90th Coffee with the Commissioner Event this Wednesday: All About EMS

 

Join us for our 90th Coffee with the Commissioner event Wednesday, Feb. 14. The Zoom live stream will take place from 6:30-7:30 a.m. To join the meeting, visit our District 1 Facebook site here: www.facebook.com/CommissionerBergosh/. 

Attendees this month will  include County Administrator Wes Moreno, Public Safety Director Eric Gilmore, and EMS Chief David Torsell III. Moreno will provide an update on county business, Gilmore will discuss public safety matters, and Chief Torsell will provide insight into the county's emergency medical services division.  We will discuss issues related to EMS billing, Ambulance service, hold times, and other topics that have been raised recently.  This coffee will allow for other viewpoints and opinions that illustrate both sides of contentious issues within public safety.  We will also discuss the county's ongoing CORE program and our efforts at confronting the ongoing opioid epidemic that results in an average of 6 overdose calls weekly in our area.

If you are interested in this topic--I encourage you to send questions and comments you would like to discussed  during the event through Facebook or they can be emailed to district1@myescambia.com or texted to me 850-293-1459.

For more information, contact our office at 850-595-4910 

Saving Tens of Thousands of Taxpayer Dollars (And Doing the Right Thing) Is the Public Purpose Served!

Defending employees wrongly accused of misconduct in the course of their employement while simultaneously saving tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills is always a vote and an expenditure of funds that serves a valid public purpose and that also is a lawful expenditure by the BCC

Not surprisingly, a blazing front page piece in today's pre-holiday PNJ completely misses the mark.

And it misses the point.

The purpose of the piece this morning is to vilify the BCC, former paramedic employee Matt Selover, and our attorney, and to lionize clerk of the court Pam Childers and our former medical director.  

This is accomplished via snippets of emails thrown into an article, adorned with subjective assessments of issues that were swirling around the EMS division at the time of this settlement vote-- where these snippets used by PNJ are not properly contextualized.

On its face and as presented, it doesn't look good.  That's the point for the PNJ.

But once the onion is peeled and all the facts are known, the rationale for the BCC's vote to pay Matt Selover's $6,900.00 fine is readily apparent to even the most casual observer/reader.  That is why the rationale, the basis for the payment vote by the BCC appears nowhere in today's hatchet piece by Jim Little.  But there is, was, and always has been a searing, unflinching and completely rational reason "why" the board voted to pay the fine-----it DID serve a very valid public purpose.

Saving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars (and doing the right thing) is the public purpose served!

Here is the story behind the story you will not get in this garbage pile article this morning in PNJ.

Former Escambia County Paramedic Matt Selover was railroaded on trumped up charges, deprived of due process, deprived of pay, unfairly demoted, and vilified and bullied by a former employee that made it a habit of doing this to folks with whom she disagreed. Along the way, this meniachal former employee that attempted to ruin Selover's career threw a host of allegations at a raft of now former employees with whom she had various beefs with during her short tenure.

At the end of it, all but one of the 6 now former EMS personnel this former reckless employee fingered and attempted to ruin---all but one were never prosecuted.  5 of 6 have clean records and have not been convicted of doing anything illegal---even thoughtheir collective lives were turned upside down and careers were damaged. (we're still cleaning up the mess caused by this whole episode, paying another $90K settlement to another wronged former EMS employee at our last meeting)

In Selover's case specifically--the evidence was OVERWHELMING against the county and the way the county treated him.  It was so overwhelming and blatant---- the horrible way he was treated--- that the county's own outside counsel and insurance adjuster BEGGED the county to settle for $200,000 because they estimated a jury award to Selover could have exceeded $800,000.  They also acknowledged the county would likely lose a suit if it went to a jury due to the overwhelming evidence pointing to the horric way Selover was treated by EMS staff, HR, Public Safety Supervisors, and the former County Administrator.  It was a disaster for the county.

So we settled with Selover over his due process lawsuit and we did so with insurance money, not tax dollars.

