Unexpected Money is Always Good

Nobody knew this was coming.

I just opened a letter that was sent late last month to my office.  Snail mailed.  Apparently, we were entitled to funds that the Attorney General's office sought and recaptured resulting from litigation regarding an auto parts price-fixing scheme nationwide.

I'm interested to know more about it and what the total pot of cash came to, and whom it was that ran the scheme.  Specifically, I'd like to not buy from them in the future if we know who did it.  Regardless, I'm glad we are getting a cut.

I've now confirmed with staff that we have the cash in our account.  $33,473.92.

Unexpected Money is Always Good!

When Do We as Public Officials Deserve Protection and Taxpayer-Funded Legal Defenses?

Under current precedent set in the Scott Miller v Doug Underhill case--it appears as if anything and everything we say (as elected officials) directed toward any citizen, constituent, or business entity in any venue and under any circumstance enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution no matter what---if any sort of a tenuous--even circuitous--line can be drawn between such statements and our official duties and responsibilities.  Even if what we say is untrue, libelous, and intended to intentionally inflict damage on the recipient. 

Wow.  That's powerful.  Absolute power.  

In fact--one attorney (a person for whom I have tremendous respect) intimately familiar with that ruling even said to me "Jeff, this is a win for you, too, as an elected official--extra protection for you from malicious prosecution."  He's not wrong about that.  

But in pondering it more--why do I need that if I am doing my job and not involved in nefarious conduct or purposely libeling, slandering, and proactively picking fights with citizens, unprovoked, online or in person?  Answer--I don't need it, I don't want it.  Never have.

If I'm minding my own business and you come up to me and punch me in the face unprovoked (which I'm certain some would love to do) and I subsequently put my knee through your skull in response--that's self-defense and 100% understandable.  If I'm minding my own business at a mall and someone much larger and stronger rushes at me and threatens to kill me with a wielded knife and I don't wait for what his devastating attack could do to me and instead I double tap him with my .380--that would more than likely be a stand your ground case in Florida (well, depending on what the attacker looked like it should be---- but might not be.......). 

 

But---if I get drunk one night and go to Wild Greg's downtown and start throwing punches at the door man because says he doesn't like my politics and says he disagrees with my votes--and in the process I get my ass kicked and draw a lawsuit----That's on me and I get what I deserve. 

Or try these disgusting, homophobic, purely fictional examples of lies (or worse) that could happen but should NEVER happen.  Imagine two PROMINENT area citizens-----one a businessman one an attorney-----who from time to time have worked for or with the county on issues, projects, or initiatives. (cue up the tenuous connection to county business...)  

So what if a commissioner (who really dislikes them because they financially supported an opponent--or for other real or perceived slights) goes online and makes statements that are UNTRUE and damaging about such individuals, gaslights them or worse---DOXES them, under the cover story that they are unworthy of working with county projects, by saying something like:

"That XXXXXXXXXXX guy is a charlitan, a cheat, a liar and even though hs is married he is actually a homosexual simply living in the closet"

"That XXXXXXXXXXXX guy is an alcoholic drunk who is screwing his secretary behind his wife's back while serving as a deacon in his church"

"That's Horrible!!"  "That's Outrageous!!"  "That could never happen!" some might naturally say--appaled at even the thought of an action so shameful targeting upstanding community leaders and citizens by an elected official.  

But it could, and under the current protocol such accusations (true or not) would never need to be adjudicated or ruled upon by a court as the commissioner could (falsely) claim it was within the "realm" of his public duties and served a public purpose of vetting partners who from time to time work with the county.  Then, poof, the allegation is gone because such an official has "Absolute Immunity"--

No, that's crazy.  We should never, no matter who we are, get away with lying about someone intentionally unprovoked and with malicious, reckless, nefarious intention.

So no, lying about people online proactively is not an official government function that deserves one cent of taxpayer money to defend.  Just like picking fights.  That's my unwavering position, period.

