off the ship.  And instead of throwing their shipmate a life vest---this crew threw him an Anvil.  That's how Matt (and several other former EMS employees, I might add) were treated.

And the taxpayers paid the price and the BCC picked up the pieces and a huge settlement was paid.

So putting a button on it--I brought forward the agenda item on October 6th to pay the final penalties levied against former employee Selover---to completely make him "whole" and cover the remaining associated fees and costs to the state ------considering the deplorable way he was treated by the former medical director, the former county administrator, the former HR director, and numerous others. This payment would  allow him to continue on with his career elsewhere----which thankfully he has now been able to do.

The item passed the board 3-1.  (See the discussion and vote beginning at 3:17:41 of this video)

Moreover, the board also ---at the same meeting ---affirmatively voted that along with funding the payment--- we were also making a legislative finding that the payment served a legitimate public purpose.  

So, I thought that chapter was finally behind us. Everyone else did as well.  It should have been.  Case closed.

Or so I thought.

Late last week, however, I was told that even though the board voted to pay the $6960.02 in state fees more than three months ago-----the clerk of the court, Pam Childers, had not yet made payment.  Worse yet, I received word on Saturday that the clerk's lawyer, Cody Leigh (who was actually at the meeting on 10-6-22 when the vote was made to  make this payment and who said nothing that night or in the weeks and months following the vote) has now stated he feels the payment is "not authorized."  

From clerk lawyer Cody Leigh's email on 1-6-2023.....

"Upon review, I am unable to find any authority supporting payment of county funds to satisfy fines and costs (i.e. costs for prosecution and investigation) arising from an administrative enforcement case.  By extension, the fees in pursuit thereof would similarly be unauthorized.  I am aware of provisions in chapter 111 authorizing expenditure of funds in certain actions: § 111.07, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to provide an attorney to defend any civil action); § 111.071, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to pay final judgment, compromise, or settlement arising from complaint for damages or injury); § 111.072, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to self-insure or expend for liability insurance in order to pay expenses pursuant to § 111.07).  Similarly, I see there is a common law right to representation for public officials in defense of litigation arising from the performance of official duties."

What?!?  

It is completely appropriate---- and authorized under law---particularly after the vote that the BCC made.

But if he had issues with it--why did Leigh wait three months and sit on the payment?  Why did he not say one word at the meeting as the board pondered and thoughtfully considered this issue for several minutes prior to voting on it?  Why did he sit there like a wax statue?  Why didn't he and his boss Pam Childers not say right away that they wouldn't make the payment?  Why did they throw this on the back burner and not tell us?  Why wait until folks start asking "where is the check" to say they feel it is "not authorized?"

Why the gamesmanship?

Why hold out--this is now going on four months unpaid?  Why withhold payment--unless the object is to inflict more pain and agony on the former employee now vindicated of all the garbage accusations made against him---just wanting to move forward with his life?

If on 10-10-2022---only 3 days after the BCC voted to approve the above payment---the clerk had an issue paying it---why did her office wait three months to let us know they WOULD NOT PAY while everyone else thought the payment was processed?

I'm not happy about this turn of events.  And that is the polite way I'll put that.

Our attorney believes the payment is appropriate.  She signed the voucher, above.  The BCC voted to make the payment. There is NO reason this payment should not have happened in October or November------months ago.

I certainly hope this is not some weird spillover from the current litigation between the BCC and the clerk over retirment plan contributions.  I hope one thing isn't related to another.  Is this related to the hearsay that someone called her the B-word?  What, are we back in Middle School?!?  I hope not, and I certainly don't want to do business this way.  We approve the payments, she is supposed to pay the check, period.

Do a job.

Now, apparently, we are in some weird twilight zone where some things we vote to approve are going to have to go through some ridiculous, unnecessary, additional layer of scrutiny in order to be paid in timely fashion--if at all.  And if there is a perceived "problem" with the payment--we aren't going to be told either--it will simply twist in the wind and we'll be blissfully unaware.......

