The Escambia County Clerk of the Court Pam Childers sent BCC Chairman the below letter and memo from her attorney Cody Leigh--detailing thier continuing position that the county's 401(a) plan is illegal. Although they don't say it is illegal in the memos--instead there is the new code word "propriety" thrown into the mix. But they both said it was "illegal" in a recent BCC meeting, but not in these memos..... Look--it's either legal or it isn't. Why mince words? Why split hairs to create expensive haircuts? Why the intentional muddying of the descriptive language they use?
JUST CALL IT ILLEGAL IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT TO BE!
Gamesmanship not necessary.
Interestingly, the letter and memo appear to be some sort of an ultimatum--as an immediate response to his memo is being requested--with a 30 day deadline at which point it appears the clerk's office will withhold all payments under this contract. That's the way I read it. It's somewhat threatening. It's unnecessary.
I don't take this plan, but I have been outspoken about the way our contract with ICMA is being constructively terminated by the Clerk. I believe it is an improper and inappropriate usurping of issues under the BCC's purview and area of responsibility. There is and was a much cleaner, less-aggressive way to address this issue. Heck, I've even publicly stated and agreed that the rate of return appears excessive. But why battle us? The public spectacle of unilaterally dictating that this plan could not continue was uncalled for, is/was inappropriate, and appears to be one constitutional officer meddling in the affairs of another--inappropriately. It also appears to me to be a feckless attempt at pandering to the local daily print press--- who already display an extreme dislike for most if not all duly elected county commissioners--- and who also harbor complete, utter disdain and disapproval for ANY retirment plan and or monetary compensation for such elected officials... So why throw them red meat if the question at issue is not settled? It is puzzling, this conflict which erupted out of nowhere.
Some questions for Cody and the Clerk:
1.) If the hang up is about the rate of return the county's 401(a) provides to commissioners who take this plan--then what rate of return is acceptable to you? (The overall cost to the taxpayer is the same with ICMA or with the FRS investment or pension plan---it is just that the overhead from FRS eats up the balance of the county's contribution if these commissioners had chosen one of the FRS offerings and not the 401(a).)
2.) Why, suddenly, did this 401(a)--which your office had been paying commissioner Bender on for three years--become such a source of consternation to you and your office? If you were paying on it and the returns were greater than the FRS returns in 2018, 2019, and 2020---what happened in 2021 to lead you to exclaim at our meeting that this was "Illegal!" (If it is illegal now returning 51%--wasn't it also illegal in 2019 paying 44%?) If the answer, in your opinion, is "Yes"--then why did you and the clerk approve these expenditures before, in 2018, 2019, and 2020--- and why did your office tell Com. Bender this was perfectly fine when he called you all about the high rate of return over a year ago? i.e. how can it be legal then, in your opinion, but suddenly illegal now?)
3.) If the full board of county commissioners determine that setting a similar rate of return for commissioners as what is being given to senior level commission staffers is appropriate (which would be far less than the current rate of return for commissioners is and that would result in a savings to taxpayers compared to what county contributions toward either the FRS pesnion or investment plan would cost)--would your opinion change?
4.) If the County's attorneys are right and this program is legal--then is/was the act of unilaterally ceasing payments on this contract by the clerk an act that was ultra vires? Inappropriate?
5.) If a judge rules the plan is legal--will you make a public apology to the board upon your office's return of the monies withheld inappropriately from three commissioners?
6.) Why exclaim it is illegal, then walk that back?
7.) Why the stubborn resistance to Alison (and my) offer to work together to seek, jointly, an opinion from the Attorney General of Florida about the legality of this plan?
See the memos, below:
7 comments:
She might be walking back the illegal talk because if it is she’s been making illegal payouts.
I think it’s an orchestrated effort by the real powers behind PNJ (the downtown crowd) to push their new government agenda and its being used by commissioner underhill to hit the board back for not paying his lawyer bills.
Something fishy happening here in Studerville.
Well, one wanting to vote above and beyond for a settlement did get this rolling. Definitely an "aw shit" that wiped out a thousand "attaboys".
Underhill continuing to bad mouth members of his own board in public leads to them not supporting him continuing that behavior, DUH So when he was sued for defamation in the same arena that he defamed the board-- well that kinda sets the stage..don't ya know?
No mater the ruling it is still in the power of the board and the vote of the board to pay his legal fees. People should respect that power and authority and act accordingly, like it or not. By the vote of the censure the other night Underhill can expect, he won't win that ever.
I was looking over the cases on the clerk site, He also has a suit with an insurance company claing he had WIND damage, but he posted in a video he had WATER damage.
Sorry, bad luck follows this guy around but maybe the universe is trying to tell him something. Wonder if he can learn any life lessons?
I think Pam didn't like that her office is being audited, plus she didn't like Gilley being let go. It is perfectly appropriate to be audited by the JLAC.
All in all this 401a as it stands may or may not be legal, I expect it is.
And No we don't want consolidation and our property bills doubled for Studerville and the PNJ propaganda.
I see the case on Underhill and the board and the authority to pay his legal bills seems to be in the hands of the four of you, so if he thinks blowing you up and continuing to try to make you all look bad is an effective strategy, that say quite a bit about him doesn't it?
R E S P E C T.. tell me what it means to me..
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Crazy. And it never had to go the direction it did. It's simple, actually. When we all stay in our lanes and do our jobs, everything works and things happen efficiently in an atmosphere of mutual respect and professionalism. Start throwing in stuff like this, and tribalism, and you have what we see now. When folks double down on mistakes and misinterpretations, bad outcomes follow. It is for this reason that we have to answer the most important, seminal question first. Is this legal? It is looking more and more likely that it is, as a 20+ year county attorney and a 25+ year Florida government attorney (Rogers, Mattimore) have both said "yes, it is"---- Now, we will have a pre-eminent trial attorney and HUGE law firm backing that stance. Looking more and more likely to be legal.Then, once that is established, the BOARD can set the rate and solve the public perception problem. We don't need the drama so folks can score points with the press. I'll be on Rick Outzen's podcast later this morning discussing this, at 8:00.
Speaking of public perception, before going on Rick’s go read ECW. Commissioner Underhill is on a childish rant to make all of the county hate the board. He has to go. He is a real psychopath
Every morning when I read the local news, there’s some type of unnecessary drama going on, and the same culprits are always behind it. I’m appalled by the behavior of some of our local “leaders”. I don’t know if the pandemic/toxic political climate has brought out underlying mental instability in many individuals, but a lot of individuals are acting outrageously, and it’s become extremely unnerving.
The board wants this to be resolved in court, as it should be since they’ve been made out to be “corrupt thieves”, so if that’s truly what Childers (and Underhill) believe, then why isn’t she allowing it to go to court, and instead wanting to handle it through dispute resolution process? Do they not want to go to court because they know they’re wrong, and tax paying citizens are going to be livid that time and money was wasted? If Barry and Rogers are such corrupt individuals like Underhill wants the public to believe, I guarantee you he wouldn’t be wasting his time sitting on his ass spewing bs on social media, but instead would want it handled by a judge.
Regardless, this needs to stop being played out in the media, so certain people can continue to manipulate public perception. It’s beyond time for this to be resolved by a judge, because the board needs to get on with business that affects our daily lives! The community has had enough of the childish bs that’s impeding the board to handle real issues.
Kim N. you’re getting just as long winded as Pino not saying much and using the same cut/paste tactic for every blog. I guess you don’t have an original thought and can only regurgitate what Pino says. What’s even funnier is how you accuse others of creating drama and then you do the exact same thing.
https://ricksblog.biz/real-news-podcast-bergosh-on-childers-memo/
Post a Comment