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.

On 1370 WCOA's Real News with Rick Outzen Tomorrow Morning at 7:00 AM

I'll be speaking live tomorrow at 7:00 AM on the kickoff-morning show on the fastest-growing audience cultivating station--of all formats AM or FM--in the Pensacola-area  market.  1370 WCOA.

I've once again been asked to start the week as the lead off guest on the area's fastest-growing, best, most-relevant, highest-rated, most entertaining, and most widely-trusted morning drive news talk radio program, "Real News with Rick Outzen" on the area's best talk station AM 1370 WCOA.

I'll be on at 7:00 AM Monday morning.

There were a flurry of important, newsworthy issues bubbling up late last week as we all head into a notoriously slow news climate ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday........ This could make for some good, entertaining and illuminating discussion tomorrow morning; I will be fully prepared to discuss any of it or all of it--- if Rick wishes to do so.  

One interesting aspect of coming on Rick's program, as compared to others I have been asked to be on in the past--is that Rick rarely previews what issues he wants to discuss.  There are no pre-prepared topics sent out in advance, so the discussion can be real, raw, honest and spontaneous.  So, some serious issues might very well be on tap for tomorrow morning's show.

Or---- we might just talk Turkey.  

Who knows?  After all, the news cycle takes a 7 day hiatus starting tomorrow....

Listen live at 7:00 AM and find out.  

I will post the podcast here once it is published.

We Demand Your Internet Search Histories: from Every Device You Own!

 They want it all--every item "searched-for" from every computer or device we own.  In addition to thousands and thousands of documents from the county based upon hundreds of search terms that will require a superhuman (and expensive) effort to find, produce, analyze, and redact.

Yes, these are the demands being made of multiple commissioners in the wake of a lawsuit filed 175 miles away from Pensacola by the medical examiner against two area funeral home directors.

And now commissioners are getting dragged into this spat like dolphins caught in a longline tuna fishing hunt.

And they are requesting the search histories from four commissioners from every computer and electronic device we own.  What??

How would one even capture such data?  I have no idea.  But more importantly--these sorts of things are not public records and more importantly are not germaine to this fight.  I would venture a guess that production of such personal items would require a search warrant and probable cause that an actual, serious crime was committed before such broad brush, invasive, Orweillian type of demands would ever be countenanced.  I mean, this is the sort of thing FBI gets from google to investigate suspects arrested on suspician of serial killings, like that weirdo in New York --Rex Heuermann.

I mean--as crazy as our country and some litigation is getting today in some cases-----and it is chilling------this request is just way too broad and onerous.  

Yes, yes.  I know some are upset that letters were sent and published describing hideous things happening to bodies and these letter writers' personal/professional opinions on supposed mistreatment of these bodies.  I get that.  I read the letters.  But these letters were sent and so far as I understand it many of the allegations were true which prompted some reforms in some processes at the ME office.  That's a good outcome, right????

But no.  Now we are attempting to do a scorched-earth, take no prisoners, gigantic gill-net fishing expedition because somebody got her feelings hurt.  Garbage.

Thankfully  the county produced a four-pager yesterday to request the judge to quash this nonsensical, ridiculous, outrageous "demand" by the Medical Examiner's lawyer.  Read it, below.

Everyone Brings Joy

Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain both had famous quotes that essentially said the same thing.  A positive way to look at things related to human interaction is to say EVERYONE brings joy--people we like, and also people we dislike.  The trope goes like this--"Everyone brings joy--some as they arrive, others when they leave."

Thursday marked the last meeting for one of the Escambia County Commissioners, Doug Underhill. 

That brought joy to many.  Champaigne corks were popping all over town I am certain.

 But his last meeting was uneventful, nobody gave any speeches or accolades, he didn't give a soliloqy, and the meeting ended with very little fanfare. in  my 16 years in public office locally watching a lot of last meetings--that really was a first.  Most often--in my experience serving for a decade and a half-- when an elected official or long term employee leaves a board or organization after serving multiple terms--there is a strong turnout for the last meeting--with family,  anecdotes, standing ovations, and multiple speakers lauding such a person's accomplishment(s).  I saw it on the School Board, and we've seen it on the BCC.  Not so Thursday.  