Immature, ridiculous, unnecessary, and uncalled for.

I'll post our attorney's response to this ridiculous hold up, here, once I receive it.  If this payment is not made in timely fashion, I will bring an item to our next meeting to discuss this and every option we have at our disposal (including and not limited to another mandamus filing in the circuit court) to compel the clerk to set aside her hard feelings and do her job and make this payment.

We approve the payments, she writes the check and pays.  It's very basic.

Much more to come on this.

I'll Be on "Real News with Rick Outzen" Tomorrow Morning at 7:10

I'll be on the most listened to, highest rated and best area morning drive news/talk program, "Real News with Rick Outzen" on AM 1370 WCOA tomorrow morning at 7:10. 

 

I've been invited to appear tomorrow morning on the Pensacola area's #1 rated, most listened-to and best and most popular morning drive news/talk radio show- "Real News with Rick Outzen" on AM 1370 WCOA.

We will discuss the BOCC meeting from last Thursday evening, and some of the important issues we voted forward at that meeting, including: Approving a $5 Million Dollar boat launch-park in D1 on the lower Perdido Bay, approving a park in D4 at the headwaters of Carpenter's Creek, and the future of the effort to eliminate the looping exit off of I-110 south to Gregory Street.  We will more than likely also discuss the recent news about the effort to bring back the New Year's Eve Pelican Drop to Downtown Pensacola in 2023/2024--and also--------the legitimate, voted-upon, legal, and now disclosed BCC expenditures that are not being paid by the Clerk of the Circuit Court Pam Childers.

It will be a great discussion.  Tune in live at 7:10 or check back here for the podcast which I will post once Rick publishes it.  

The Deposition (s) of Ed Spainhower

These two redacted depositions, attached to this post, are a must read for anyone who truly wants to know how badly the county, under inept and indecisive leadership at the time, failed miserably to provide due process to paramedic and former Escambia EMS employee Matt Selover.

This one deposition (in two volumes), probably moreso than any other one I have read related to this case (and I have now read each of them) illustrates the reason the county eventually was forced to settle.  The county HR department totally botched the investigation, tried to do a 180 reversal of the investigative  findings after holding the report open for 7 months, and allowed for materials to be included in a "final" that were biased, suspect, and unreliable---- requested by one party to the complaint-- and written a full 7 months after the conduct at issue happened.  Unpersuasive--this would have never stood up to a trial.  It looks exactly like what I thought it was all along:  A conspiracy, and an "after the fact" attempt to arrange facts for certain employees to escape any ramifications for actions outside their scope--while totally reversing what was presented as the "final" investigatory findings to fit a politically motivated outcome.

And of course once the 100% contradictory report was presented to Selover 7 months after the first one was in the can--he was told he did not have any appeal mechanism.  It was wrong.  It would have been a disastrous loser in court.

These two volumes here and  here  are the deposition of County HR Investigator Ed Sapainhower, who was questioned by J.J. Talbott in regards to his handling of the harrassment complaint that Matt Selover filed against medical director Rayme Edler.  It is devastating, the degree to which the county's own policies on timelines for completing an investigation were totally abandoned.

Yes, by July 1st of 2019---Spainhower had completed his preliminary report.  But 7 months later--the findings were "updated" and completely reversed--once new staff and a new administrator and her mentor took over the process and apparently wanted a different outcome.

The last 30 pages of volume I of the deposition chronicle, in agonizing detail, what happened and why Selover was not provided this report for months, and months, and months.  It's actually quite infuriating.

Distrubingly--this transcript and the questions and answers it brings forward, show that a rushed one-day "finalization" of the report (where the conclusions were totally reversed) happened once a new HR director was brought in to "clean up the mess."

No wonder the lawyers for the insurance company were so desperate to have the county settle this suit.  

Of course it is/was convenient for folks that handled this turkey to start blaming those of us who were asking questions, demanding answers, speaking out and inquiring as to why policy was not being followed.