But even after the settlement, there was a DOAH administrative complaint that Selover was fighting based upon the charges levied against him by the county's former medical director.

IMPORTANT:  The county owed an obligation to defend him (Selover) in this matter and to pay his legal bills if he prevailed at DOAH, and therefore we would have been on the hook to do so had the matter at DOAH proceeded all the way through the hearing process.  We settle things all the time, all day every day, to avoid geometrically increasing legal bills.  No difference in this case.

The medical director levied multiple charges and accusations against Selover.

An expert witness, a more experienced and well-respected Medical Director, wrote an expert opinion disputing every single allegation made against Selover, one by one. Expert witness against expert witness.  

And to sustain a sanction at DOAH, the evidentiary standard that must be met is "Clear and Convincing."  

So had the hearing at DOAH continued forward, it is highly unlikely that Selover would have faced a sanction because the evidence against him by a doctor was disputed factually by another doctor.  Add to this that testimony would have been entered on behalf of Selover about other employees targeted by the former medical director and how those allegations never materialized,---and most believe there is no way he would have faced a sanction.  It would have dragged out though.

And the one sure thing is that the legal fees would have kept on going, up and up like a hot air balloon.  It could have cost taxpayers $30, $40, or $50K more.

Instead, Selover graciously accepted the deal for $6,900--- in which he did not plead guilty to anything and which also allowed him to keep his license and move forward with his career in a neighboring jurisdiction.

Selover's  acceptance of the deal and the concomitant savings in legal fees to the taxpayer that accepted deal enabled IS THE PUBLIC PURPOSE which formed the basis for the payment by the BCC.

He'd been wronged by the county, a $200,000 settlement had been made, the atrocious way his due process was withheld and the damage to him personally would have also influenced this decision at DOAH--it all would have factored in so it was most appropriate for the BCC to pay the settlement to completely make this former employee whole.  I am proud I voted to do it, I would do it again in a heartbeat, because it is and was the right thing to do.

We have to stand by our employees when they are bullied, targeted, vilified, and wrongly accused by rouge employees.  Always.  Sure, lawyers are human and make mistakes, and sometimes they reverse their opinions as our attorney did when she advised us that to make the payment "lawful" we (the BCC) had to vote it served a public purpose.  Which we did, and which payment DID serve a public purpose.

I Can't Believe Someone would Sign Their Name to this Garbage

Someone has to clean up the disgusting mess of spilled jars of sauce on aisle 6 when they are dumped all over the place -----and the ones that dumped them and made the mess have left the store......

We had a tremendously disappointing issue in our EMS department a few years back.

A bad apple employee was running roughshot over subordinate employee due process rights. Vindictive, jealous, caustic, and tribal.

Folks were accused of things they didn't do, and the county has been playing "clean up on aisle 6" ever since.  To the tune of $Hundreds of thousands of dollars and counting.

All because the supervisors who were supposed to be in charge of the rogue bull in the china shop bad apple employee--------to prevent garbage like this from continuing-------- did not do their collective jobs.  Those now former employees who did not do their jobs then have all moved on, and we are holding the bag trying to fix the lives that were broken.

6 subordinate employees were targeted with a host of ridiculous assertions, accusations, and complaints to the state by one bad actor.  Lives were ruined, and of the 6 employees accused and deprived of due process and run out of the county--5 were never even prosecuted, never convicted of anything.  

We're fixing these past wrongs, just as we did for a former paramedic who was put through hell,  one by one.   Tonight on the agenda we will have another one we will make right.  

This one to the tune of $90 Grand.

I'm going to support it because I know what happened, how it happened, and how employees of the county in leadership, HR, and public safety FAILED MISERABLY to do right by the employees here in question at that time.  Glad those former supervisors are gone.  They stood watching a slow motion train wreck and did nothing.  

Now come ill-informed citizens in the peanut gallery sending garbage emails out telling us not to pay tonight to make this employee whole.

It is so ridiculous, I cannot believe someone would actually send it and sign their name to it.  

