Escambia County Clerk Pam Childers once again tried to spin the lawsuit over the commissioners’ pension plan that she saved the day by stopping the board from voting on a plan that would have made up for HR not explaining the 401a option to some commissioners and senior managers.
From PNJ: “As the clerk and comptroller, had I not said anything or raised the point of law, they would have voted themselves (more than) $250,000 in back pay,” Childers said.
Childers Fantasy
It didn’t happen. The Board discussed the proposal briefly and then asked the county attorney to get a legal opinion on whether it would be legal.
- Childers didn’t speak up until after the board made that decision and was about to adjourn.
From the transcript, Childers:
Before we close this item, I’d like to say a few things as the comptroller of this county and somebody that holds the checkbook. I have reservation in fulfilling a vote that you would have to back fund a pension.
When Commissioner Jeff Bergosh asked why she didn’t voice her opinion during the board’s discussion, Childers said:
I was going to speak first. I didn’t think it was proper for me to speak first to tell you that I am probably not going to be comfortable if you all vote to that fund-
Somehow this has been spun into Childers stopping it. The board made the decision to seek a legal opinion about the plan without any input from the clerk.
- Commissioners Barry and May later said they would not accept any backpay but wanted to see if it was possible for senior managers that had been misinformed.
Childers later questioned whether the entire 401a plan was legal. She disregarded the legal opinions the county received and refused to ask for an Attorney General’s opinion.
- She stopped making any contributions to the commissioners’ pension plan in January 2022 – which prompted the lawsuit.
The county and clerk may already know, or think they know, what the Florida Legislature intended in 1996 when it adopted Section 121.182 but to date no one in the press has cited a document that “explicitly” authorizes a county government to offer a 401(a) benefit to a county commissioner, or starting in 2005 for municipalities to offer the same benefit to a municipal elected official. If it were widespread, you would have thought the public would have been told. Florida has 67 counties. How many allow its commissioners to enroll in the same or a similar 401(a)? How many municipalities allow all or some employees to enroll in a 401(a) or similar retirement program? By this time, the press has had plenty of opportunity to find out and report the results. Has anyone thought to ask the City of Pensacola if it believes that Section 121.182 authorizes its elected officials (or everyone) to enroll in a 401(a)? If so, why hasn’t it done it? There will be documents in 1996 from the legislative staff, the Department of Management and the Florida Association of Counties. The 2005 and 2011 amendments related to municipalities and so the Florida League of Cities might have described the impact of Section 121.182 to municipalities in its 2005 final legislative report. (The change in 2011 was cosmetic.) The county argues that the fifth sentence in Section 121.182 is unrelated to the very specific benefit described in the first sentence or sentences two, three and four and six that describe how to implement the benefit described in sentence one. At its heart, the Clerk’s position seems to be that sentence five describes an general authorization to implement the benefit described in sentence one. If the county’s interpretation is correct, that Section 121.182 provides two separate benefits one very narrow and one very unlimited, then you would have thought that all of Florida’s counties and all 411 municipalities would offer a 401(a) or similar benefit to “all” county and municipal employees? If the county prevails, let’s hope that all county employees are then allowed to select the 401(a) option vice it only benefiting the top brass.