Loading...
Agenda 03/24/2009 Item #12A Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 1 of 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney as to whether (1) the Board wishes to continue to trial, or (2) authorize the County Attorney to contact the Clerk's attorneys to see whether the Clerk is willing to enter into a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of the remaining claims of both parties, in the litigation styled Collier County v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, and to announce a Notice of Closed Attorney-Client Session (Shade Session) for April 14, 2009. OBJECTIVE: To receive Board direction in the litigation styled Collier County v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-CA. ~ CONSIDERATIONS: This case was initiated in 2007 after the Clerk claimed entitlement to interest earned on County funds as "income to his office" under Fla. Stat. ~ 28.33. After the Circuit Court ruled in the County's favor after summary judgment, the Clerk appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal. The Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court, holding that interest earned on County funds invested by the Clerk is income to the office of the Clerk and can be used by the Clerk without authorization of the Board of County Commissioners. The County requested a rehearing of this decision or, in the alternative, that the case be certified to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance. These requests were denied by the Court of Appeal in a March 12,2009 Order. Copies of these Orders are attached. Unless this Board wishes to continue to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, which we will discuss at the beginning of this item, the Second DCA's decision resolves the interest issue. There are, however, several counterclaims of the Clerk and one claim by the County that remain to be tried. These claims are still pending before the Circuit Court and have been set by Judge Thompson for a three-week trial period beginning .June I, 2009. The remaining counts in the lawsuit are summarized as fo 1I0ws: The remaining issues in the County's lawsuit: I. The County contends the Clerk was a Budget Officer prior to the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year, and hence, unlawfully amended his budget by over $1 million "'~thout a statutorily required budget amendment. The remaining issues in the Clerk's Counterclaims against the County: I. The Clerk wants the release of $5,855,600.00 to the Clerk that was in the BCC's approved and adopted budget for 2007 - 2008. - 2. The Clerk claims the County has refused to pay an annual invoice in the amount of$5,341,522.70 for services to the Board performed by the Clerk in Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008. Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 2 of 18 My understanding is that the two primary questions this Board wanted answered in the Clerk litigations were whether the Clerk has post-audit powers and whether the Clerk is entitled to utilize the interest earned on County surplus revenue as income to the Clerk. We have a decision with respect to the interest question, and the post-audit question is awaiting a decision on appeal. The only County claim remaining is whether the Clerk acted improperly while he was still a Budget Officer in utilizing over $1,000,000 in County funds without first amending his budget. The question before this Board is whether the Board wishes to pursue this claim. If so, then this Office will prepare for trial. As an alternative to pursuing this claim to trial, the Board could authorize the County Attorney to contact the Clerk's attorneys to inquire whether the Clerk is willing to enter into a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of the remaining claims of both parties. If the Clerk agrees to this offer, then the only issue left to be decided is the issue currently on appeal involving whether the Clerk has post-audit powers. Given statutory deadlines, I need to discuss at this meeting whether this Board wishes to appeal this issue to the Supreme Court. The other issues set forth in this Executive Summary can wait two weeks. If the Board wishes to conduct these discussion in the Shade, or if the Board directs the County Attorney to approach the Clerk and the Clerk is unwilling to enter into this stipulation, then by this Executive Summary I am also giving public notice of a Shade Session, to be held at the April 14th meeting, for the purpose of discussing various litigation and settlement strategies. This Executive Summary is limited to the remaining few claims left to be tried, and does not concern the successful ruling on the audit issue which the Clerk has appealed. FISCAL IMP ACT: Further litigation costs for both sides will terminate if this case is dismissed. If this case goes to trial, based on the past history of this litigation, I would expect that the combined additional litigation costs incurred by both parties will likely exceed $ 100,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDA nON: To be provided during discussion of this item. PREPARED BY: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 2 Page I of I Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 3 of 18 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 12A Meeting Date: Request that the Board of County Commissioners provides direction to the County Attorney as to whether (1) the Board wishes to continue to trial. or (2) authorizes the County Attorney to contact the Clerk's attorneys to see whether the Clerk is willing to enter into a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of the remaining claims of both parties, in the litigation styled Collier County v. DWight E. Brock. Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-CA now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, and to announce a Notice of Closed Attorney-Client Session (Shade Session) for April 14, 2009. 