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.

Important Facts Ignored in Latest PNJ Hit Piece that Attempts to Portray Me in a False Light with Actual Malice

I suppose I should not be surprised when a former employee of Gannett's PNJ called me yesterday and the conversation quickly went to the two recent PNJ articles that do not reflect reality and actually attempt to portray me in a false light deliberately.  Not the first time PNJ has done this to me, probably won't be the last.  Ironic that these antics always occur during campaign season......

"I'm sorry this happened and they did this to you, she stated.  When I was there, they had a strict policy of never printing anonymous documents they did not first independently verify"  said this former employee.  I guess they are justifying this publication by saying the "anonymous source" that provided them the stolen texts had a document that they verified with Jonathan Owens' copy.  Wait, though:  What if that copy was manipulated, and that  copy was provided to the PNJ's source  which matched up with Jonathan's--- but both of which are stolen and neither of which have actually been verified as accurate?  

Looks like journalistic integrity and standards have been lowered in the organization in light of poor economic performance, decrased relevancy (and subscriber numbers) and vanishing ad revnue coupled with higher costs.  Plus, it's easier to sell newspapers if the headlines are salacious, scandalous, and sensational.   Facts, who cares, right?

So in this morning's hard copy edition, they have once again published what is an outright falsehood, and did not bother to ask my side.  True, I said I would not comment on the ongoing federal investigation into how my data was stolen--- but I most certainly would have commented on this garbage quote.

"Using keyword searches related to public business, the News Journal reviewed the texts and reported that Bergosh referenced Edler more than 100 times in texts that seemingly should have been released as a matter of public record under Florida Sunshine Law, but were not." 

I have never once in 17 years as an elected offical failed to produce a public record, ever.  Not once, and I did not in this instance, either.  I'm not the disgraced former commissioner with more ethics violations, recommendations for removal from office, Federal and State lawsuits and continuing problems even after he left office than any other commissioner in the history of this county.  No, unlike that guy-- Doug Underhill----- and his acolyte, minion, secretary--- Jonathan Owens--------I follow the law to the letter even though I say things and do things the PNJ don't like.

So the fact is this.  I never received a request for public records related to these texts that I failed to produce, and I have never failed to produce any of my personal text messages regarding the Edler case. The county received voluminous requests for other emails and correspondence, and data requests, which the lawyers are working to fulfill via the discovery process.  Importantly:  The lawyers did not request these text messages under a PRR, nor did anyone else.  Had a request been made of me, I would have fulfilled it as I have always done and have a track record of doing.  But instead, my entire text file was stolen.  Mention of this was made by the lawyers for Edler via email on March 27th.  Attorneys for Edler sat on these purported text messages of mine for two months and did not provide them to the attorneys for the county until nearly two months later, on May 24th.  I was not notified until June that there was potentially a breach of my data, but I was concerned because I was never requested to provide my text messages relevant to this case because I was told the other side already had "all of them."

So instead of getting the facts from the source, PNJ runs with an article that intimates I failed to produce a record, which is a lie.  It is untrue. It is libel.

The truth of the matter is, this discovery process continues, and now we are working on a fair way to redact the files from my phone that were stolen in an attempt to protect attorney-client privileged communications, exempt records, and personally identifiable information that is contained within that stolen text file while simultaneously working to maintain our obligation to produce responsive records.  And no final decision has been made on what will be released because it is tied up in the courts.

First email notification March 27th, 2023

Escambia County finally  receives purported Bergosh text file, June 1

--Other notable falsehoods:  The "quote" the PNJ references about "no public data on private cell phones" is not the position of the county's attorneys, and that was noted by the magistrate judge herself during the hearing in a back and forth with county attorneys.  Why leave that quote in there when it is clearly not the position of the county's attorneys and that was acknowledged in court because it is an inaccurate, non-factual assertion?

Why Conflate Two Separate Issues?

Sometimes no matter how much spaghetti is thrown at a wall---none of it sticks.

The recent article by Jim Little of the PNJ had an appropriate headline and summary of a recent scandal at the county:  Someone stole information from the county's servers illegally, this issue is being investigated by the FBI, and currently Jonathan Owens, my former political opponent who I dispatched in the 2020 primary and who worked as former lighting-rod commissioner Doug Underhill's secretary--- has publicly proclaimed he has this stolen property.  Doubling down, I'm told he(Owens) went on the radio and was giddy about explaining how he read all the personal, private, privileged and confidential information that was contained within this stolen data file.  Going further, he even admitted to disseminating this stolen property.  