The disgusting attempts at blame shifting by the insurance company lawyers and their ally the bean-counting "adjuster" (who was totally simpatico with the former HR director) are feckless--they knew I would never be called to testify in any trial that might have happened--as I was not an expert witness, nor was I a fact witness.  My knowledge of the issues of the case were all second-hand, hearsay; Yet these insurance folks and the press sure were quick to try to foist blame on me...Their accusations ring hollow and are as flat as a belly flop from the high dive. 

For those of us who have actually  followed this debacle all the way through---these two volumes (Particularly Volume 1 pages 86-141) detail the precise reasons this case had to be settled. 

Sloppy, botched work by former county leadership  and an egregious failure by HR and the administrator's office in following board policy.  That's what caused this.  And NOTHING else.

Sadly--it didn't have to happen. 

Thankfully--most that were involved in this debacle are no longer in positions of leadership anywhere in this county.

Why People Just "LOVE" Lawyers, Part I

"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 Deposition(s) of Jeff Bergosh

 

On Monday, January 18, 2021--I sat for a 6-hour deposition in the Matt Selover case.

I was subpoenaed to testify, I received a written opinion that although my truthful testimony would be damaging to the county's position that it was proper for me to sit for the deposition,  and I was under oath and asked questions by multiple lawyers about this matter.  

And I told the truth.  

Here's what's important to know:  None of what I said had any bearing on the outcome of the case, and every lawyer with a brain knows I would have NEVER been called to testify in this case had it even gone to trial.  I had no relevance whatsoever;  I was not a fact witness, I wasn't an expert witness, I simply had opinions based upon my knowledge of events received second hand.  I never would have been called to testify in this case.   Wouldn't have happened.

But I was subpoenaed, so I complied and testified.  

And yes, my truthful view of the events surrounding the Matt Selover case and subsequent lawsuit differed greatly from the insurance company's lawyer, Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm.

And although I did not know it at the time, within 10 days of my deposition, attorney Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm (purportedly the attorney for the County Commission paid for by an insurance carrier that picked up this case)  would produce a scathing account of my truthful testimony and share it with the county attorney's office.  It was never shared with me or my counterparts for 8 months  prior to the conclusion of the matter after the county settled with Matt Selover for nearly $200,000.00.  

Even after the conclusion of the matter I was not aware of the existence of this memo, until a PNJ reporter called me, read portions of it to me, and asked me "what I thought of it."  

I find it incredible, astonishing that Ms. Guiditis would withhold the fact that although my opinions differed from hers, my relevance (lack thereof) would preclude my testifying in any trial that might ensue.  This was a huge fact to omit, leaving the casual reader of the document to believe I was the lynchpin that caused this case to settle--which is absolute rubbish and completely dishonest.  

So I have now subsequently requested every document in the case referring to me by Katie Guiditis and her firm. I made this request of Charlie Peppler, deputy County Attorney.  

I received a few email strings, this "memo" from the 27th of January-----and a follow-on memo from May 4th.  Again--I was not aware of any of this, nor were my counterparts, until after the settlement of this lawsuit.  I am disgusted with the way this was portrayed by this lawyer and her apparent desire to set me up as some sort of "boogey man" that created this problem.  I am contemplating filing a bar complaint against her, that is how dissatisfied I am with the way that was handled.  (Seeing the memo

The Deposition of William Hopkins

The county's litigation with Matt Selover has concluded.  Matt Selover was treated horribly by some inept, former county employees;  his harrassment complaint was buried, his wages were reduced unfairly, and his due process was severely violated.  The county has now settled the case for $200,000.00 ----and now the depositions and associated documents of the case are a public record.

There have been some unflattering portrayals of this case (and inaccurate, incomplete information as well) in memos from the insurance company's lawyers--leaked to the press and not shared with the BCC when the case was being deliberated by commissioners.  There have been armchair, Monday morning keyboard warrior types spreading a bunch of misinformation about the case on facebook chat sites.  And there have been people lying about the case, the timelines, and the reasons this case was settled.

