40th Coffee With the Commissioner this Wednesday

Virtual Event, Next District 1 Coffee with the Commissioner May 13

Join District 1 Commissioner Jeff Bergosh at his virtual 40th Coffee with the Commissioner event Wednesday, May 13. The live stream will take place from 6:30 - 7:30 a.m. Guests will include Escambia County Administrator Janice Gilley, Pensacola Sports President Ray Palmer and Michael Rhodes, Director of Escambia County Parks and Recreation. The meeting will focus on the future of sports in Escambia County, from local youth leagues to professional leagues.

To join, simply go to the following Facebook page at 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 13 and watch the live stream: www.facebook.com/CommissionerBergosh/. 

Residents are encouraged to send virtual questions and comments they would like to discuss with their District 1 Commissioner during the event through Facebook. 

Information Provided Validates the Questions that were Raised.....

A week ago today I had a conversation about the new downtown field house concept with a person intimately familiar with this initiative.

I asked this person if they supported the plan for a field house downtown--and the answer was a resounding and forceful "No."

I wondered aloud..."Why not?"

During the course of the ensuing conversation, the reasons for this individual's hesitation would be framed and detailed;  the lack of support hinged on multiple issues and financial concerns--which eventually this person would detail.

#1.  Some financial irregularities should be looked into, according to this source.  Chief among these was the $150,000.00 purchase of a website domain name for www.pensacola.com. "It's not that they spent money to buy this domain,  it's not even about the price of the domain, although I think it is a lot of money--it's the fact that their board didn't authorize the purchase in advance which they should have done.  At least one board member was not happy about this the next month when the full board were notified about the purchase."  

After looking at the minutes for Visit Pensacola from June 27th--the claim about the purchase being made absent board approval appears to be true.  Furthermore, it looks like the board did not even take a vote after the fact to approve the purchase which is odd.  Nobody has been able to tell me definitively, yes or no, the answer to this question:  "Did Visit Pensacola's Board ever authorize this purchase?"  Apparently, from the comments she made in the PNJ,  the clerk of the court believes this purchase was not inappropriate.   From the PNJ: "Pam Childers, Escambia County Clerk of the Circuit Court whose office reviews all county expenditures, said in a text message to the News Journal Thursday evening that there was no malfeasance surrounding the purchase of the domain name."  For what it is worth, I never used the term malfeasance--that was my counterpart in district 2 that used that word.  I said "inappropriate and irregular"--which I believe are the better words to describe this event; because I still have trouble with the fact that the purchase was not approved in advance.  Regardless of what one chooses to call this--it appears that this purchase was, in fact, "irregular" if nothing else....

#2.  Several consultants are being paid by PSA to lobby the BCC for more money for a field house--according to this source.  "They have several guys making thousands per month on contracts to lobby you to spend more on studies for the field house." said this individual.



After receiving the information from Visit Pensacola and the Pensacola Sports Association on Monday---it appears that this additional concern is also a true statement.  It appears that Visit Pensacola has a total of four consultants being paid at the moment tied to the effort to bring a field house to Pensacola. It also appears as if these positions were not solicited via an RFP or RFQ but rather the persons chosen were name-selected. One consultant gets $4,000.00 monthly, one gets $3,000.00 monthly, one received a fixed price to do a study, and the fourth consultant receives $125.00 hourly on a contract not to exceed 210 hours.

In looking at PSA's last two budget requests--I do not see these costs as a part of the request to the BCC.  So the question I have is where is this money coming from, the money to lobby the BCC to

Reason for the Pause, Part II

An analysis of requested information should clear up any questions raised by allegations that were brought to my attention Wednesday evening which led to my move to pull a funding item from last night's agenda....

In part I of this series I described the rationale for taking a pause on an agenda item from yesterday's meeting.

I asked my aide, Debbie Kenney, to make some inquiries of Visit Pensacola and Pensacola Sports Association so that I can run some other allegations to ground before we move ahead with the vote for an additional $2.3 Million to Visit Pensacola next month.