Now, he does not say how he came to possess it other than providing a flimsy, unbelievable story that this file magically appeared on his desk.  Abracadabra!  But really, who would buy that explanation?  It is unbelievable, and that's the polite way I will put that.

So yes, the story got that aspect of the issue right.

But then came a huge part of the story that was about an unrelated issue:  the now settled cases of alleged, purported misconduct at the county's EMS division from four years ago.  

No doubt, there were some problems with record keeping and organization and multiple persons were alleged to have been a part of some falsification of certifications and mismanagement of call logs.

But here is the fact:  Six personnel from the county all but had their careers destroyed with these allegations from a former medical director who herself is now gone.  Of these six, only one was adjudicated guilty.  The other five settled their cases and WERE NOT CONVICTED.  The county paid a $5,000.00 fine, we got new medical directors, we got new leadership, and our EMS department moved forward.  Case closed.  Ever since that witch hunt by a former medical director--which it was--we have been cleaning up the mess, paying huge settlements and legal bills for the abyssimal way these former employees, now exonerated, were treated by the county.  No due process, allegations that were untrue, and careers ruined.  

But all that is in the rear view.

So why conflate this current case of theft and mishandling of protected information with the ancient history of that case?  

Now, this same former medical director did file a Federal Qui Tam claim post-employment with a couple of lawyers who specialize in this.  But that is a separate case from the falsification of records case.  

But MOST IMPORTANTLY:  The personal, private, priviledged and confidential text messages these lawyers so desperately want to keep, the ones allegedly provided to them outside of the normal discovery process, the ones that were stolen, the ones that cannot be verified as accurate, and the ones that are being investigated by law enforcement for the way they were inappropriately obtained---have no bearing on that Qui Tam case.  None whatsoever.  I am a part of the legislative in this county--I have no day in-day out operational oversight of any department--let alone EMS billing.  I'm not a fact witness to any of these overbilling allegations, and any discussion of the former Medical Director contained within these stolen text messages from my personal phone would be irrelevant hearsay and not a part of any case--let alone this particular one.  This is all setting aside the fact that these files were not provided as a bonafide records request, they were obtained unlawfully and there is no way to discern whether or not lines have been added into this particular file nor whether or not other lines have been deleted or manipulated.  Bottom Line:  There is no way to authenticate what Jonathan has given to these lawyers in this Qui Tam case.  So why are the lawyers burning up the taxi meter, running up costs, on chasing this issue down a rabbitt hole?

So now comes the news journal-- conflating a serious, major theft with a closed case and a current case for which the stolen files have no bearing?

I know why the plaintiff's lawyers are doing this---they are running up the check hoping for some settlement of this case to cover these exhorbitant fees, throwing spaghetti at the wall, making tons of discovery requests, then modulating them and moving them around.  They are grasping at straws and hoping to find something to help their case.  So they are doing what these sorts of lawyers, working on contingency, do.  Doing what lawyers do--It's why they are so dang popular and beloved 😀.  

But why is the PNJ carrying these lawyers' water--instead of separating the real from the faux as they should?

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.

Accusations, Insinuations, Allegations and a Federal Qui Tam Lawsuit from Former Medical Director....Someone is Looking for a Payday!

 

Someone is looking to score a payday!

The board was made aware late last week of a recently filed complaint against the county in Federal Court.  This complaint is being made under the Federal False Claims Act.  The allegations and insinuations are numerous and wide-ranging.  Everything but the kitchen sink is thrown into the complaint--which initially was filed under seal with the court back in September of last year.  Like a Jackson Pollock--stuff is thrown all over the place in this filing.  like spaghetti all over the wall....The Angst oozes from the pages of the complaint (currently being redacted in the legal office) which I will post once it is scrubbed of any sensitive, HIPPA or other confidential information which cannot be released.

I've read all 58 pages.  

It reads like the manifesto of an angry, scorned former employee short on facts and long on allegations and requests for data--which is probably why the Federal Government took a "hard pass" on joining this suit. I'm sure the former medical director and her Miami and Pennsylvania lawyers were hoping the Feds would join--but they didn't.  Which may be telling.  Language like this, below, directly from the complaint--sounds a lot like a "fishing expedition"...