Because of all the propaganda and noise surrounding this case, and because these transcripts are public records which many have requested, I'll be posting them all here, on this blog, one by one,  so folks can read them for themselves---and make their own judgments about how poorly this former employee was treated.

This transcript, linked below, from former Escambia paramedic William Hopkins-- created a devastating hole in the medical director's purported timeline of the "when" she decided and made it known she would seek to restrict Matt Selover's priviledges and report him to the DOH.  Mr. Hopkins directly contradicted the medical director's assertions that the decision was made to restrict the ability of Selover to remain a paramedic the day of the QA/QI board--April 23rd 2019.  In fact, his testimony appears to back Selover's claim that the Medical Director sought to retaliate against him and only took action against his priviledges AFTER she was made aware of Selover's harrassment complaint against her on May 1st...  from p. 62 of the deposition:

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

The Deposition of Rayme Edler

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.

Final Legal Analysis Listed Potential Selover Award Damages at More Than $800K

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......

Unlike the dishonest, feckless partisan fake news PNJ, their writer Jim Little and their rancid trash heap article in print on the front page of today's paper---I will link the documentation I have that illustrates the totality of the problems with the County's defense of the Paramedic Matt Selover's Lawsuit the county settled for just under $200K last month.

Fake news PNJ cherry pick a 35 page document from January of this year to find a couple of paragraphs they believe to be unflattering to yours truly, and they make a story of that only and exclusively.  

And, they conveniently do not link their source docuement--a 35 page memo from the Lydecker-Diaz law firm delineating all the multiple problems with the defense and urging a settlement in the case to reduce financial exposure to their real client---not the BCC---the insurance company that ultimately paid the settlement.

PNJ didn't show the document, but I did.  

And PNJ's subsequent post on their facebook page was panned by readers unanimously and universally---including by Matt Selover himself, you know, the first responder at the center of the matter.  He went in and made some very apropos comments correcting the PNJ's flawed narrative on their own facebook page.

But setting that wreckage aside--there was a follow-on memo from the same firm sent over to the BCC's deputy county attorney Charlie Peppler in early May---and that memo apparently didn't get leaked to the PNJ as the previous one did.  I wonder why?  (I know why, and so will those who read it!)

Actually--none of the board members knew about it so far as I can tell--which is problematic as we should have been given it ahead of our last shade meeting in early June.  It might have influenced decisionmaking.  But it was withheld from the board, we did what we did, and it is all over now.

But that memo, linked here, did describe our potential liablility as potentially exceeding $800K--and again urged a settlement for a myriad of good reasons---the same ones and more from their first memo---yet none of these valid reasons made it into the fake news PNJ article.  Nope.  Just "Jeff Bergosh's fault"  (I wonder why?).  No, I don't wonder why, I know why. PNJ are biased, weak, lazy, owned by the powerful, and fake to their rotten core.  That's why.

From the memo the PNJ didn't show you:

"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." 

"Should a jury find that the County is liable, but believe Plaintiff’s expert’s economic loss findings, we estimate Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in a range between $788,162.00-$820,162, not taking into account attorney fees."  

"Overall, we have concerns regarding the atmosphere at the County at the time of Selover’s complaint, the turnover occurring with the administration and having things fall through the cracks, the differences in opinions evidenced in emails, and the County failing to follow their harassment policy.  For example, the County failed to follow their harassment policy timeline, but did not let Selover appeal again despite the County taking six months to issue their opinion on Selover’s complaint. Moreover, at the time Selover’s privileges were restricted, there was a disagreement over whether restricting Plaintiff’s clinical privileges or any paramedic’s clinical privileges was considered “discipline” thereby triggering due process. We have two county attorney’s opinions stating that it was discipline."

 "Critically, she [former HR Director Jana Still] testified that after rendering the final opinion, Selover asked to appeal, but since the complaint was a harassment complaint, and subject to the unlawful harassment policy only, it only provided for 5 days to appeal—which Selover and Dr. Edler had at the

Fascinating View Inside Insurance Company Lawyer's Legal Strategy for their "Client" in the Selover Suit

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