Jonathan Owens wants County Taxpayers to Fund his Legal Defense

Owens sent the County Administrator and the County Attorney the request yesterday.  I'll print it below.

I personally do not feel he is entitled to any taxpayer funded legal representation because what he did is potentially criminal, fell outside the normal course of his job, and he remains in possession of stolen county records that he is not authorized to possess and that are in fact illegal for him to possess under Fl. Stat. 817.5685.  Furthermore, Owens admitted to reading the entire file  (In a radio interview with Andrew Tallman on AM 1620),  he knew it contained private, confidential records, yet he not only never told any county employee he had the file while he was working at the county--he also kept the file upon leaving employment and he also provided it, unredacted, to others---including opposing counsel in an ongoing court case against his former employer---------knowing it contained attorney client privileged conversations about that case in particular.

As Ricky Ricardo from "I love Lucy" might have exclaimed:  "Someone has some 'splainin to do!"

When he "acquired" this file and knew exactly what it was, he should have immediately returned the property the owner and promptly notified the county attorney's office.  He didn't.  He read it, kept it, and gave it to others instead.  He didn't need no stinkin' attorneys then!

But now he wants an attorney??

Nope, I don't believe he'll have three votes for this if it even comes to the board for our action--because he clearly DOES NOT qualify, under our policy, to be able to receive this coverage.  Period. This was not a job related function he was performing, and no, he ain't no whistleblower--there are specific statuatory definitions of what a whistleblower is--and he is not one.  Good luck with that.

Looks here like Jonathan Owens is following in the footsteps of his best friend, soul mate, and former boss,  Disgraced Former Commissioner Doug Underhill.

And like his mentor, partner and former commissioner Underhill----Owens now is also requesting you, the taxpayer to fund a legal defense to his reprehensible, potentially criminal conduct.

I can't make this stuff up!

What D2 resident and former Underhill Secretary Jonathan Owens sent the county yesterday:

When Do We as Public Officials Deserve Protection and Taxpayer-Funded Legal Defenses?

Under current precedent set in the Scott Miller v Doug Underhill case--it appears as if anything and everything we say (as elected officials) directed toward any citizen, constituent, or business entity in any venue and under any circumstance enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution no matter what---if any sort of a tenuous--even circuitous--line can be drawn between such statements and our official duties and responsibilities.  Even if what we say is untrue, libelous, and intended to intentionally inflict damage on the recipient. 

Wow.  That's powerful.  Absolute power.  

In fact--one attorney (a person for whom I have tremendous respect) intimately familiar with that ruling even said to me "Jeff, this is a win for you, too, as an elected official--extra protection for you from malicious prosecution."  He's not wrong about that.  

But in pondering it more--why do I need that if I am doing my job and not involved in nefarious conduct or purposely libeling, slandering, and proactively picking fights with citizens, unprovoked, online or in person?  Answer--I don't need it, I don't want it.  Never have.

If I'm minding my own business and you come up to me and punch me in the face unprovoked (which I'm certain some would love to do) and I subsequently put my knee through your skull in response--that's self-defense and 100% understandable.  If I'm minding my own business at a mall and someone much larger and stronger rushes at me and threatens to kill me with a wielded knife and I don't wait for what his devastating attack could do to me and instead I double tap him with my .380--that would more than likely be a stand your ground case in Florida (well, depending on what the attacker looked like it should be---- but might not be.......). 

 

But---if I get drunk one night and go to Wild Greg's downtown and start throwing punches at the door man because says he doesn't like my politics and says he disagrees with my votes--and in the process I get my ass kicked and draw a lawsuit----That's on me and I get what I deserve. 

Or try these disgusting, homophobic, purely fictional examples of lies (or worse) that could happen but should NEVER happen.  Imagine two PROMINENT area citizens-----one a businessman one an attorney-----who from time to time have worked for or with the county on issues, projects, or initiatives. (cue up the tenuous connection to county business...)  

