Guidelines

I have established this blog as a means of transparency to the public, outreach to the community, and information dissemination to all who choose to look. Feedback is welcome, but because public participation is equally encouraged, appropriate language and decorum is mandatory.
Showing posts with label unlawful withholding of payment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unlawful withholding of payment. Show all posts

Friday, February 3, 2023

Staying in our Lanes

If we all stay in our lanes and do our jobs things will function effectively and efficiently.  If not, we are no better than a third-world dictatorship.....

Yesterday evening at the end of our regular BCC meeting (beginning at about 1:16:45 of this video) the board once again wrestled with an issue that should have never, ever been brought forward on another agenda.  It is a settled matter, all but the final payment of $6,900.00.  Or so it should have been.

Sadly, however, the issue had to be brought back for another go-round last night.

Way back on October 6th--- nearly four months ago---the board voted to pay the last of the costs associated with righting a wrong that was put upon a former employee.  Whether or not anyone agreed with the board's course of action on that matter, the bottom line is the county had to settle with that former employee because of numerous mistakes made by now former staff members that didn't do their jobs correctly, period.  His rights were violated, unfounded accusations were leveled against him, and his due process rights were tossed in a garbage can and lit on fire.   The insurance company and their attorneys wisely advised that the issue be settled for $200,000.00 as the case, if brought to a trial, could have cost the county as much as $800,000.00 in settlement fees + legal costs.

Feckless, glib individuals (to include a claims adjuster for the insurance company and even several former county staffers) who do not understand the way things actually work (apparently including several of the lawyers who purportedly worked on our behalf for the insurance company in defending the eventual lawsuit that was brought by this former employee) attempted to foist blame on me for the outcome.  Of course what they did and how they spread that message via their adjuster and even through former county staff was unethical and contrary to the professional, appropriate way a client is to be treated by their attorney (they are lucky no bar complaint was filed).  

But we were not their real client; never were.  Nope.  We figured that out once we received their emails and assessment of the case documents---after the factYou know, the texts and emails they never thought we would see.  No, their real client was always their insurance company that paid their salaries.  They didn't think too much of the commissioners nor did they care for me.  So what.  Do a job.  That's what I say.  Because the seminal, most important axiom of reality these "lawyers" never admitted to nor conceded was the fact that had this matter gone to trial-- I would have NEVER been called to testify at such a trial as I was not a fact witness to the events upon which I have opined and testified truthfully under oath during my deposition.  

They should have known that, and probably did.  

Yet they still assigned blame to a commissioner when the fact of the matter was I told the truth and they were dealt a bum case with fact patterns they didn't have the chops nor the will to overcome.  Period.

Setting that ALL aside, they brazenly claimed that my truthful testimony once I was deposed somehow "tanked the case"  Garbage, rubbish lie.

So after all that smoke cleared, the final settlement costs this former employee incurred in order to get on with his life and career totalled $6,900.00 dollars.  The board of county commissioners voted 3-1 that the payment of this sum be made to settle the costs with the state on behalf of this former employee. Further, the board also voted that in it's view this payment was appropriate and served a public purpose/interest.  

October 6th we voted that.   (See the discussion and vote beginning at 3:17:41 of this video)

But the clerk never paid it.  

Only when she was asked about the delay, 90 days later,  did her office gave a weak set of excuses about why it wasn't paid.

The clerk didn't bother to tell our attorney or any of us she had a problem with the payment for 90 days until she was prodded on it.

Why not?

Well, many of us suspect it is all related to other pending issues she has with the BCC.  Nobody knows for sure except her, but it doesn't matter now, because last night the board once again had to reopen this messy affair and discuss it.  And again, the board made a 3-1 vote.

This time, though, the 3-1 was made to allow our attorney to utilize the court to compel payment of this item.  I predict a writ of mandamus will be filed, and hopefully it will be considered swiftly in the circuit court so the previously BCC approved, lawful and appropriate payment------at long last----- can be made.

As I said in the meeting last night---I believe to not make that payment is an attempt at usurping the board's power.  It isn't right.  We all have to stay in our lanes and if we don't--things devolve and fall apart and we become dysfunctional like a third-world banana republic or worse.

More to come on this.  Much more.

Sunday, January 8, 2023

Why Has This Not Yet Been Paid by the Clerk?

 

Why are our payments being "handcuffed" by the Clerk?  Lawful payments voted upon by the BCC must be made, in timely fashion, by the clerk.  The ridiculous, vindictive, and petty scrutiny combined with the failure by the clerk to honor and make lawful payments approved by the BCC--or at a minimum immediately notify us that the payment would NOT be made-- is not only unprecedented--it is unscrupulous and unprofessional in my opinion.

On October 6th of 2022---more than three months ago---the Escambia Board of County Commissioners voted-by a 3-1 margin-to pay admisistrative costs and fees resulting from the former Escambia County Medical Director's witch hunt directed toward one former employee.  This wronged former employee was forced out of county employment and his reputation was maligned by multiple staff members-- including the former medical director-- and he was left with very few options. So in order to continue his career and maintain his paramedic's license (and to save what could have been years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that the county would have had to pay on his behalf) he took a settlemet deal with the state.  