It is rank ignorance, arrogance and a lack of compassion for the "little guy" employees who had NOBODY standing up for them when they were having their careers ruined by a rogue employee supervised by a bunch of feckless do-nothings in HR, public safety, and the administrators office at the time.

Now it is up to us, those of us still around who know what really happened, to clean up the mess these former supervisory HR, Administrative, and Public Safety employees should have owned--regardless of a few voices of dissent piping up out of the woodwork today.  

Folks bloviating today just don't have a clue about what happened in the first place a few years back.

We'll clean up their mess and move on.

BCC to Write-Off $10.1 Million in Uncollectable, Bad Debt......So Who's NOT Paying?

This evening the BCC will be asked to "write-off" $10.1 Million in uncollectable bad debt from our EMS division primarily for Ambulance transportation charges unpaid.

This amount represents roughly 14% of our revenue in this division.

The conversation among the board centered on one question---"Who is it that isn't paying"

This afternoon, we received a chart illustrating the breakdown of where the writeoffs are coming from.

	PRIMARY PAYER	AMOUNT	Percent
26	GOVERNMENT ( Deductible)	$       25,025.22	0.25%
2,707	COMMERICAL ( Deductible)	$  1,751,494.49	17.23%
8	MEDICAID ( Deductible)	$         3,351.55	0.03%
2,609	MEDICARE ( Deductible)	$     610,647.72	6.01%
687	AUTO ( Deductible)	$     490,437.49	4.83%
8,167	SELF PAY ( No Insurance)	$  7,283,388.49	71.66%
14,204		$ 10,164,344.96	100.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Conflate Two Separate Issues?

Sometimes no matter how much spaghetti is thrown at a wall---none of it sticks.

The recent article by Jim Little of the PNJ had an appropriate headline and summary of a recent scandal at the county:  Someone stole information from the county's servers illegally, this issue is being investigated by the FBI, and currently Jonathan Owens, my former political opponent who I dispatched in the 2020 primary and who worked as former lighting-rod commissioner Doug Underhill's secretary--- has publicly proclaimed he has this stolen property.  Doubling down, I'm told he(Owens) went on the radio and was giddy about explaining how he read all the personal, private, privileged and confidential information that was contained within this stolen data file.  Going further, he even admitted to disseminating this stolen property.  

Now, he does not say how he came to possess it other than providing a flimsy, unbelievable story that this file magically appeared on his desk.  Abracadabra!  But really, who would buy that explanation?  It is unbelievable, and that's the polite way I will put that.

So yes, the story got that aspect of the issue right.

But then came a huge part of the story that was about an unrelated issue:  the now settled cases of alleged, purported misconduct at the county's EMS division from four years ago.  

No doubt, there were some problems with record keeping and organization and multiple persons were alleged to have been a part of some falsification of certifications and mismanagement of call logs.

But here is the fact:  Six personnel from the county all but had their careers destroyed with these allegations from a former medical director who herself is now gone.  Of these six, only one was adjudicated guilty.  The other five settled their cases and WERE NOT CONVICTED.  The county paid a $5,000.00 fine, we got new medical directors, we got new leadership, and our EMS department moved forward.  Case closed.  Ever since that witch hunt by a former medical director--which it was--we have been cleaning up the mess, paying huge settlements and legal bills for the abyssimal way these former employees, now exonerated, were treated by the county.  No due process, allegations that were untrue, and careers ruined.  

But all that is in the rear view.

So why conflate this current case of theft and mishandling of protected information with the ancient history of that case?  

Now, this same former medical director did file a Federal Qui Tam claim post-employment with a couple of lawyers who specialize in this.  But that is a separate case from the falsification of records case.  