So what if a commissioner (who really dislikes them because they financially supported an opponent--or for other real or perceived slights) goes online and makes statements that are UNTRUE and damaging about such individuals, gaslights them or worse---DOXES them, under the cover story that they are unworthy of working with county projects, by saying something like:

"That XXXXXXXXXXX guy is a charlitan, a cheat, a liar and even though hs is married he is actually a homosexual simply living in the closet"

"That XXXXXXXXXXXX guy is an alcoholic drunk who is screwing his secretary behind his wife's back while serving as a deacon in his church"

"That's Horrible!!"  "That's Outrageous!!"  "That could never happen!" some might naturally say--appaled at even the thought of an action so shameful targeting upstanding community leaders and citizens by an elected official.  

But it could, and under the current protocol such accusations (true or not) would never need to be adjudicated or ruled upon by a court as the commissioner could (falsely) claim it was within the "realm" of his public duties and served a public purpose of vetting partners who from time to time work with the county.  Then, poof, the allegation is gone because such an official has "Absolute Immunity"--

No, that's crazy.  We should never, no matter who we are, get away with lying about someone intentionally unprovoked and with malicious, reckless, nefarious intention.

So no, lying about people online proactively is not an official government function that deserves one cent of taxpayer money to defend.  Just like picking fights.  That's my unwavering position, period.

Here's when an elected official deserves a taxpayer funded defense, in my humble opinion only.

--Commissioner is accused of committing a crime associated with a decision he voted for related to the county

--Commissioner is accused of harming a business or individual due to a zoning vote he made

--Commissioner is accused of a crime based upon any vote the board upon which he sits lawfully made

--Commissioner is sued for something that he did that can be proved was specifically and completely a part of his official constitutional duty and role related to official duties.

--Commissioner defending himself, utilizing free speech, from a directed, litigation-based attack from the media or any special interest entity based upon specific votes, positions, opinions or actions such commissioner took DIRECTLY related to the performance of his official duties and specifically NOT a willful, malicious, reckless and directed tort action.

Period.

--Commissioner gets a DUI---HE PAYS

--Commissioner arrested for theft---HE PAYS

--Commissioner accused of/found guilty of a crime found to be not associated in any way with the necessary performance of his duties---HE PAYS

--Commissioner purposely, proactively and  intentionally libels, slanders, and/or attacks citizens with unfounded, unproven defamatory allegations---HE PAYS unless and until  he prevails.

This interesting post discusses the local case and also a similar case between a South Florida Mayor and Police Chief  in which the mayor prevailed in a defamation case brought against him for derogatory comments he made in a blog about a local police chief.  (in that case--the back and forth was between two public officials--mayor and police chief-- so the similarities are not identical--as public officials are much more susceptible to attacks than are average citizens and business interests--although I do not believe that nuanced distinction was used as a part of the decision in De Castro v. Stoddard.)

So the idea that absolute protection for elected officials for spoken/written allegations toward citizens and businesses-- libelous and slanderous-- directed toward anyone must be maintained in order not to have a "chilling effect" is one I disagree with vehemently.  But it is currently the law of the land, apparently.

Everyone knows free speech has limitations though:  You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten the president, and attack speech on some religions (Ask Salmon Rushdie, Trey Parker and Matt Stone) has been officially verboten for decades as are the use of some specific, disgustingly racist words by caucasian people. (Unless their name is Andy Marlette [they, them, theirs]) 

And the list of off-limits speech continues to grow in our culture, like it or not. 

So here's the hypothetical for you:   Is it really accptable for me to provoke fights with, then subsequently intentionally lie about, a person or business to a point and with the intention that it damages them simply because I'm an elected official? Should the unprovoked bald-faced lies I tell about a business or individual never even be addressed or adjudicated for veracity before I am excused for this behavior by some immunity defense that trumps the truth and reality?

Think on that.

And on this:

"There is no public purpose served by protecting guilty officials from prosecution." 

