Three briefs were filed last Friday in the circuit court related to the county's suit against the clerk of the court for her refusal to fund the lawful retirement accounts of three sitting commissioners.
Two of the briefs (here and here) were filed by the clerk's attorneys and essentially argue that the retirement contributions are salary--and thus the higher rate of return for the local plan amounts to an unlawful increase in commissioners' "salaries".
The county's brief goes into great detail in demonstrating that the retirement benefits of the local plan are not salary under Florida law. Further, the county brief describes why the clerk's insistence on focusing on the "57%" figure is a political argument not relevant to the issue before the court. From the county's brief:
"The County's opinion is that the Clerk's injection of "57 percent" is more about politics and policy choices than the actual legal issues. The fact is that, until June 2021, the County, the Clerk, and ICMA all agreed that the contribution amount toward the Local Plan would be equal to whatever the FRS's charge was in a given year. This is why the County is correct to say that the Local Plan does not cost the taxpayer a penny more than the FRS. The amount the County spends on the Local Plan is exactly the same. The Clerk's injection of this figure into this motion (and her statements to the press) just shows that what the Clerk really seeks is to make policy: to overturn a legislative choice made by the Board of County Commissioners which she finds personally objectionable."
1 comment:
Exactly. This entire ordeal was weaponized. I will say the jesters who started this were masters of deceit and malice.
It will be a good day when she is no longer clerk.
We don't need all the conflict.
Post a Comment