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."

 

This Abuse of the System is Costing Ordinary Citizens and County Taxpayers HUNDREDS of Thousands of Dollars

At what point does a perennial loser in administrative hearings on the same topic costing hundreds of thousands of dollars get labeled a vexatious litigant and shut down?

Everyone in America understands we are a nation of laws, rules, and justice.  There are multiple avenues where citizens can challenge rulings, bring lawsuits, file protests and or petitions, and appeal the rulings and outcomes of such court cases. Federal, state, local, municipal and other jurisdictions have multiple venues where citizens can challenge practically every decision governments make.

Locally, many of our land use decision, when challenged, go to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

One serial petitioner is local citizen and activist Jacqueline Rogers.

She (Rogers) has filed multiple challenges to the opt-outs from the sector plan in District 5 allowed by BCC action and vote.  None of her previous attempts at preventing property owners from opting out have been successful.  This Monday, this same individual (Rogers) will be testifying at a hearing to be held here in Escambia County at the Fairfield Drive one stop location.  Yes, it is another challenge to another family's move to "opt-out" of the county's sector plan.  According to multiple lawyers and citizens with whom I have now spoken on this topic---it is the same arguments being put forth by Jacqueline Rogers as in her previous, unsuccessful attempts at stopping property owners from getting out of the overly onerous and costly provisions of the sector plan--some of the requirements of which (including the 50% rule) cost these property owners $Millions in valuation of their respective large parcels. 

It's simply a copy and paste job by her (Rogers) according to most observers with whom I have spoken.   A mimeograph of the same losing arguments, copied and pasted with names and addresses changed but containing the same losing arguments she has put forward numerous times previously.

Monday's hearing is the result of the fifth petition Rogers has submitted to DOAH specifically challenging opt outs.  Two other cases in 2018 related to future land  use designation categories that were related to former County Commissioner Wilson Robertson's case but they weren't specifically challenging opt out.  Because of consolidation of some of the cases, the actual number of opt out challenges including this one is seven, which include landowners Wilson Robertson, the Jolly Family, the Arnold Family, the First Baptist Church of Cottage Hill, Billy Campbell, and now this latest one involves a 90+ acre parcel owned by the Owen family.

The costs associated with defending these duplicate challenges over and over are becoming too burdensome and many feel these "copy and paste" job challenges are an abouse of the system.

According to one individual intimately familiar with whom I spoke  "This is costing citizens and the county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend, all for this one citizen who appears to be obsessed with preventing opt outs--even as she has been unsuccessful over and over."

In Monday's hearing, the county will be asking the judge to allow the county to recover court costs and fees expended in defending this what will be the 7th similar/identical complaint from the same citizen who keeps losing.  Good, I hope the judge allows for this.

Meanwhile, I have asked the county attorney why we cannot petition the hearing officer to rule that this