 

Repayment of Public Official's Legal Fees: The Misconduct At Issue MUST be Ruled-Upon First

Both sides have compelling arguments, but only one side will ultimately prevail....

In the fascinating, ongoing legal saga of one (now former) County Commissioner's quest to have the public taxpayer foot his legal bills--two recently filed briefs drill down on the issue of the misconduct at the center of the matter specifically.

Both of these legal briefs have now been filed with the 1st District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee.  Both are exceptionally well-written, and both make several interesting yet diverging points and arguments about the appropriateness and the legality of the repayment.

After reading the pro-repayment filing--one might naturally assume it is completely appropriate for the taxpayers to repay the costs of the legal bills immediately.

But after reading the county's position on the matter and filing--the one lingering, intriguing point that stands out in bold to me is this:  Repayment of a Public Official's legal fees must not occur until the issue at the center of the matter, the misconduct which triggered the litigation initially, is decided by the court first--- and that the public official is exonerated.

And that has yet to happen.

The current case is unusual and odd in that the merits of the original conduct which triggered the lawsuit have never been addressed by the court.  It was never either proven to be valid, public part of a commissioner's necessary work nor was it disproven and deemed an intentional, willful malicious tort action instigated by a sitting member of the county commission outside the scope of his duties.

The trial court did not address the action nor the validity of the claim of defamation--but rather simply stated the conduct at issue was a part of the commissioner's duty and subsequently was silent and didn't speak specifically to the defamation claim by the area citizen in dismissing the case---- stating an elected official has broad, almost absolute  immunity from a defamation suit when and if he is/was acting in the public interest and within the scope of his job. 

On the other side of it--the other brief (county's side) wants the original conduct which drew the suit to be ruled upon first before public monies can/should be expended to pay for the public official's legal defense.  Because if the conduct at issue was malicious, reckless and an intentional tort--this would negate the obligation to pay for the legal costs as such behavior would not, could not be construed as an official acting in the public's interest and within the scope of his office.

So it is really interesting, and again------both briefs are compelling.

But the seminal question that must be answered has not been:  Was this defamation and libel?  Or was

Underhill's Amended Compaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus Gets "Vaporized"by Attorney Rick Figlio

Rick Figlio's assessment of Doug Underhill's latest request for taxpayer money to fund his legal costs looks a lot like this picture, above....

Like a devastating wrecking ball job--- with the "building" being Doug Underhill's amended complaint and petition for Writ of Mandamus in the circuit court (another attempt to get his legal fees paid by the taxpayers)---Tallahassee powerhouse attorney Rick Figlio demolishes every argument Underhill makes. Piece by piece, item by item, line by line, down to the granular and then the atomic detail.  I mean, it is an absolute evisceration.

Local businessman David Bear requested this written opinion from his attorney Figlio, and recently received it.  

I am copying the opinion here for interested persons to download and read what a well-written, concise, and solid opinion this is.  It's going to spell trouble for Doug and his quest for taxpayer funding for his legal costs and fees---if the county's response looks anything like this well written rebuttal (which the county's opinion now should 😜).  Big trouble for the quest for cash from Underhill.

Highlights from the document:

“I believe that each of the counts of the Amended Complaint

has little legal merit. I would characterize Count II, seeking recovery of fees under section 111.07,

Florida Statutes, and Count III, seeking mandamus, as specious because each of these counts relies

on either a fundamental misconstruction of Florida statutes, settled precedent, or both..

 

the Board’s decision to pay legal fees is an

inherently discretionary act, which would preclude issuance of a writ of mandamus as a matter of

axiomatic Florida law. It is also clear from the attachments to the Amended Complaint that no

amount of argument or evidence can overcome the Amended Complaint’s plain deficiencies..