Commissioner Underhill even had an agenda item to present multiple plaques to all of his board appointees most probably in anticipation of such a sendoff.  He only presented one however---because only one appointee showed up.  So the rest of his plaques remained stacked in a bag behind the dais.  He didn't even think to recognize his most loyal, most ardent supporter and lifelong best friend and ally (and secretary) Jonathan Owens.  He must have really been discombobulated due to nobody showing up to his last meeting.  But failing to recognize his best buddy and out of town meeting attendee travel companion Jonathan Owens was a spectacular faux-pas.

Why are you always after Doug Underhill some might ask?  

Answer--I'm not.  I'm just playing defense against this guy and his lies, libels, and slanders hurled my direction over the last 6 years.  He not only attacks me, but he lies about my family members to include my wife and slanders and libels her, me, and even my brother.  He calls Commissioner Barry a thief, and says the most horrible things online about Commissioner Bender and May as well.  Lies, lies, lies.  He calls constituents "PuS*y" he calls students "miscreants and insurgents" and he is the commissioner who has had more public records complaints, federal and state lawsuits, ethics violations, and censures than any other commissioner in the history of the county.  Now, the Florida commission on ethics have recommended he be fined $35K and REMOVED FROM OFFICE for 5 sustained violations.

So yes, his departure is just in time and brought joy to many.  For my part, I actually felt sorry for him in a way.  And the day of his last meeting I actually said a prayer for a peaceful day and I prayed for his family.

That was hard for me to do, I admit that, but I did it.

One of his most ardent, loyal, obsequious and vituperative supporters from about 12 that bee-hive online on a facebook chat site few look at even sent an email to me stating her displeasure about some picture she saw online that she felt was "Tacky, unclassy, and embarrasing"  --she also included her number which to me illustrated she wanted to discuss it.  So I called her back yesterday and explained why so many people were happy--and her response to me was "It's my birthday today-you're not going to ruin it, you are full of SHI#!  FU@% you! she screamed as she hung up on me!  Then she went online and said I was "stalking her" LOL.  And then subsequently only printed a snippet of the email I sent back to her after she attempted to Dog-Cuss me out for having the audicity to return her call and speak truth to her.  She posted a snippet--but no mention of her cursing, F-bombs,  and histrionics--so it was totally non-contextualized and inaccurate.  Not surprising.  So I'm going to post my full response to her for posterity, right here.  I tell you, some of these Underhill die-hards just can't see the forest for the trees...they would have been among the first to follow Marshall Applewhite on his magic starship meteor journey.   But I'll never be anyone's pinata--I'll always defend myself and my actions, even as some may not like this.  Too bad.  My letter to this individual, after she said to me "You're full of SH!&!!!!  FU#K  You!!!--is below:

"Your opinion means nothing to me or anyone else.  You are irrelevant.  You sent a BS email with an attack and I responded. Period.  Because I’ll always stand up for myself and repel BS attacks from the likes of you.  Remember, what is truly “tacky” and an embarrassment is someone like you banging away on the keyboard all day long in support of your God and hero Doug Underhill while lying about the other four of us that do our jobs and get things done.  Remember, your hero Doug has more ethics complaints, lawsuits (federal and state) and censures than any other commissioner in the history of the county—and now a non-partisan board of impartial ethics commissioners has recommended he be removed from office and fined $35K for 5 violations of ethics statutes.  I guess all those folks just “had it in” for Doug LOL.  No, it’s him and his conduct only.  And now he is gone and spontaneous celebrations and champagne corks were popping all over town after his last meeting on the 3^rd.  Understand that.  Now, run along and post this to ECW so you and about 12 others just like you can have it rattle around your heads.  And, remember, you contacted me with a BS email and your phone number meaning you obviously wanted a call back—which I did.  You just didn’t want to hear the reality of the situation when I called you.