Here's when an elected official deserves a taxpayer funded defense, in my humble opinion only.

--Commissioner is accused of committing a crime associated with a decision he voted for related to the county

--Commissioner is accused of harming a business or individual due to a zoning vote he made

--Commissioner is accused of a crime based upon any vote the board upon which he sits lawfully made

--Commissioner is sued for something that he did that can be proved was specifically and completely a part of his official constitutional duty and role related to official duties.

--Commissioner defending himself, utilizing free speech, from a directed, litigation-based attack from the media or any special interest entity based upon specific votes, positions, opinions or actions such commissioner took DIRECTLY related to the performance of his official duties and specifically NOT a willful, malicious, reckless and directed tort action.

Period.

--Commissioner gets a DUI---HE PAYS

--Commissioner arrested for theft---HE PAYS

--Commissioner accused of/found guilty of a crime found to be not associated in any way with the necessary performance of his duties---HE PAYS

--Commissioner purposely, proactively and  intentionally libels, slanders, and/or attacks citizens with unfounded, unproven defamatory allegations---HE PAYS unless and until  he prevails.

This interesting post discusses the local case and also a similar case between a South Florida Mayor and Police Chief  in which the mayor prevailed in a defamation case brought against him for derogatory comments he made in a blog about a local police chief.  (in that case--the back and forth was between two public officials--mayor and police chief-- so the similarities are not identical--as public officials are much more susceptible to attacks than are average citizens and business interests--although I do not believe that nuanced distinction was used as a part of the decision in De Castro v. Stoddard.)

So the idea that absolute protection for elected officials for spoken/written allegations toward citizens and businesses-- libelous and slanderous-- directed toward anyone must be maintained in order not to have a "chilling effect" is one I disagree with vehemently.  But it is currently the law of the land, apparently.

Everyone knows free speech has limitations though:  You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten the president, and attack speech on some religions (Ask Salmon Rushdie, Trey Parker and Matt Stone) has been officially verboten for decades as are the use of some specific, disgustingly racist words by caucasian people. (Unless their name is Andy Marlette [they, them, theirs]) 

And the list of off-limits speech continues to grow in our culture, like it or not. 

So here's the hypothetical for you:   Is it really accptable for me to provoke fights with, then subsequently intentionally lie about, a person or business to a point and with the intention that it damages them simply because I'm an elected official? Should the unprovoked bald-faced lies I tell about a business or individual never even be addressed or adjudicated for veracity before I am excused for this behavior by some immunity defense that trumps the truth and reality?

Think on that.

And on this:

"There is no public purpose served by protecting guilty officials from prosecution." 

 

Repayment of Public Official's Legal Fees: The Misconduct At Issue MUST be Ruled-Upon First

Both sides have compelling arguments, but only one side will ultimately prevail....

In the fascinating, ongoing legal saga of one (now former) County Commissioner's quest to have the public taxpayer foot his legal bills--two recently filed briefs drill down on the issue of the misconduct at the center of the matter specifically.

Both of these legal briefs have now been filed with the 1st District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee.  Both are exceptionally well-written, and both make several interesting yet diverging points and arguments about the appropriateness and the legality of the repayment.

After reading the pro-repayment filing--one might naturally assume it is completely appropriate for the taxpayers to repay the costs of the legal bills immediately.

But after reading the county's position on the matter and filing--the one lingering, intriguing point that stands out in bold to me is this:  Repayment of a Public Official's legal fees must not occur until the issue at the center of the matter, the misconduct which triggered the litigation initially, is decided by the court first--- and that the public official is exonerated.

And that has yet to happen.

The current case is unusual and odd in that the merits of the original conduct which triggered the lawsuit have never been addressed by the court.  It was never either proven to be valid, public part of a commissioner's necessary work nor was it disproven and deemed an intentional, willful malicious tort action instigated by a sitting member of the county commission outside the scope of his duties.