 

Count I likewise fails to state a claim for which relief

can be granted. In order to be entitled to reimbursement under the common law, Underhill must

plead and prove that the litigation for which he seeks reimbursement (1) arose out of or in

connection with the performance of his official duties and (2) served a public purpose. Thornber

v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1990). The claim’s failure relates to the

second prong, as the Amended Complaint acknowledges that the Defamation Suit alleged that

Underhill committed the intentional tort of defamation against one of his constituents and further

acknowledges that Underhill was not vindicated in the action, but rather was able to escape liability

irrespective of guilt by virtue of the trial court’s finding that he was immune from suit. Put simply,

commission of the intentional tort of defamation against a constituent cannot be said to “serve a

public purpose,” and the Amended Complaint does not allege Underhill was innocent—only that

he was immune..

 

Underhill’s request for mandamus must fail. Mandamus is a civil

remedy to compel a public official to discharge a ministerial duty. Browning v. Young, 993 So. 2d

64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). To prevail, the party petitioning for mandamus must plead ultimate

facts showing (1) the public official has a clear legal duty to perform a ministerial act; (2) the

petitioner has a clear legal right to have the duty performed; and (3) the petitioner does not have

another legal remedy available. See RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Bch., 736 So. 2d 1211, 1213

(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirming dismissal of petition for mandamus to compel city to inspect

certain property and enforce land development regulations against a private property owner).

Here, Commissioner Underhill does not, and cannot, allege facts to support a clear legal

entitlement to the payment of his attorneys’ fees, and, therefore, cannot state a cause of action for

mandamus. A party seeking mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to performance of the

act requested. Butler v. City of Melbourne Police Dep’t, 812 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

A “clear legal right” must be one not subject to differing reasonable interpretations. See Sancho

v. Joanos, 715 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)....."

Payment of Legal Fees Request May Not Necessarily be a Slam Dunk Part II: The Absolute and Total Annihilation of Mandamus Argument

When this guy, Luka Doncic,  is loose in the paint--it's a sure thing.  It's  a SLAM DUNK.  Doug Underhill's argument for payment of his legal fees by the board, however, is the opposite of this.  In fact, after reading a  12-page destruction of his argument for the BCC to be compelled to pay via a writ of mandamus---it appears less like a slam dunk and more like the Washington Generals trying to beat the Harlem Globetrotters.......Good luck with that!

When Basketball phenom Luka Doncic gets free in the lane and he has the ball---yeah it is going to be a thunderous slam dunk.  Doesn't matter who he is playing or who is in his way (or under him).  He's jamming it home even over the biggest names you hear about in the NBA.  Even those guys get out of the way and accept what's coming...

A recent request for legal fee payment for Commissioner Doug Underhill's lawyer, which to board let die in silence with no action, was answered with a subsequent legal filing where it was intimated it was/should be  all but a "sure thing" these fees would/should be paid by the county.   

I never thought it was a slam dunk.    Not even close.  And I always thought the Writ of Mandamus was inappropriate--as the board has discretion and to pay these fees is no ministerial function.  So no, it wasn't going to be a sure thing slam dunk.

After all, we're not talking about Luka Doncic.

Now I have received an email containing a 12-page legal opinion on this matter supporting the board's position that the payment of fees is not guaranteed--among other arguments.  This is from Tallahassee lawyer Rick Figlio.  This opinion was prepared at the behest of a local citizen, recently provided to the County Attorneys, and also provided to the County Commissioners.

And this 12 page position paper totally and completely annihilates and destroys the weak and feckless arguments for mandamus presented on Doug's behalf by his thus far not fully paid attorneys.

Complete annihilation in stunning fashion.  You don't even need to be a lawyer to understand it--that's how well it is written.  from the document:

• In his Petition, Underhill argues that the Board has a nondiscretionary duty to pay his legal fees on the basis of the Board’s policy.  That is meritless.

• Underhill failed to comply with the procedures set forth in the policy that outlines conditions precedent to any claim for legal representation. He was required to submit a

Payment of Legal Fees Request May Not Necessarily be a "Slam-Dunk"

Sometimes even when it looks like a "slam-dunk" is a "sure-thing"---- it doesn't mean it will ultimately happen though....