 

 

Jeff Bergosh

Chairman of the Board

 & District 1 Commissioner,

Escambia Board of County Commissioners"

County Taxpayers Have Now Spent More than $87,000.00 on Doug Underhill's Various Lawsuits

 

According to information I just received from the county attorney's office--county taxpayers have spent $87,040.00 in costs and fees defending Doug Underhill's various Federal and State Lawsuits currently working their way collectively through the courts.

These costs and fees were compiled in answer to a constituent's public records request.  I asked for the information as well, and here it is below.

$87,040.00 and a ton of meetings, shade sessions, and gnashing of teeth..................what a waste.

And the meter is still running on some of these.

Payment of Legal Fees Request May Not Necessarily be a "Slam-Dunk"

Sometimes even when it looks like a "slam-dunk" is a "sure-thing"---- it doesn't mean it will ultimately happen though....

The awkward and uncomfortable silence (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) that followed Commissioner Doug Underhill's motion for payment of his legal fees to his lawyer last Thursday was certainly something I neither relished nor enjoyed.  The Sound of Silence.  Like Simon and Garfunkel's tune.  Silence that was deafening.  

But, to channel Yoda: "Silence there was" -- when Underhill made the motion for payment (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) of nearly $25,000 in legal fees.  Complete, total, unambiguous silence.  So his request died for a lack of a second, and his attorney remains unpaid for nearly a year and a half's work.

The case has been ruled upon by a local circuit judge and also affirmed unanimously at the 1st District Court of Appeals.  This is why this request is coming now for us to act.

But back in November of 2019-- I made a motion to set aside an amount of money to repay these legal fees to Doug Underhill if he was successful in the suit AND if he demonstrated that he had paid his attorneys and was current on his bills to his lawyer.  At that meeting, at that time, Doug Underhill did not second my motion, and my motion to set aside these funds, under the conditions in my motion, died for lack of a second.  One could speculate as to the "why" the Commissioner who's fees were in questions would not have seconded a motion to assist with payment of these fees---because it was an odd thing to occur.  But it happened, and now we fast forward a year and three months and the motion this time was made by Doug-----and it died for lack of a second.

And now--because the board did not take action to pay the overdue legal invoices Thursday--this will undoubtedly head back to circuit court.  We will be sued for payment of these fees.

So we will see what that filing looks like.  The county will answer and will defend against this, I am told.  If a writ of mandamus is received, it is my understanding it may be appealed.

The question will come down to whether or not our local ordinances and rules will be upheld--or will a state statute be cited successfully to trump our policy and unilaterally compel payment of these fees to the attorney who represented Commissioner Underhill but who has not yet been paid by Commissioner Underhill.

A quick review of the relevant county policies in force during the time the conduct at issue occurred which drew the lawsuit reveals the then social media policy was not being followed by the Commissioner who got sued.  

Looking at the Board's revised rule/policy on repayment of legal fees--it remains unclear as to whether or not 1.) repayment/payment of fees policy was followed and 2.) the policy compels the board to pay if a commissioner requests repayment due to the successful defense of an issue in court (i.e. it appears as if the board will have five different courses of action to take under our policy---to include denying the payment of fees and making alternative findings.)

An additional question this whole mess dredges to the surface is the hypothetical conundrum that may ensue if the court does in fact issue a writ of mandamus to the BCC to pay Commissioner Underhill's unpaid fees.  Questions such as:

1.  Would the board have to take additional vote(s) to pay---or could the board vote to appeal the writ of mandamus? (could this thing go back and forth through the various courts and courts of appeal like Forest Gump's ping-pong balls going back and forth over the net?)

2.  Would/could the clerk of the court independently at her own discretion proactively/pre-emptively pay the legal fees once such a judgment is/was issued to the BCC ordering the payment?   

OR

3.  would the BCC have to vote again to authorize the payment by the clerk to Doug's lawyer all the past due bills --- as ordered (hypothetically) by Judge Pitre?

Too many questions.  One thing that is certain though:  Payment of these past-due, unpaid bills from the BCC directly to Doug's lawyer may not necessarily be a "slam-dunk......."