Saying something is illegal after demonstrating the belief this same thing was legal by paying on it for years is a tenuous argument. Particularly high are the stakes---because if you are "right" and the "thing" you were doing was, in fact, illegal---well then you have to explain why you did it all those years. On the other hand, if the "thing" you used to do but suddenly, unilaterally stopped doing is deemed to be legal---well oops you are facing a different problem because such action might be deemed to be acting ultra vires.
Either way it's bad. Bad if you're right, bad if you're wrong. It's a two-way, unescapable grizzly bear trap. I describe my rationale for this in depth here , here, and here.
That's the position I believe Escambia County Clerk Pam Childers has been in for a while now. I harbor no ill-will toward her--I'm just perplexed by the way this has played out and the WHY it went down like it did.
It didn't have to happen this way.
And I'm particularly concerned about what has transpired with a bonafide, Board Approved contract that the clerk unilaterally terminated by failure to pay on it. That is a dangerous, slippery slope precedent that-- if allowed to happen unchecked-- has great potential for abuse. Thus my continuing interest in this matter. (and no, I don't take the 401a plan).
We each have to stay in our lanes as constitutional officers, that's my take.
So yesterday two rulings came down in the court case regarding the county and the clerk.
Both rulings went the county's way.
The Clerk's motion to quash was dismissed, and the lawsuit against Commissioners Barry, May, and Bender was also dismissed.
We will have to see what comes next, what the next ruling is.
But for today, anyway, things went our way.