But MOST IMPORTANTLY:  The personal, private, priviledged and confidential text messages these lawyers so desperately want to keep, the ones allegedly provided to them outside of the normal discovery process, the ones that were stolen, the ones that cannot be verified as accurate, and the ones that are being investigated by law enforcement for the way they were inappropriately obtained---have no bearing on that Qui Tam case.  None whatsoever.  I am a part of the legislative in this county--I have no day in-day out operational oversight of any department--let alone EMS billing.  I'm not a fact witness to any of these overbilling allegations, and any discussion of the former Medical Director contained within these stolen text messages from my personal phone would be irrelevant hearsay and not a part of any case--let alone this particular one.  This is all setting aside the fact that these files were not provided as a bonafide records request, they were obtained unlawfully and there is no way to discern whether or not lines have been added into this particular file nor whether or not other lines have been deleted or manipulated.  Bottom Line:  There is no way to authenticate what Jonathan has given to these lawyers in this Qui Tam case.  So why are the lawyers burning up the taxi meter, running up costs, on chasing this issue down a rabbitt hole?

So now comes the news journal-- conflating a serious, major theft with a closed case and a current case for which the stolen files have no bearing?

I know why the plaintiff's lawyers are doing this---they are running up the check hoping for some settlement of this case to cover these exhorbitant fees, throwing spaghetti at the wall, making tons of discovery requests, then modulating them and moving them around.  They are grasping at straws and hoping to find something to help their case.  So they are doing what these sorts of lawyers, working on contingency, do.  Doing what lawyers do--It's why they are so dang popular and beloved 😀.  

But why is the PNJ carrying these lawyers' water--instead of separating the real from the faux as they should?

County Attorney's Response to the Clerk's Non-Payment of a BCC Approved Expenditure.

This item should have been paid three months ago....Why wasn't it?

I wrote extensively last week about what I felt was an unnecessary, unprofessional withholding of payment by the clerk's office of a duly approved and voted-upon item by the BCC.  The County Attorney has now sent the below response to the Clerk and her attorney to address this failure to make the payment.  Hopefully, payment will be made without ANY further delay, as it should have all along....From the email:

"First, let me express how extremely disappointed I am that you did not extend the courtesy at the earliest opportunity to advise of your concerns with this expenditure relating to Mr. Selover’s attorney’s fees and administrative fine.  As you know, the Board voted to authorize this expenditure at its October 6, 2022 meeting. Since then, more than three months have passed, and until now, you have not contacted me regarding this matter.

 Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §125.17, the Clerk shall make payments as directed by the Board of County Commissioners.  The Board is the elected legislative body that determines what expenses serve a public purpose and, unless illegal, those payments shall be timely made.  Under home rule authority, it is not necessary to demonstrate specific statutory authorization to make payment; instead, upon legislative authorization, payment shall be made unless illegal.  While you have provided statutory authority for payment of public officer and employee attorney’s fees, that authority is clearly not preemptive or exhaustive as illustrated by the common law theories regarding those expenses.

 There is no authority of which I am aware finding the payment of attorney’s fees or a fine illegal or inappropriate.  To the contrary, there is a strong public policy in favor of financially supporting public sector employees who become engaged in legal jeopardy arising out of their public sector employment.  To not defend such employees would discourage public employment as such employees are often asked to perform duties that are subject to legal challenges for various reasons.

 Mr. Selover’s attorney’s fees and the fine at issue were associated with an administrative action, rather than a criminal proceeding, that was directly related to his employment with the County.  The settlement agreement made no finding of grossly negligent conduct, bad faith, malicious purpose, or willful and wanton disregard of human safety.  Moreover, the settlement was entered into for the purpose of effecting an expeditious resolution rather than incurring the costs of a lengthy proceeding. 

To require a public employee or former employee to undergo an evidentiary hearing to avoid a fine instead of entering into a settlement agreement as a condition for authorizing payment is contrary to the public policy and would, undoubtedly, result in unnecessary expense.  It is also relevant to note, on occasion, the County must pay fines or penalties assessed against the County, whether arising out of the actions of its employees or otherwise.  Thus, assuming proper legislative action, it stands to reason that public funds may be used to pay fines assessed against a public employee when those fines arose out of his public employment.

