Board Votes 4-1 to seek a Civil Action against Jonathan Owens - and Others who Unlawfully Possess Stolen County Files

The Board of County Commissioners took a strong stance tonight on protecting county records.

By a 4-1 vote -- (with Commissioner Kohler voting No)-- the Escambia Board of County Commissioners voted to authorize and direct the County Attorney to seek an appropriate legal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, against those who have unlawfully held and disseminated privileged, confidential, private and exempt records.

We discussed the issue in depth at the morning review session, starting at 1:11 of this video

Former employee Jonathan Owens has admitted publicly that he has these records, he possesses them, he has read them and he has admitted giving this information to other parties un-redacted.

He, Jonathan Owens, bragged about reading it all and keeping it once he left county employment.

At the morning session---even though it was evident I had three votes to support seeking an action in court------the County Attorney requested that the item be brought back to tonight's regular meeting for a motion, second, and vote.

So we did, and the vote was 4-1.

You can watch the discussion and ultimate vote at 2:06 of this video.

Next up, a court filing by the county against Jonathan Owens.  

Maybe he'll go to the PNJ or on Andrew Tallman's Radio Show and talk about that?  😀

Who Spilled the Beans, Redux?

People can say or do what they want, but there are consequences to face for taking actions against legal advice and that unilaterally usurp the board, the "client" from deciding on whether or not it wishes to release key documents that are privileged......

I've now been contacted by numerous individuals who appear to be in possession of documents that are privileged and that pertain to ongoing litigation (albeit in the waning stages) between the county and ECUA over the Innerarity water/sewer debacle from 2014--today.

The documents in question are the transcripts of the then Board of County Commissioners' shade meetings, or "executive sessions" that pertain to the litigation strategy the board would pursue (or not pursue)as it struggled to contend with the abandoned utility at Innerarity--and whether or not joint receivership in the courts would be sought by the BCC--forcing ECUA to jointly share the BURDEN of taking on this water/sewer utility that went belly-up.

Upon receipt of these transcripts, our attorney admonished all board members that these documents were confidential and not to be released to the public.  Her exact quote in her email sent to board members containing these transcripts was as follows:

"CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS ATTACHED

Commissioners,

By request, attached are the transcripts of the attorney-client sessions related to the receivership of IIDC (Innerarity Island water and sewer).  The litigation is still open and is not expected to be concluded until after the transfer to and acceptance of the sewer system by ECUA.  Thus, these transcripts are CONFIDENTIAL until the conclusion of the litigation (per section 286.011(8)(e), Fla. Stat.) and should not be released or shown to the public or the media.

Separately, I am gathering a timeline for you from Legal’s perspective, and I assume some other departments may be doing that as well.

Please do not reply all, but get directly with me if you have questions or concerns.

Alison"   

At a subsequent meeting, I even asked county attorney Alison Rogers, point blank, if a release of these documents would constitute a breach of ethics, to which she responded "Yes." (minute 3:33-5:00 of this video)

As one board member, I felt it may be helpful in this instance to release the transcripts---as I was not on the board at the time and the transcripts would shed light on the thought process that led the board to take the action it took back then.  But I was told I could not and I was given the reasons why and I totally understand and concur that it is inappropriate for any one (1) commissioner to release these.  Only the "client" can voluntarily waive this privilege and release these records.  In this instance, the "client" is the full board, not one (1) individual member and part of the client.

Disturbingly, it appears as if a member of our board just decided unilaterally to release these documents and did so.

This was a mistake.

Now, it weakens our bargaining position with ECUA on not only this project, but others as well.

These documents were classified for a reason, and as our attorney advised above--should not have been released.  So we will see what happens now as a result.