Pam Childers Loses in Court on Motion(s) for Summary Judgment against County 401(a) plan......

Commissioners were notified late this afternoon that both of Escambia County Clerk of the Court Pam Childers' motions for summary judgment in the Escambia County 401(a) lawsuit were denied by Circuit Court Judge William Stone. 

Denied.  

These motions have been before the court for several months and this is a huge loss for the clerk and a big win for Escambia County--- and paves the way for this case to move forward to trial.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I do not take the 401(a)--I take the FRS pension plan, which I joined when I was on the school board beginning in 2006.  So I have no "dog in the hunt" as it relates to the 401(a) plan issue.  But what I do have is a philosophical disagreement with the politicization and subsequent weaponization of this issue by the clerk via her unilateral decision to summarily stop paying these amounts---after she paid them, business as usual, for years and years.  Suddenly, coincidentally after rumors and hearsay that someone allegedly called her an unflattering name---then suddenly this plan, in her opinion, was/is ILLEGAL!!  This plan is not illegal, her legal opinions were weak and this situation is purely political and an attempted power game, so far as I can tell.

Read both of the orders from Judge Stone below...

Latest Briefs Filed on 401(a) Case: Compensation is Salary--Retirement Benefits are NOT Salary

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."