 Additionally, although you have not communicated any concerns, it is my understanding the Clerk has not yet processed payment of Kate Kenney’s attorney’s fees, which the Board voted to authorize on  October 20, 2022.  I assume the issue of expenditures for fees or other expenses incurred by Public Safety employees was the subject of Ms. Childers discussion with the JLAC auditors after our meeting on Friday afternoon.  If so, I point out that only the elected legislative body can make a legislative determination as to what serves a public purpose.  That said, if the auditors provided specific advice on this issue then it should be shared between our agencies in the unified effort to perform and accomplish the public’s business. 

 Thus, I respectfully request the payment authorized by the Board on October 6 be processed as expeditiously as possible."

 

What Happened?

Some folks are asking about the "why" an ambulance was not dispatched to a fainting episode at an area eaterie, where the patient, once sat up back in her chair,  specifically requested transport to an Emergency Room...

Late Saturday afternoon I received an email from a foodserver who works at a restaurant out on Perdido Key in District 1.  The email came to my personal email account, with the heading "Piss-poor EMS."

In the email, this individual reported that a patient was literally on the ground, on the floor, in her restaurant with no response from EMS for two hours.

Obviously, I am going to look behind that.  Which I did.

From her email:

"I work at Sunset Grille at Holiday Harbor. I also live on Innerarity Point. Tonight I had a guest faint at my restaurant. She needed medical attention.. She wanted to be transported by ambulance. After lying on our restaurant floor for almost TWO  HOURS,  her family opted to drive her to emergency care. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is not only embarrassing it is very worrisome. Escambia County HAS to do better! How can you expect repeat tourism when they experience zero aid in need? Our clientele is elderly and if not that then also not used to our climate. How do we prevent this embarrassment from happening again??? Unacceptable!!!!!"

In her follow-on email to me, she provided a little more context:

"The woman fainted at her table after dinner. As a mainly outdoor restaurant (XXXXXXXXXX) this does happen occasionally. Some require and some decline medical attention. This guest requested professional help. We called 911 immediately. My boss XXXXXXXXXXX spoke with the operator. 30-40 minutes later we called again and were told we were on a list for an ambulance. Another half our later we called 911 a third time and received the same update. We were on a list. At that point the family opted to drive her to the closest urgent care themselves. Five minutes after they left the fire department showed up. I am not in the medical field, I sling shrimp baskets. If one of my guests requests an ambulance I am going to get her one. And while I understand prioritizing emergencies, I

65th Coffee with the Commissioner this Wednesday: Escambia County Public Safety Roundtable Discussion

Join us for our 65th edition of the Coffee with the Commissioner this coming Wednesday, September 8th from 6:30-7:30 AM

We will be having a discussion on the state of Public Safety in Escambia County.

I'm pleased to announce that on the Zoom meeting will be our Public Safety Director, Eric Gilmore, our Fire Chief, Jason Catrambone, and our EMS Chief, David Torsell.  Additionally, Wes Moreno, Escambia County Administrator will also be on the call.

We will discuss the upcoming budget, status of bargaining, challenges ahead, and opportunities ahead for improving our operations, responses, and overall readiness.

I will also be discussing my 4-Part strategy for stabilization of the ECFR budget--which I have already discussed with Eric Gilmore and with Chief Catrambone.  And full disclosure--they don't necessarily agree with some of what I will propose.  But we will have the discussion.

I look forward to the conversation--be sure to join us for the livestream on Facebook, and feel free to send questions in advance if you would like to do so.

I'll get to as many of them as I can!

Join me for our virtual 65th Coffee with the Commissioner event Wednesday, Sept. 9th. The live stream will take place from 6:30 - 7:30 a.m. To join the meeting, go to the following Facebook page and watch the live stream: www.facebook.com/CommissionerBergosh/.

Why People Just "LOVE" Lawyers, Part I

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"--Shakespeare

Lawyers:

From time to time we all need them, just like a plumber.  Like plumbers, they oftentimes are called in to clean up messes that stink--and then you get a huge bill for the service. 

Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI said it well:  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

I have a running schtick I employ from time to time:  "I don't like lawyers, and there's only 1 Lawyer I trust!"  (Soon, I'll be forced to modify this phrase, as in addition to my brother being a lawyer--in less than a year my oldest son will also be one upon his graduation from Marquette Law School in the Spring of 2022)  So it will be "Theres only 1-- I mean 2---that I trust."

And of course I say that facetiously, in jest.  It's humorous to those that know me and my brother. But in humor, sometimes, there is often a kernel of truth--so we will leave that right there....

Case in point and the focus of part I of this post--trickery, wordsmithed half truths posited as fact and posed to me as a question during my deposition by a shyster the county is using taxpayer money to pay.

  It is all related to the recent settlement in Public Safety--necessitated by a timeline that plainly established the fact that the county's medical director at that time engaged in retaliation against a subordinate employee, exceeded her authority in constructively demoting/disciplining the subordinate, and completely usurped the chain of command of her organization by being insubordinate and deciding to initiate the filing of a state level complaint against a subordinate without bringing the department head or the administrator into the loop about this decision-----until she, essentially, had pulled the trigger on it by writing it all up and wrapping a bow around it.  

Clear as crystal, it was retaliation, so far as I can tell and in my opinion.  I believe this is the impetus for the lawyers for the insurance company all but begging the BCC NOT to take this case to trial and to settle it.  We took their advice; we settled the case with Selover and subsequently paid him nearly $200,000.

During the last portion of my cross-examination by this creature on Jauary 18th---- she busts this statement/question out on me-------and I responded to her (p. 207 of the deposition):

"Q. Well, you are aware, are you not, sir, that

Dr. Edler sat down with Mr. Dosh, and with Mr.

Spainhower, and reviewed all of the documentation that

she was going to submit to the Department of Health

before she submitted it? You're aware of that?

A. That's not the information that I have, no."

(I didn't have that information and the reason I answered the question the way I did was  because I had been told, and everything I had seen, was that everyone was totally and completely blindsided by

The Deposition(s) of Jeff Bergosh

 

On Monday, January 18, 2021--I sat for a 6-hour deposition in the Matt Selover case.

I was subpoenaed to testify, I received a written opinion that although my truthful testimony would be damaging to the county's position that it was proper for me to sit for the deposition,  and I was under oath and asked questions by multiple lawyers about this matter.  

And I told the truth.  

Here's what's important to know:  None of what I said had any bearing on the outcome of the case, and every lawyer with a brain knows I would have NEVER been called to testify in this case had it even gone to trial.  I had no relevance whatsoever;  I was not a fact witness, I wasn't an expert witness, I simply had opinions based upon my knowledge of events received second hand.  I never would have been called to testify in this case.   Wouldn't have happened.

But I was subpoenaed, so I complied and testified.  

And yes, my truthful view of the events surrounding the Matt Selover case and subsequent lawsuit differed greatly from the insurance company's lawyer, Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm.

And although I did not know it at the time, within 10 days of my deposition, attorney Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm (purportedly the attorney for the County Commission paid for by an insurance carrier that picked up this case)  would produce a scathing account of my truthful testimony and share it with the county attorney's office.  It was never shared with me or my counterparts for 8 months  prior to the conclusion of the matter after the county settled with Matt Selover for nearly $200,000.00.  

Even after the conclusion of the matter I was not aware of the existence of this memo, until a PNJ reporter called me, read portions of it to me, and asked me "what I thought of it."  

I find it incredible, astonishing that Ms. Guiditis would withhold the fact that although my opinions differed from hers, my relevance (lack thereof) would preclude my testifying in any trial that might ensue.  This was a huge fact to omit, leaving the casual reader of the document to believe I was the lynchpin that caused this case to settle--which is absolute rubbish and completely dishonest.  

So I have now subsequently requested every document in the case referring to me by Katie Guiditis and her firm. I made this request of Charlie Peppler, deputy County Attorney.  