The trial court did not address the action nor the validity of the claim of defamation--but rather simply stated the conduct at issue was a part of the commissioner's duty and subsequently was silent and didn't speak specifically to the defamation claim by the area citizen in dismissing the case---- stating an elected official has broad, almost absolute  immunity from a defamation suit when and if he is/was acting in the public interest and within the scope of his job. 

On the other side of it--the other brief (county's side) wants the original conduct which drew the suit to be ruled upon first before public monies can/should be expended to pay for the public official's legal defense.  Because if the conduct at issue was malicious, reckless and an intentional tort--this would negate the obligation to pay for the legal costs as such behavior would not, could not be construed as an official acting in the public's interest and within the scope of his office.

So it is really interesting, and again------both briefs are compelling.

But the seminal question that must be answered has not been:  Was this defamation and libel?  Or was

Cold Weather Shelters in Escambia County: How'd it Go during the Recent Cold Snap?

So far as I've been told, there were no hypothermia deaths during the recent area cold weather event...

Leading up to the recent three-day, near record cold snap the area went through last weekend--there were naturally concerns about those less fortunate in our area.  Specifically, there were worries about vulnerable citizens and the unhoused who may not have been able to weather the storm.

So I asked questions about what our plan was.  I blogged about it too.  And I spoke with folks intimately familiar with the homeless community as well as county staff at EOC.

Obviously--we are not Buffalo, New York, where they saw an immense blizzard and snowstorm that covered their city with up to four feet of snow and where three dozen + of their citizens perished due to that historic cold weather event.  But we were going to be below freezing for multiple days in Escambia County-- so I was concerned.  I wasn't alone in my concern(s).

The county did not open any of our facilities for cold weather shelters.  

Nor did we pay any group or entity any tax dollars to shelter folks from the cold.  

We had neither a contract nor an MOU/MOA with any entity to house citizens from the cold--but rather a verbal agreement with existing shelters (Waterfront Rescue Mission and REAP Lodge/Max Well Respite Center) to house those who needed sheltering from the storm as the temperatures dipped below 40 degrees.

Having now spoken to several individuals who were out and about during the cold weather event, I'm told that, with a few small exceptions (one couple was turned away as they had been previously banned.  And they were subsequently housed at a hotel for three days at someone else's expense.  A woman and her two children were turned away from one shelter the day prior to the cold weather event as the temperature had not dropped enough to trigger the sheltering protocols--but subsequently admitted to the shelter the next day when it was below 40 degrees) the plan worked as envisioned.  So far as I've been told--no citizens have perished from hypothermia in this last cold snap.

According to an individual with intimate, firsthand knowledge;  "We did outreach and drove around checking on homeless populations and offered rides.  Most declined stating that they did not want to go to a shelter due to the need to look after their belongings that would have been left behind.  At the Max Well Center we ended up housing 8 additional women and two children above the folks aready there, and at Waterfront [rescue mission] we never got to the capacity of 200 --we were at about 150 citizens throughout tht event."

I'm glad we had an action plan, and thankful that no citizens perished.  I'm of the understanding that the protocol will be refined going forward to eliminate any snafus--but that also most who were a part of the entire evolution (on the ground, in the know) feel it went about as well as could be expected.

I-110 Ramp at Gregory Removal Pricetag @ $3+ Million: Is the Juice worth the Squeeze?

Should the offramp from I-110 south into Pensacola, which circles the Civic Center, be removed at a cost of over $3+Million Dollars to taxpayers?  Many find the offramp useful for easy access to the Bay Center when driving southbound into the city--while others believe that with the Grand Hotel closed and other ways (via the 9th ave. light from the existing eastbound offramp) to access the area--that the westbound offramp is redundant and unnecessary....

The looping exit/offramp which encircles the Pensacola Civic Center downtown and curves back to Gregory Street westbound (running just south of the Grand Hotel and north of the Civic Center) could possibly be removed.

