Minutes in Underhill v. Bear Lawsuits Will Be Released

 

The minutes in these proceedings will make for an interesting read.......

Later this morning, the BCC will vote to waive executive privilege and and release a series of transcripts related to the still ongoing, but now substantially completed, litigation between Doug Underhill, the County, and David Bear.

Unlike the premature, unilateral release of the IIDC shade meeting transcripts by one member of the BCC (Doug Underhill) before completion of all litigation in that case---the board here in this case is taking the appropriate steps by voting to waive the privilege before releasing the transcripts.

If the board votes for release, they will be released shortly thereafter.

If the board votes against release, which is highly unlikely, the board will not release them.

It is all about following the law and the appropriate processes and protocols.

Like the purported reason for the transcript release in the previous IIDC case--this release is similarly being put forward to answer a public records request.

The transcripts will be a very interesting read for the average citizen, and will be an insight into some of the unnecessary yet bitter acrimony that has festered due to the conduct at issue that drew the suits, in addition to a host of other behavior online which continues to this day by one member of this board directed to four others.  And you the reader can work out which ones.

Yes, it will be an eye-opening, interesting read.

Look for those to be released at some point Friday.

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

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.

Making Sausage, Part I

Most people that enjoy sausage don't really want to watch what goes in it...our recent budget fight was messy, a lot like making sausage, and now it is all going to be published (or at least the most messy parts)

The Escambia Board of County Commissioners recently settled the sheriff's budget appeal, and now that this is behind us, all of the transcripts of our 7 shade meetings are a public record.  Today, board members received the following email from attorney Alison Rogers:

"Commissioners,

Just a note to let you know that Jim Little of the PNJ requested and has now received copies of all seven of the Sheriff’s budget appeal shade meetings.

 Please do not email back, but do get with me if you have questions.

Alison"

So this means within the next couple of days, one or more news articles will appear, and more than likely some of the more choice exchanges from these transcripts will be published void of the context that generated the exchanges.  In an effort to get ahead of this, I will be publishing all of them, in their entirety, so citizens can read them for themselves if they so choose--in their entirety.

It is like the old saying, these deals are like making sausage--it's messy, stuff goes in, stuff comes out, and most people "don't want to know" how the sausage was made.  The internal deliberations of the sheriff's staff will never come out--so in some respects this is not fair.  But oh well, at least we got the deal done and we have a 4-year deal.

But because we are a public body, subject to open meeting laws, all of our private deliberations are now fair game for those who want to look.   So I'll start out with this one first, the Shade Meeting of the Board from October, when we were just starting to formulate a strategy.  Lots of frank dialogue in here, lots of interesting conversations.... (and full disclosure--I wouldn't publish these if they weren't going to be coming out in dribs and drabs void of context in the media....)