I received a few email strings, this "memo" from the 27th of January-----and a follow-on memo from May 4th.  Again--I was not aware of any of this, nor were my counterparts, until after the settlement of this lawsuit.  I am disgusted with the way this was portrayed by this lawyer and her apparent desire to set me up as some sort of "boogey man" that created this problem.  I am contemplating filing a bar complaint against her, that is how dissatisfied I am with the way that was handled.  (Seeing the memo

The Deposition(s) of Jana Still

I received authorization to release the three volumes of Jana Still's (former HR Director for Escambia County) depositions in the now concluded Matt Selover lawsuit.

Her deposition, conducted by Pensacola attorney J.J. Talbot, was not helpful, whatsoever, to the county's case.  In fact, upon re-reading it juxtaposed with all of the other pertinent information in the case, it now appears more than likely that she was brought in and thrown to the wolves and instructed to "handle" the mess that was already well underway by the time she was brought in to work on it in November of 2019.  She was brought in to fix it, and her efforts were a belly-flop-job, a disaster.  It went south on her very badly...and cost us time, money, and several employees.

From county legal, as to my ability to release these particular records:

"Commissioner Bergosh:

Attached please find Jana Still’s deposition transcript.  There does not appear to be any applicable exemptions.  However, this transcript also contains testimony regarding the xxxxxxxxxxxxx and the resulting xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

 You may want to exercise your discretion to omit the following portions of the transcript:

• Volume II, page 129, lines 9-11; and
• Volume II, page 133, lines 15-18

Thank you,

 Kia M. Johnson

Assistant County Attorney"

Read the transcripts here, here, and here...

The Deposition of Rayme Edler

The deposition of Rayme Edler, who would have been called to testify and who was a fact witness, was damaging, very damaging to the County's case.  Very Damaging.  Read it, below

Our case with former employee Matt Selover has settled, and therefore much of the discovery documents, depositions, etc., once redacted appropriately, will be released here.  

The deposition of Rayme Edler was devastatingly bad for the county.  It was a horror show.  Although she had two lawyers falling over themselves to object to just about every question asked of her---Attorney J.J. Talbot was pedestrian, balanced, and methodical in the extraction of damaging information from Edler during this deposition.  And unlike me, Rayme Edler would have been called to testify in any trial had we not settled.  I never would have been called as I was not a fact witness, not an expert, and my opinions were not and are not relevant to the facts of the case. (a fact ignored by the attorney for the insurance company in her memo to the county, and a fact omitted from the PNJ coverage of this settlement)   And had it gone to trial--by the insurance company's own estimation--the County could have been on the hook for up to $820,000.00 PLUS Legal fees.  (That devastating fact was conveniently left out of the PNJ's hit piece on me published Monday).

With respect to the medical director at the time of this incident, I received the below opinion from Charlie Peppler about releasing her deposition transcript, which I will be linking to this blog post.

From Deputy County Attorney Charlie Peppler:

"Comm’r,

   I have reviewed Dr. Edler’s depo transcript and there does not appear to be any exemptions applicable.  You may wish to exercise your own discretion about testimony given by Dr. Edler XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on pages 173 through 177.  Perhaps, redacting those pages with an explanation that they involve personal, sensitive matters of a former employee, but, again, that is your call, I couldn’t find an exemption for this testimony. (In my own opinion, I don’t think the trial judge would let this testimony into evidence on the grounds of relevance, but that is not the issue at this point).  Other attorneys in our office are reviewing the depos of William Hopkins and Jana Still and they will get with you when they have finished their review. Regards,  Charlie

Charles V. Peppler"

Read the deposition of Rayme Edler, with pages 173-177 removed on the advice of Peppler, here.

Inside the Sausage Grinder: Part II

Documents linked within this blog post pertaining to a recent legal settlement with a former employee illustrate how contentious some personnel issues can become when board policy is not followed with fidelity--and the expensive outcomes.

"Alison,

 I received three transcripts related to our settlement with Matt Selover late this afternoon from Kimberly Chappel.