The awkward and uncomfortable silence (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) that followed Commissioner Doug Underhill's motion for payment of his legal fees to his lawyer last Thursday was certainly something I neither relished nor enjoyed.  The Sound of Silence.  Like Simon and Garfunkel's tune.  Silence that was deafening.  

But, to channel Yoda: "Silence there was" -- when Underhill made the motion for payment (at 3:04:20 of the meeting linked) of nearly $25,000 in legal fees.  Complete, total, unambiguous silence.  So his request died for a lack of a second, and his attorney remains unpaid for nearly a year and a half's work.

The case has been ruled upon by a local circuit judge and also affirmed unanimously at the 1st District Court of Appeals.  This is why this request is coming now for us to act.

But back in November of 2019-- I made a motion to set aside an amount of money to repay these legal fees to Doug Underhill if he was successful in the suit AND if he demonstrated that he had paid his attorneys and was current on his bills to his lawyer.  At that meeting, at that time, Doug Underhill did not second my motion, and my motion to set aside these funds, under the conditions in my motion, died for lack of a second.  One could speculate as to the "why" the Commissioner who's fees were in questions would not have seconded a motion to assist with payment of these fees---because it was an odd thing to occur.  But it happened, and now we fast forward a year and three months and the motion this time was made by Doug-----and it died for lack of a second.

And now--because the board did not take action to pay the overdue legal invoices Thursday--this will undoubtedly head back to circuit court.  We will be sued for payment of these fees.

So we will see what that filing looks like.  The county will answer and will defend against this, I am told.  If a writ of mandamus is received, it is my understanding it may be appealed.

The question will come down to whether or not our local ordinances and rules will be upheld--or will a state statute be cited successfully to trump our policy and unilaterally compel payment of these fees to the attorney who represented Commissioner Underhill but who has not yet been paid by Commissioner Underhill.

A quick review of the relevant county policies in force during the time the conduct at issue occurred which drew the lawsuit reveals the then social media policy was not being followed by the Commissioner who got sued.  

Looking at the Board's revised rule/policy on repayment of legal fees--it remains unclear as to whether or not 1.) repayment/payment of fees policy was followed and 2.) the policy compels the board to pay if a commissioner requests repayment due to the successful defense of an issue in court (i.e. it appears as if the board will have five different courses of action to take under our policy---to include denying the payment of fees and making alternative findings.)

An additional question this whole mess dredges to the surface is the hypothetical conundrum that may ensue if the court does in fact issue a writ of mandamus to the BCC to pay Commissioner Underhill's unpaid fees.  Questions such as:

1.  Would the board have to take additional vote(s) to pay---or could the board vote to appeal the writ of mandamus? (could this thing go back and forth through the various courts and courts of appeal like Forest Gump's ping-pong balls going back and forth over the net?)

2.  Would/could the clerk of the court independently at her own discretion proactively/pre-emptively pay the legal fees once such a judgment is/was issued to the BCC ordering the payment?   

OR

3.  would the BCC have to vote again to authorize the payment by the clerk to Doug's lawyer all the past due bills --- as ordered (hypothetically) by Judge Pitre?

Too many questions.  One thing that is certain though:  Payment of these past-due, unpaid bills from the BCC directly to Doug's lawyer may not necessarily be a "slam-dunk......."

BCC Says NO to Paying Commissioner Doug Underhill's Legal Fees

The BCC said no to paying for Commissioner Doug Underhill's legal fees at our regular meeting last night....

There was a discussion item on last night's BCC agenda, the subject of which was the payment of legal fees for Commissioner Doug Underhill.  The board had previously rejected the idea of paying these fees prior to the case being heard in circuit court.

The local court case happened and the judge ruled in favor of Commissioner Underhill.

$15,600.00 in fees and costs were presented last night for the board to consider paying.  The wrinkle now for me is the fact that an appeal to the district court of appeals has been filed in this case.

