Guidelines

I have established this blog as a means of transparency to the public, outreach to the community, and information dissemination to all who choose to look. Feedback is welcome, but because public participation is equally encouraged, appropriate language and decorum is mandatory.

Thursday, April 8, 2021

Letter(s) to the File?

Yesterday afternoon it was discovered that there were apparently "2nd" personnel files maintained on select fire department personnel, in contravention to board policy and bargaining agreements, separate and apart from the 1 and only official personnel files kept downtown.  This was discovered as some disciplinary letters to file, apparently, "never made it" to either of these files--as they should have.  So this will get a thorough discussion later this morning....

As I begin the gathering of documents necessary to fulfill a public records request of me made by the paid firefighters union--a question percolates about whether or not "letters to the file" on three battalion chiefs that I have acquired are actually public records.  (these are in relation to some serious law, ordinance, and policy violations that apparently occured last summer in a fire house and for which nobody accepted responsibility or gave a cogent explanation).  As I have said multiple times, there is a massive, stunning, and unacceptable lack of leadership in the county's fire department right now, and sadly these documents appear to show more illustrations of this.  Like a rudderless ship without a chief for going on TWO YEARS!

According to the county attorney, these particular documents are public records.  But while I was ascertaining the "whether or not" determination about these documents in particular--it was brought to my attention that these documents were not actually ever even put in the official files of these three employess.

What?

Where were they, if not in the employee's official file, was my first and natural response?

"Uh, we're not sure--we thought these were put in the file.  But apparently they were not, they were instead given to the interim fire chief and he put them in his separate file and they never made it downtown."  Was the answer I got yesterday afternoon in my conference call.  What?

Here is the thing:  There should be, by law, ordinance, statutes, and under bargaining agreements---1

and only 1 official personnel file on each employee. The "we don't know what happened" answer isn't going to cut it here.

So later this morning during our agenda review I am going to bring this up for discussion.  This simply cannot be allowed to occur, this apparent system of 1 employee file with a supervisor or a department--separate and apart from the 1 and ONLY file that matters, the official employee personnel file kept in the HR office downtown.

So at the agenda review this will be discussed.  I will not release nor will I publish these three discipline letters to file on these three battalion chiefs if they are not offical disciplinary records/public records--so I have to discuss this and get answers first.

If they are, then I will publish them and also turn them over to the fire union's lawyer on behalf of the fire union president and secretary locally.  These would have more than likely sat in an unknown, unacknowledged "second" file had it not been for this union's self-directed public records request--so maybe this and the release of ALL the public records they have requested will be a good thing for our discipline processes going forward?

We shall see.  Hopefully the other board members will be as surprised and concerned as I am about this once they find out.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

The entire agenda review video is worth watching, not just the clip on ECW -- 4 minute clip in which Underhill is bloviating starts ... about an hour in and HR is on the spot.

Gheez ... never ending story... What a blow hard, as usual.

Anonymous said...

Comments on the public forum also.

yes public sees it.

Underhill clip four minute on Teresa Hill video??? Give me a frigging break... yes he played along to the narrative

unbelievable.




Anonymous said...

I came across a new legal phrase today....

"qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,"......

Anonymous said...

Can you explain this phrase?
"qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,"

Jeff Bergosh said...

"Those who are empty, narcissistic, and vacuous seek attention and self-worth in initiation of baseless litigation without ever paying ALL associated fees and costs upon defeat in court" I think that's what it means, although admittedly it's been years since latin class.


But in all seriousness--just google it anonymous, and you'll quickly work out what it means. If you STILL need help, call me and I'll walk you through the intricacies of a cut and paste google search bar query.....

Anonymous said...

Thanks,

I didn't mean to post that twice. That is the conclusion I came to also in a round about way -- perhaps I was beating around the bush. I don't want to be drawn into the court battles but you all know the public watches and of course people all have their own perspectives. If I were a commissioner I would be weary of continual litigation and want an end to it.

I read a post from a case that was filed last May in the ongoing Public safety debacle. Apparently it was dropped and not sealed at this time. That is where I saw the term "qui tam"


I hope the board doesn't pay legal fees for an employee to enter into a pissing match via the courts system with a similar type toxic person that doesn't even work at the county. Peas in a pod.

Agree about about narcissist attention seeking people. It's bad for governance. Conflict is dysfunctional. The plaintiff may live and learn, and not put herself in a position of contempt of court. "Don't start what you can't finish" nor be used by a politician and his ilk. One may be brilliant about some things but lacking in other qualities, like being a team player and seek to accomplish resolution of conflict. (without running to the courts)

The Bonoyer case on file trial will be soon, perhaps he was taking money and teaching classes he wasn't certified to do but it is a very simple process to get online and get those certifications. When it was discovered there was a deficit it should have been corrected internally. If one wanted the hands on training for the department, they should have learned the procurement process to get it. The against medical advice form did seem pushy and snarky and ineffective.

Perhaps there has been a vacuum of leadership and not much talent for keeping a team together for quite some time and has gone from bad to worse but the only option from here is to improve.

I read an article written by Quint Studer on PNJ today, no matter what some people think about him, I find his articles on management worthwhile and balanced and the one today seemed pertinent to the county.

I've seen enough of the immature toxic blame shifting.

Anonymous said...

https://www.pnj.com/story/money/business/2021/04/10/careful-who-you-call-rock-star-quint-studer/7114265002/

Anonymous said...

Some one drawing a paycheck from the county, at the same time naming the board in a lawsuit is declaring them as their adversary. Therefore they are no longer a part of the team, if they ever were.

Anonymous said...

The date the medical director's first set of attorneys filed a lien for their expenses in Edler vs Pino is the same week the filing of the suit to the county with the Northern District of Florida naming the county as defendant. It's a public record May 2020. It is on file with the county clerk.

The now non party attorneys -- even though an order was made and the case closed, are still, recently challenging the judge's order in Edler vs Pino. They want to be paid.

The medical director chose to pursue that litigation with a private citizen. Don't reward that behavior.

I would have thought a SLAPP motion would have been made early on, but it takes two to tango. That's their own gig and the taxpayers are not responsible for that, in my opinion.

That what appears to be going on, in the one aspect of this pubic ordeal.

Anonymous said...

Are you certain the county attorney is giving good legal advice about employee documents being allowed to be published as a public record? Some are exempt and just because a member of the public or a reporter or an attorney asks for it, certainly may not be a reason to disclose it.

I do believe you are all on the same page about knowing the rules and following them.

Things have been released and published before they should have been. It needs to stop. Sure people are nosy but put yourself in the position of employees. Who wants to work somewhere where the HR or CMR or attorney would disclose a document to the PNJ or facebook that was simply an allegation or not proven? Discretion at times is appropriate.

The 2020 Florida Statutes

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 119
PUBLIC RECORDS

View Entire Chapter
119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.—
(1) AGENCY ADMINISTRATION.—