 If these are a public record and do not require redaction, I intend to release them on my blog first thing tomorrow morning.

 Please advise if there are any legal or ethical prohibitions on me making these documents public unredacted, in the same form as I have just received them and in the same form the CoC has apparently received them.

 Please advise soonest.

 Thanks,

 Jeff Bergosh

Vice-Chairman and District 1 Commissioner,

Escambia Board of County Commissioners"

FROM Alison Rogers:

"Jeff, pursuant to state statute, I am of the opinion that all of the transcripts are public record and we are obligated to make all of the transcripts available."

Some of what we do in government is not pleasant-including contentious shade meetings to deal with pending litigation.  This is why there is a term related to the work of governing--"making sausage."  Making sausage is not pretty, it is downright nasty;  stuff goes in, and sausage comes out.  Most like sausage but not the process. 

As it pertains to this issue and the transcript I am going to link below from June 3rd of this year--Once the litigation with a government entity is completed, the transcripts of the shade meetings associated with the litigation become a public record.  We recently settled this particular lawsuit, and a number of individuals and media outlets have requested these transcripts already.  So they will be coming out and therefore I am posting them here also.  They are an interesting read and view into what are typically confidential discussions.

Read BCC Shade Session 6-3-2021

County Medical Director: County Going in New Direction

Public Safety Director Eric Gilmore discussed this briefly at Commissioner Barry's Town Hall meeting last night, a new direction and approach for EMS and the Medical Director position.  According to Gilmore, the County will have access to three (3) Doctors under the new plan--and the contract for us to begin utilizing this university-based training hospital medical staff on a contract basis apparently will be on the BCC agenda for Thursday, July 8th.

Meanwhile, this email, below, has gone out yesterday to staff in EMS.

Looks as though the county is going in a new direction with respect to how we handle the Medical Director position.

This is a good thing.  And a long time coming.

EMS Employee Complaint Sent to Commissioners..........

Litigation has been initiated against the Board of County Commissioners and Medical Director Dr. Rayme Edler in both her official and individual capacity-- and the complaint was sent to board members yesterday  by County Attorney Alison Rogers.

County Attorney Alison Rogers sent all commissioners a copy of the complaint that is to be filed in the circuit court by Pensacola attorney JJ Talbot.  It is in relation to an employee of Escambia County's EMS department; it is the subject of many discussions with staff and on the dais.

Part I is the complaint and the first part of the exhibits (first 17 pages contain the complaint and the alleged factual background.  These pages are about a five minute read total--- but very informative and insightful.  Definitely worth the read)

Part II is the continuation of the exhibits.

I will be asking, later this morning in the Board's regular meeting, when we can expect to have a shade session to discuss legal strategies for promptly addressing this complaint.

Citizens should take the time necessary to read this complaint and compare it with any reporting on this matter and on this individual employee in the local press--in the interest of fairness and balance.

I wish the matter had been handled differently by staff and that it did not come to litigation.......but here we are.

The Urgency of our EMS Billing Issues, Put into Stark Terms Part II

A troubling decline in both the gross billing amounts and the amounts collected from our EMS department will be discussed today

The above graphic was provided by the staff of the Clerk of the Court and Comptroller, Pam Childers' office.

Last week a one-pager was issued describing the problem from a cash-burn, financial emergency standpoint.  I asked at that time for some additional information which was provided yesterday.

As you can see, EMS has a serious financial issue with the collections not keeping up with the revenue outflow.  ($611K being brought in on average monthly with $1.3Million going out in expenses)

Left unchecked, the BCC's general fund will be feeding this unit within about 40 days.

This is why it is of paramount importance that we vote today to immediately re-instate our relationship with the organization that can assist us with getting our billing out ASAP so that we can get our collections up.

But another troubling aspect of the chart I am seeing is this:  Where is all the business going?  from $52 Million in gross billing in 2017 down to $40 Million in 2018--why the big decline?  And 2019 is on track to have an even smaller total than 2018....so why are the billing numbers going downhill?

We get this on track today.  Today.