We (BCC) previously had to pay this same wronged  former employee, Matt Selover,  a six-figure settlement due to the deplorable way he was treated by his supervisor at that time, the now former medical director.  And the mistreatment of this former employee was not just at the hands of the former medical director;  all levels of admin from HR all the way up to former Administrator Janice Gilley left Matt Selover hanging out to dry and sold him down the river like yesterday's garbage.  And his 13 year career was ruined.

It was the metaphorical equivalent of a ship's crew celebrating on the deck of the ship, sipping champagne, while a deck-hand crew member was drowning just off the ship.  And instead of throwing their shipmate a life vest---this crew threw him an Anvil.  That's how Matt (and several other former EMS employees, I might add) were treated.

And the taxpayers paid the price and the BCC picked up the pieces and a huge settlement was paid.

So putting a button on it--I brought forward the agenda item on October 6th to pay the final penalties levied against former employee Selover---to completely make him "whole" and cover the remaining associated fees and costs to the state ------considering the deplorable way he was treated by the former medical director, the former county administrator, the former HR director, and numerous others. This payment would  allow him to continue on with his career elsewhere----which thankfully he has now been able to do.

The item passed the board 3-1.  (See the discussion and vote beginning at 3:17:41 of this video)

Moreover, the board also ---at the same meeting ---affirmatively voted that along with funding the payment--- we were also making a legislative finding that the payment served a legitimate public purpose.  

So, I thought that chapter was finally behind us. Everyone else did as well.  It should have been.  Case closed.

Or so I thought.

Late last week, however, I was told that even though the board voted to pay the $6960.02 in state fees more than three months ago-----the clerk of the court, Pam Childers, had not yet made payment.  Worse yet, I received word on Saturday that the clerk's lawyer, Cody Leigh (who was actually at the meeting on 10-6-22 when the vote was made to  make this payment and who said nothing that night or in the weeks and months following the vote) has now stated he feels the payment is "not authorized."  

From clerk lawyer Cody Leigh's email on 1-6-2023.....

"Upon review, I am unable to find any authority supporting payment of county funds to satisfy fines and costs (i.e. costs for prosecution and investigation) arising from an administrative enforcement case.  By extension, the fees in pursuit thereof would similarly be unauthorized.  I am aware of provisions in chapter 111 authorizing expenditure of funds in certain actions: § 111.07, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to provide an attorney to defend any civil action); § 111.071, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to pay final judgment, compromise, or settlement arising from complaint for damages or injury); § 111.072, Fla. Stat. (2022) (county authorized to self-insure or expend for liability insurance in order to pay expenses pursuant to § 111.07).  Similarly, I see there is a common law right to representation for public officials in defense of litigation arising from the performance of official duties."

What?!?  

It is completely appropriate---- and authorized under law---particularly after the vote that the BCC made.

But if he had issues with it--why did Leigh wait three months and sit on the payment?  Why did he not say one word at the meeting as the board pondered and thoughtfully considered this issue for several minutes prior to voting on it?  Why did he sit there like a wax statue?  Why didn't he and his boss Pam Childers not say right away that they wouldn't make the payment?  Why did they throw this on the back burner and not tell us?  Why wait until folks start asking "where is the check" to say they feel it is "not authorized?"

Why the gamesmanship?

Why hold out--this is now going on four months unpaid?  Why withhold payment--unless the object is to inflict more pain and agony on the former employee now vindicated of all the garbage accusations made against him---just wanting to move forward with his life?

If on 10-10-2022---only 3 days after the BCC voted to approve the above payment---the clerk had an issue paying it---why did her office wait three months to let us know they WOULD NOT PAY while everyone else thought the payment was processed?

I'm not happy about this turn of events.  And that is the polite way I'll put that.

Our attorney believes the payment is appropriate.  She signed the voucher, above.  The BCC voted to make the payment. There is NO reason this payment should not have happened in October or November------months ago.

I certainly hope this is not some weird spillover from the current litigation between the BCC and the clerk over retirment plan contributions.  I hope one thing isn't related to another.  Is this related to the hearsay that someone called her the B-word?  What, are we back in Middle School?!?  I hope not, and I certainly don't want to do business this way.  We approve the payments, she is supposed to pay the check, period.

Do a job.

Now, apparently, we are in some weird twilight zone where some things we vote to approve are going to have to go through some ridiculous, unnecessary, additional layer of scrutiny in order to be paid in timely fashion--if at all.  And if there is a perceived "problem" with the payment--we aren't going to be told either--it will simply twist in the wind and we'll be blissfully unaware.......

Immature, ridiculous, unnecessary, and uncalled for.

I'll post our attorney's response to this ridiculous hold up, here, once I receive it.  If this payment is not made in timely fashion, I will bring an item to our next meeting to discuss this and every option we have at our disposal (including and not limited to another mandamus filing in the circuit court) to compel the clerk to set aside her hard feelings and do her job and make this payment.

We approve the payments, she writes the check and pays.  It's very basic.

Much more to come on this.