 Absent that appeal, I believe the BCC would have paid the legal bill for the successful defense of the lawsuit brought against Commissioner Underhill in the circuit court.  This would have been appropriate under statute and board policy.  Had we refused to do this, I have every confidence that such a non-payment would have itself been challenged in court and we would have lost that case. 

And then we would have been paying fees on top of fees to attorney Ed Fleming.

So I brought a motion for the board to consider last night which would have allowed for the amount owed currently to be set aside in a reserve account after full payment of the current bill to Ed Fleming by Commissioner Underhill was verified.  This ammount would be held until such time as the court of appeals came back with a dispositive ruling on the case.  If the appeal was ruled in favor of Underhill--the fees held in reserve would have immediately been paid to him.  I felt like this was fair given the circumstance and I felt it would insure timely payment to Ed Fleming for his services rendered in this current case.

But the board did not want to support this sort of an arrangement, I did not get a second on this motion I made.

After much subsequent discussion by the board, Commissioner Underhill made a motion of his own, that the full legal bill be paid immediately.  His motion died for a lack of a second.

After much further back and forth dialogue on this topic by the four of us on the dias, the outcome is crystal clear now.  The BCC simply says NO to paying Commissioner Doug Underhill's legal fees. 

I suspect we will next address this topic if and when the appelate court renders a decision on the circuit court case, which could take months or even years......

Commissioner Underhill Will Be Requesting a County-Funded Legal Defense

The board has been advised via an email from this Saturday that at an upcoming meeting we will be asked to approve a county-funded legal defense for Commissioner Doug Underhill.  He is currently being sued for libel.

Two years ago the board was asked to provide a legal defense for Doug Underhill and at that time the board voted no.  (That issue discussed at length here).

This time around, the circumstances are different.  Nevertheless-I'm not convinced that there are three votes on the board to fund this.  We will see this week I suppose.

(I've been contacted by numerous citizens who have told me NO WAY to paying legal fees)

Citizens are Saying NO to Paying Commissioner Legal Bills

With respect to taxpayers funding legal defense for a commissioner's impending lawsuit, citizens are saying "talk to the hand" about that plan.... 

My email box is blowing up with angry citizen and constituent emails demanding that the BCC NOT pay legal bills for the D2 commissioner who is apparently once again being sued for libel-- according to the PNJ and Rick's Blog.

Of course the decision on whether or not to pay for a defense will be a full-board decision based upon all factors including relevant state statutes, county policy, and our county attorney's opinion.  Meanwhile, folks are saying "no way."





                                                                               From the email (s)

Citizens are emailing and saying "no way"
to taxpayer funded legal expenses for
a commissioner being sued for libel...

"I write with a request that the Board as a whole vote to deny the County taking on liability for Commissioner Underhills impending libel lawsuit initiated by citizen Scott Miller. The activity that initiated Mr. Millers lawsuit was that of Dougs comment on social media site Escambia Citizens Watch, not in the performance of his official duties as Commissioner. May I remind you of the COW meeting May 9th, where the social media policy was discussed between 4 of you in determining whether to bring it to the agenda for the next BCC meeting. Commissioner Bender stated it eloquently when he said “Not trying to take away your First Amendment rights, Jeff, but I’m not going to defend it either. It was also at this point that Doug left the dais, indicating he took no position on that part of the discussion. Commissioner Barrys comment about the use of technology not having impact on the board while the “use of Social Media and tenor of the comments, does have an effect on me.” is a perfect example of how Doug got into his predicament to begin with. 

His comments on that site, which by the way is NOT open to General Public viewing, are what the basis of his new lawsuit are based on. Therefore the County, us Taxpayers, should not be on the hook for his legal expenses associated with this case. He got himself into it, he can get himself out. I would predict that Dougs activities on Social Media will continue to be problematic for the Board as he continues to disparage those that don’t agree with his agenda with disparaging and libelous remarks."

