The headline reads “Florida’s 66 county clerks back Pam Childers in Escambia County retirement plan lawsuit.”
Gosh, all the county clerks believe Childers was right to declare the 401(a) retirement plan for the county commissioners and senior staff and support her cutting the contributions to the fund. That’s amazing considering the state association refused to back Childers when she wanted the state legislature to take up the issue.
But – and there’s always a but at the daily – you have to read further. Buried in the article is this sentence:
“FCCC’s legal brief did not address the legality of the county’s 401(a) program.”
Someone’s bias is showing again.
Jim Little’s reporting of yesterday’s hearing on the question of who gets to sue whom per the 401A did a good job of making some things clear that his previous reporting didn’t–namely, that the contribution amount between the FRS and the 401a are the same, and that the eventual legal questions have nothing to do with public opinion on the 401A yielding such high amounts in distinction to the FRS.
It continues to blow my mind that otherwise intelligent people seem to be pridefully ignorant of what this shows–which is just how horribly the State FRS is managed (no shock there), as opposed to a local County fund.
So the same people who are always screaming about government mismanagement conveniently disregard the fact that it’s the exact same taxpayer contribution amount, with the state fund sucking away gross amounts of taxpayer money as overhead. In addition, I hope it becomes clear the terms of the 401A payout, as my understanding, which could be wrong, is that it’s a one-time payout rather than lifetime. (My beef with the 401A is not the high return, but that ii that it should be made available to EVERY employee of the County enrolled in such programs, and not just the bureaucratic elites and elected officials.)
Jim also finally reported correctly that the lose-lose the clerk has herself in is the following: she either loses the suit, or wins it and can therefore be deemed liable–even criminally–for doling it out in the first place. Jim paraphrases Ed Fleming’s legal argument against that reality as the following:
“Fleming also hit back on the argument that Childers audited every payment then suddenly changed her determination on the legality of payment saying it amounted to an argument that if the first illegal payment wasn’t caught, then they can continue forever.”
He then quotes Mr. Fleming directly: “That’s an argument that never worked with my mom, and I don’t think it works with the court.”
Nice try. But that’s not at all what BOCC attorney Bill Cash stated. He didn’t say “once the Clerk comes to believe that she screwed up royally by issuing illegal payment, she should have just continued making the illegal payments for all time.” He instead referenced the law that holds the Clerk personally responsible for such errors, which to the best of my understanding can even reach the level of a misdemeanor.
My mom used to tell me I couldn’t have my cake and eat it too, which is what Mr. Fleming seems to be arguing–that Pam should be absolved of any responsibility for her gross incompetence if the payments are found to have been illegal (doubtful, but I’ve seen worse verdicts handed down), and that simply admitting the error she perceives herself to have made clears up her own negligence in performing the most important function of her job. That argument didn’t hold up with my mom, but she tended to be pretty immune to sophistry. We’ll see if it holds up in court.
Finally, at some point, people need to be asking themselves what Jim’s beef with the May family is, and what is driving his incredibly biased reporting on anything touching the family. What is driving that? If he’s being pushed to do that by the editors or the Downtown Developers’ other bagmen, he should really realize that it’s his pen in the end. I’m shocked at how he reported the “incident” in the hallway, and even worse linked to his own previous article, while failing to acknowledge that there was never a SINGLE stitch of evidence that it had taken place, at all. Just the most dangerous sort of hearsay, coming from a woman who claims she has emails she doesn’t have and then writes herself emails to try to fill the gap when she’s busted on it.
Jim, really, this slant against the May family is looking pretty bad. I hope you’ll rethink, as you are privy to black and white information that you’ve never reported that would of course put some of your previous reporting in a whole different light. Perhaps it’s time for an injection of integrity on that note, because people are starting to read in to motives that I doubt are at the heart of your apparent and continual bias as with finding any angle you can against a family trying to keep it on the high road while dealing with a member who has some very serious issues.
Her grandstanding at the meeting this morning was so over the top and so pathetic at the same time that it gave me a deep pang of sadness. I wish the clock could turn back to the days when I believed Ms. Childers was a highly ethical officer who seemed competent and no-nonsense. :( Of course, at that time I wasn’t aware that her wild opining had resulted in the Fish House debacle, among other things, and her long history of ineptitude and bad decisions papered over like a 5-year old’s giftwrap job.
Gotta hand it to her, even when she is flailing she still manages to drop my jaw with her audacity and egocentric gaslighting, offering “advice” dripping the typical overweening and pretentious tone–what was it? “Let me try to help you out.” You’ve got to be kidding.
The only thing even more ridiculous was when Doug took up time during the Commissioner’s Forum blathering about the 401a with all the old tired talking points, so obviously trying to deflect the attention from his own impending decision on his probable cause findings from the State Ethics Committee, which the AG’s attorney did such a thorough job of laying out in her prosecution. Tick-tock.
I wonder if, in her heart of hearts, Pam realizes just how wrong that turn at Albuquerque was, having ended up with Doug Underhill as her knight in shining armor. Water finds its level, I guess, and liars typically end up in the same depths. Sure are a whole mess of them finding each other there.