As I said to channel three and in the PNJ--I am just following up on information that was given to me.  Just allegations.  Hopefully, there is no substance to these allegations.....

I reiterated this position in a Friday interview on Pensacola's top-rated morning radio show, "Good Morning Pensacola" on 1370 WCOA.

Here's the Deal:   if I do not follow up on serious allegations from credible sources, then I am not doing my job, so I follow up on credible reports when I get them, and I get to the bottom of issues that are real.  Look no further than Newpoint schools and what happened there........ 

The below request was made today by my aide.  When I receive the information back, I'll hopefully have a better idea, before the next vote in April, about whether or not some things I have been told about these allocations of TDC monies are true or untrue.

Reason for the Pause, Part I

Sometimes a close examination of an allegation is good for all sides. Sometimes it proves there was no "there" there, other times it confirms allegations.  Occasionally  it serves to improve processes.  In any case, a thorough look is in order when seemingly alarming claims are made

At yesterday morning's agenda review session, I led the effort to pull a funding item from the agenda for this month so that I could investigate some issues that had been alleged having to do with the "process" of some purchases.

The board agreed and the item was dropped.

I described to the media and my peers on the BCC some of my concerns--the largest one being that according to a citizen with intimate knowledge of Visit Pensacola--a large-dollar purchase of a website domain name was made without proper authorization (from the full Visit Pensacola Board of Directors--in advance of the purchase)

I did confirm that to be true yesterday late in the evening--the board of Visit Pensacola neither authorized nor approved this purchase in advance as should have happened according to their bylaws and financial procedures documents.

The minutes from June 27th describe the purchase being disclosed to the full board after the fact. 

So far as I understand it--the purchase was questioned by the clerk's office, who in turn deferred to the County Administrator's office.

The County Administrator's office approved the purchase for reimbursement in September of 2018 (although the original purchase was made in early June of 2018).  I asked the following question yesterday:  "Was the authorization for the approval of this purchase reimbursement made with the understanding that the Visit Pensacola Board of Directors had voted to authorize this purchase in advance?"  and the answer was an unequivocal "Yes."

I'm told at least one Visit Pensacola board member was not happy about the way this purchase was done.

Nobody has told me yet, for sure,  if this purchase was ever officially ratified by a follow-on vote of the board--as should have occurred.  This action, if it did occur, is not reflected in the minutes.

So setting aside the size of the expenditure ($150,000.00 seems high to me-- but I'm not an expert in buying website domains) There is little doubt that the process here was badly flawed.

So if this was truly a time-sensitive issue--my question is why not call a special meeting?  Why not wait at least 3,5, or 7 days to do it right?  Why not write the contract stipulating the purchase is not valid until the Board of Directors approve the purchase?  Why the rush to spend this much money with no deliberations among the board of directors prior to the purchase?

And if the website was so important to acquire in such a rapid fashion, why has nothing been done with it--why is it not, at a minimum, at least directing traffic to the existing Visit Pensacola site right now?

Some other allegations were made about "multiple consultants and lobbyists" being engaged by these entities as well--with very generous monthly stipends.  This is all well and good, but I am requesting some information to see if what I am told squares with the reality of the situation with respect to several of these consultants, what they are doing, and for what purpose, and what sources of money is funding this.

I'm also going to ask about how these positions were advertised and whether or not RFP's or solicitations for these services were put out before the hires were made--or were these persons direct hires?

As I said in the PNJ--it is all probably nothing--I hope there is no larger issue other than this one obvious misfire with the website address purchase prior to board authorization.

But in our oversight capacity as commissioners--we have to take credible information seriously and we have to ask questions when irregularities (like the $150K Website Purchase without prior authorizations from the Board of Directors) are brought to our attention. 

I hope everyone gets this.

I mean, just imagine the alternative.  Imagine if we "didn't" follow up on allegations brought to our attention about potential issues with the expenditure of public monies?