Last March I signed and sent a letter, as chairman, on behalf of the BCC to FDOT.  The request was, specifically approved as a request  for FDOT to close this exit.

We have now received guidance back from FDOT in answer to this query from 9 months ago, and the closure request falls back on us to fund if we wish to proceed, apparently.

From the FDOT response:

"Chairman Bergosh, as a follow up to the attached letter, please see the below next steps needed to move forward with the potential closure/removal of I-110 ramp at Gregory Street.  I have also communicated the below next steps with Commissioner Bender as well.   

 During discussions at the November 1^st, 2022, District Interchange Review Committee (DIRC) Meeting, FHWA advised that there were no objections, at this time, to the closure and removal of the I-110 ramp at Gregory Street. However, FHWA advised that this would require more review and evaluation to fully understand the request and possibility of closure and removal.

The next steps for this would be as follows:

1. Attendance by the (requestor) - City or County representatives at the next DIRC meeting (March 9, 2023) to discuss the Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU). 
2. Development of the MLOU by (requestor) estimate: ($5,000-$8,000)
3. Review and approval of the MLOU by Central Office and FHWA
4. Development by the (requestor) of Interchange Access Request (IAR), documentation estimate: ($45,000-$75,000)
5. Review and approval of IAR documentation by Central Office and FHWA
6. Finalization of the IAR

Once approved the project can advance to design/construction phases to be funded by (requestor) - City or County.  

Construction estimates for removal of I-110 Ramp $3M+.  This estimate does not include Design.

 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

 

Sincerely,

 Mark Brock

Transportation Planning Manager

Florida Department of Transportation - District Three

1074 Highway 90

Chipley, FL 32428"

Neighborhood Cleanup Comes to Beulah

Join us in keeping our neighborhoods clean and safe! A neighborhood cleanup for residents in North Beulah will take place on Wednesday, Jan. 4. This is a chance for residents to dispose of items such as old furniture, appliances and household waste free of charge. Yard debris is eligible for removal during this cleanup. 

Only residents in the designated cleanup area can participate in the neighborhood cleanup. Please have all items for pickup at the curb by 7 a.m. on the day of the cleanup. Items left at the curb outside of the cleanup area will not be collected. 

If you live in the targeted area, you will have received a postcard in the mail with more information.

Items eligible for removal include:

• Household appliances and electronics
• Household junk and debris
• Bicycles and toys
• Old furniture and mattresses
• Barbecue grills
• Household hazardous waste (old paint, motor oil, chemicals, batteries)
• Tires (limit 10 per household)

Items NOT eligible for removal include:

• Building materials (concrete, bricks, blocks, roofing, drywall or lumber)
• Explosives or ammunition
• Auto parts
• Dirt or sod
• Vehicles or vessels
• 55-gallon drums of fluids

Not sure if your item is eligible? Contact Max Rogers, Development Program Manager, at 850-595-3499 or mprogers@myescambia.com for questions about the cleanup.

Since 2016, more than 5,469 tons (10,938,000 pounds) of waste have been disposed of through the Community Redevelopment Agency's Safe Neighborhood Program. During neighborhood cleanups, crew members and volunteers visit different neighborhoods in the county to remove a variety of debris and waste free of charge.

Learn more about neighborhood cleanups here. Follow Escambia County on Facebook and Twitter for updates about neighborhood cleanups and other community events.

COX Communications Not Bidding on Escambia's Broadband Re-Solicitation

 Late last week COX Communications sent the below letter to the county.  Late this afternoon, as the solicitation is now closed, staff has forwarded this letter and information to the commissioners.  

After filing a bid protest over the county's selection of EREC last month for the county's broadband  project,  and after the county decided to re-solicit the project and put it out for bid a second time--COX has now officially bowed-out and will not be bidding on this project.  

They (COX) gave their reasoning in their letter to the purchasing director --- which I am posting below.