"With respect to allegations made upon information and belief, Relator has, based upon Relator's knowledge, data, and prior experience, a reasoned factual basis to make the allegations herein but lacks complete details of them. While Relator has significant evidence of the fraud alleged herein (the details of which follow), much of the documentary evidence necessary to prove these allegations is in the possession of Defendant.."

Meanwhile-the staff that remains in billing and EMS will have a Herculean "Data call" coming:  They will have to compile the billing and call coding information from different billing systems over a long period of time where multiple personnel have come and gone over the timeframe indicated (2014-2020).  Multiple EMS and Public safety employees, multiple budget directors, multiple EMS and public safety directors, three IT directors, and at least four current and former Interim and permanent County Administrators have been employed over this time.  

When this was dropped on the legal office's lap just last week-- on January 18th-- by our Insurance-company assigned Law Firm--we were given only 9 days to answer this nearly 60 page complaint--even though our "insurance company assigned attorneys" knew about this complaint since November.  so there are issues with that, too, that I'll get to in some additional, follow-on posts.....meanwhile, we have subsequently received an extension which will allow us until February 10th to file a response.  But as it pertains to the allegations, this post will be about that.

In a nutshell, the former Medical Director has teamed up with a couple of  Lawyers to accuse the county of systimatically, purposely and illegally over-billing the government for EMS transportation services provided in our county over nearly a seven year period.  In addition to that, they are claiming the county billed for ALS services while only providing BLS services.  They also claim some of the personnel were allegedly not certified properly for the reimbursements requested.   The allegations are all listed one by one after a narrative that names a lot of names and lists a lot of serious allegations these individuals are alleged to have engaged in during the course of their employment with the county. (Interesting that most of the individuals named are no longer employed by the county, and the "sinister allegations" made in this complaint do not mention the fact that the lion's share of these employees have now moved on with their respective careers elsewhere after  disproving or settling the allegations of this former medical director hurled at them. I do not believe any of these individuals named in her complaint has been adjudicated guilty of her allegations.  Most of these allegations and charges have been dropped and settlement agreements made allowing these former employees to all to continue their careers in public safety).  

The most interesting thing about this suit is that if successful, the plaintiff (former medical director) and her lawyers can collect a portion of the fees owed to the government--which could amount to a lot of money if every allegation is proven--because Qui Tam complaints, I'm told, allow folks to sue on behalf of the government. If successful, a finding can be made forcing a party (in this case the county) to repay the government and the complainant.  Looks to me like someone is looking for a payday!  Ka- Ching!!

Interesting to me is the fact that she, the former medical director, was essentially in charge of this department for a multi-year period---and among all the drama, requests for training, requests for other things, bigger budgets, "we must have Rescue 1" etc. and even more drama-rama complaining--I don't recall this medical director once, not once, letting the board know she saw a problem with the billing/coding.  Not once.  She came to meetings, she complained about everything EXCEPT anything having to do with the billing.  So she was in charge, never mentioned this as an issue, and is now suing for this issue? Why is that, I wonder?

Too many questions.....

Much more to come on this in the days, weeks, and months to come.

Initially, I'm told at least one employee intimately familiar with the coding and billing issue has stated unequivocally that the allegations are untrue and that coding was/is always done conservatively--meaning the lower cost transport was the default billing unless it is/was known that the call was an acute call which bills at about $100 more than the rate for a routine transport.  But the county's staff will have to compile reams of data in order for a defense to be constructed and prior to a cogent response being drafted to this wide-ranging complaint.  Staff will have their work cut out for them over the next three week which will go by quickly.....

From the complaint:

"1.            Plaintiff-Relator Dr. Edler brings this False Claims Act Complaint on behalf of the United States, and on her own behalf. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730 et seq.

2.             Medicare and other government programs pay for certain necessary and reasonable medical services, but services are not reasonable when they are performed by uncertified and unqualified personnel. Escambia County knowingly filed claims for medical services performed by uncertified and unqualified personnel.

3.            Further, Escambia knowingly filed claims for emergency transportation when it provided non-emergency transportation, and it filed claims for advanced life support when if provided basic life. These up-codes are false claims."

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.

Follow-Up on County Medical Director Status.....

A few months back the board approved a new contract with  University of Florida affiliated doctors to provide for county medical direction for EMS and Fire.

Our previous Medical Director's status was unknown to many though.  

Some had asked "Where is your previous Medical Director?" or "What is Edler's status?"