From another citizen:

"Good evening Commissioners.
I am asking Commissioners Jeff Bergosh, Lumon May, Robert Bender, and Steven Barry to deny any request from Commissioner Doug Underhill for legal fees to be paid with our tax dollars.

Commissioner Douglas Underhill is a grown man fully capable of taking care of his own legal fees and he can say or write anything he wants however, it is his moral and financial responsibility when our citizens decide to hold him accountable for slanderous and/or libelous statements (written or verbal).

One could even argue that Jacqueline Aimee Rogers and her Escambia Citizens Watch Group (ECW) could have some culpability for allowing Douglas Underhill to continually violate the groups rules without removing Douglas Underhill’s membership privileges?

Commissioner Doug Underhill was clearly speaking for himself from his personal Facebook account on ECW (NOT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS) and he Clearly has publicly made a case that his personal Facebook account is not governed by the county board of commissioners policies!

Please commissioners, do not even entertain the idea of paying for Commissioner Douglas Underhill’s legal fees or put it on the agenda review or commission meeting for a vote. No need to even discuss it at the commission meetings or agenda review, ever, this is a private sector civil case having nothing to do with our county government.

I’m sure there will be many more slander/libel lawsuits to come for Mr. Douglas Underhill, we the taxpayers do not want to pay our hard earned money for Douglas Underhill “running his suck”, as Douglas says to others.
Commissioner Doug Underhill also says publicly that our county wastes too much tax dollars on frivolous expenditures and I would consider Douglas Underhill’s (slander/libel) defense legal fees a frivolous expenditures to the ninth degree!"

...and another...

"Gentleman,

We are not in favor of spending taxpayer money for defense of Libel/ Slander lawsuit for Douglas Underhill. We feel comments made on Social media should not be considered a board action but the person who made them should be held responsible.

I have not been a fan of the uncivil attitude brought in by this member of the board and frankly this one latest suit could be considered the tip of the iceberg if a class action began. Just say NO."

...and another...

"Dear all, 

This is precisely the reason that I have urged the BOCC to censure Commissioner Underhill throughout the course of the last year. His conduct--an acknowledged problem that has been publicly discussed on the dais--is a great liability to his peers, administration, staff, and the taxpayers of this County.

I'm sure it is not lost on many that in Commissioner Underhill's comments about Rolling Hills, he doesn't just aim his accusations at Mr. Miller, but also accuses past Administrator Larry Newsom of conspiring with Mr. Miller to defraud citizens and benefit financially.

If the County defends this lawsuit, isn't it tantamount to saying that the taxpayers should fund officials who libel the County administration?"

...and another...

"Gentlemen, 

As an involved citizen that has asked you all to take action regarding Commissioner Underhill's past actions I come to you now and ask that you give serious thought as to the responsibility of the citizens to pay for any legal defense of a narcissistic motor mouth that seems unable to haved a rational conversation with ANYONE who dis agrees with him.

You haved seen his words, captured in print, accusing both Miller and Newsome of "illegal and racially discriminatory" activities. He did this from his personal FB page while blocking many of his constituents from seeing and/or responding in violation of County policy AND State of Florida law. He posted FROM his personal FB page to a private FB page that purports to be representative of the citizen's however 100's have been blocked from participating on this forum.

I cannot see how we, the citizens should suffer the the cost of his irresponsible actions.

Please deny ANY TAX PAYER MONEY for this purpose."

...and another...

"I wrote a letter last night urging you to NOT pay personal liability suit to Underhill and  we stand by that. His behavior is an ongoing problem, so do not encourage his incivility please. These comments were made on facebook under a discussion about ST and as usual Underhill just resorts to name calling.

I am aware of problems with Rolling Hills and problems should be addressed in meetings with staff and county admin and legal in a civil setting, not on facebook during a discussion about ST. aerospace. You can search ECW and find it, they are also engaged with Florida West president. It's a typical Underhill Post. I watch them in horror and disgust on a regular basis.

It absurd for him to say he was asking the hard questions."