On one of my recent blog posts, one commenter even had a specific list of questions he/she wanted me to answer about the former Medical Director's current employment status  (anonymous 3:39 in the comments of this post).  Of course, I didn't answer because to do so would have been inappropriate.  Plus, I wasn't sure what her status is/was.   All I know is we have approved new Medical Directors and the feedback I have received has been all positive!

Meanwhile, in order to close the loop on what happened to the individual that used to hold that title--I asked for an update on her status.

I recently received a letter that is a public record that pretty much sums up what happened to our former Medical Director, Rayme Edler.  Read it below.

She is no longer employed with the county.

Three of Four Former EMS Employees Have Cases Concluded in Court

 

The first employee, several months back, had some major, serious charges leveled against him.  Some were felonies.  Eventually, his case was disposed of, and all the serious charges were dropped to two misdemeanors.  He is continuing his career elsewhere.

Now, today, comes news that two more of the former EMS employees that had a laundry-list of allegations leveled against them by our former medical director--have now had their cases resolved in circuit court today.  These two cases from today were concluded with neither employee admitting guilt to any of the charges, and both of these former employees were given a pre-trial diversion option--which allows all the charges leveled against them to eventually be expunged from the record--so long as the terms of the pre-trial deal are adheared to by these two former employees.  And if they so choose, both of these employees can continue their respective careers in EMS.  NO ramifications on their licenses.

Many of us have been watching these events closely, waiting for this day.

For many of us, this is vindication.  

I am quite pleased that these former employees can now move forward with their lives and get past this terrible situation they found themselves in with one employee who could take no criticism, and lashed out at junior employees once multiple harrassment complaints were filed against her.

Many believe, based upon what we're now seeing, that much if not all of these accusations and allegations of wrongdoing  was simply comprised of cooked up, trumped up allegations that have now evanesced under the scrutiny of a court proceeding.

I plan on really digging into this in more depth in the next couple of days.  

In the meantime---I'm very glad we have new leadership in Public Safety, EMS, and in the role of Medical Director.  Because what happened over the last three years did not have to happen, and a lot of good people were disparaged, disrespected, and run out of their jobs.

And some were charged with serious infractions which it appears, now, never happened.

The damage one rogue employee can inflict on fellow employees, junior employees, and an entire organization, are immense.  That's why mature, effective, and strong leadership is mandatory.

For several years in public safety we didn't have this.

Now, with our new org chart, I believe we do.  

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.

The Deposition(s) of John Dosh and Jimmy Maddrey

The released depositions into the recently settled lawsuit against the county regarding the county's failure to provide due process to a former employee are a window into a lot of dysfunction that was happening, apparently, in EMS in the 2018-2019 timeframe.  Thankfully--most (if not all) of the players involved in this mess have moved on from the county or been terminated, and that department is now doing MUCH, much better with better leadership.....

The depositions in the case that we recently settled with former paramedic Matt Selover contain an incredible amount of information.  There are lots of other information items contained within the depositions as well-- that beg a lot of additional questions about many aspects of the way EMS was being run in the 2018-2019 timeframe.  Many lessons to learn and mistakes not to repeat....

As we all now know, there were tremendous problems in the way staff handled and treated Mr. Selover--and this of course led to the nearly $200,000.00 settlement the county's insurance carrier, upon the strident recommendation of their own retained attorneys, ultimately paid to settle the suit.

These two depositions--one from the former acting director of public safety and the former acting EMS chief--add pieces to the puzzle that ultimately came together and which necessitated our settlement with this wronged employee.

Hopefully--many will read these and learn what to do and not to do so that we will never again do this to ANY employee so that, importantly, we will never have to make another 6-figure settlement like this one again.

County staff assistant attorney Steve West provided the following advice on my request to make these documents public--and I have removed the pages he references as sensitive in his below email:

"Commissioner Bergosh:

 As you requested, attached are the deposition transcripts for John Dosh and James Maddrey, which Alison asked me to review and forward.  The only redaction is the home address on page 7 of Maddrey’s transcript.

 I understand that Charlie has already advised on your discretion regarding certain sensitive information (xxxxxxxxxxxxx).  For your convenience, references to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx can be found on pages 80-82 and 85 of Dosh’s transcript and pages 56 and 92-95 of Maddrey’s.   Please contact our office if you have any questions or concerns on this or any other information in the transcripts.

 Stephen G. West, Senior Assistant County Attorney"

Read the John Dosh deposition here

Read the Jimmy Maddrey deposition here

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 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.