3/24/2009 900:00 AM Prepared By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 3/17/20092:32:19 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 3/17/20093:50 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 3/17/2009 5:08 PM A pproved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 3/18/2009 4:25 PM NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of the ) Circuit Court of Collier County, ) ) Appellant, ) ) ~ ) ) BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER ) COUNTY, on behalf of Collier County, ) a political subdivision of the State of ) F~rida, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed January 30, 2009. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Jack E. Lundy, Acting Circuit Judge. Thomas R. Grady of Thomas R. Grady, P.A., of Counsel-Ackerman, Link & Sartory, PA, and Richard J. Brener of Ackerman, Link & Sartory, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Jacqueline Williams Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney, Naples, and Theodore L. Tripp, Fort Myers, for Appellee. Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 4 of 18 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT Case No. 2D08-3126 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 5 of 18 KELLY, Judge. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, appeals from the order of the trial court granting partial final judgment in favor of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, on behalf of Collier County, on a claim for declaratory relief. 1 Collier County sought and obtained a declaration that interest earned on county funds invested by the Clerk was not income to the office of the Clerk and could not be used by the Clerk without the authorization of the Board of County Commissioners, We reverse. At issue in this case is whether the Clerk of the Court is statutorily authorized to claim as income interest earned on funds that the Clerk, as custodian of county funds, has invested on the county's behalf. Section 28.33, Florida Statutes (2007), states: The clerk of the circuit court in each county shall invest county funds in excess of those required to meet expenses as provided in s. 218.415, . . . Except for interest earned on moneys deposited in the registry of the court, all interest accruing from moneys deposited shall be deemed income of the office of the clerk of the circuit court investing such moneys and shall be deposited in the same account as the other fees and commissions of the clerk's office. The plain language of section 28.33 provides that the interest earned on money invested by the Clerk "shall be deemed income of the office of the clerk" and "shall be deposited in the same account as are other fees and commissions of the clerk's office." 'Collier County's complaint asserted a variety of claims against the Clerk. This appeal is limited to the claim for declaratory relief asserted in count three of the County's amended complaint. - 2- Agenda Item No. 12A March 24. 2009 Page 6 of 18 J.fl The County nevertheless contends that the interest is "County money" and that the Clerk has no authority to use that money without the Board's approval. The County cites no statutory or other authority that convinces us that the statute means anything other than what it plainly says, which is that the interest is income to the Clerk. Section 28.33 does not impose any restrictions on how the Clerk may use this income, and again, the County has not directed our attention to any statutory or other authority that does. In fact, the County at least implicitly acknowledges that section 28.33 means what it says because its arguments in defense of the trial court's construction of that provision consist largely of attacks on its validity. The County did not, however, ask the trial court to invalidate the statute, but simply to declare its meaning. In arguing that we should affirm the trial court, the County asks us to read the statute in a manner that the language simply will not bear. When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning, there is no need to resort to the rules of statutory construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning. M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90, 101 (Fla. 2000). Section 28.33 is such a clear and unambiguous statute. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of the Clerk. Reversed and remanded. AL TEN BERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. - 3- Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STA E OF FLORIDl6i>ge 7 of 18 SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELA 0, FL 33802-0327 March 12, 2009 CAS NO.: 2008-3126 L.T. 0.: 07-1056-CA Dwight Brock, Clerk Of Collier Co. Circuit Court v. Board Of C unty Comm. Of Collier C unty, FI [;;t ~ C1 ~ cr Ap ellee I Respondent~. S; ~. .;;- ;3 if? :b.'~ :t,. ---; ~ :~.Q '_ ,->'f Appellee Collier County's motion for rehearing is de ied. il?jt Appellee Collier County's motion for certification to t e Florida Supreme .:[1 Court is denied. The "motion for leave for the Florida Association of ounties, Inc. and The Florida Association of County Attorneys, Inc.", to appear as mici curiae in support of Collier County and to join in Collier County's motions for r hearing and to certify a question of Great Public Importance to the Supreme Court f Florida is denied. Collier County's notice of supplemental authority in upport of its motion for rehearing and motion for certification to the Florida Suprem Court is stricken. Appellant, Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Cou of Collier County's motion to strike appellee Collier County's notice of supplem ntal authority in support of its motion for rehearing and motion for certification to the lorida Supreme Court is granted. Appellant I Petitioner(s), BY ORDER OF THE COURT: I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true cop of the original court order. Served: Richard J. Brener, Esq. Herbert W.A. Thiele, Director Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Jacqueline Williams Hubbar , Esq. Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., Esq. Virginia Saunders Delegal, sq. pm AL :-<"(:()1116>'", J'~':/~"'P/.~"'\ r;:":;./ t.I'lhr.) "-';t\ ,,'It ,.;~ '" J"'" /'0.,1 'l~j, n' "" ..... ,~,...."'-' ;..-i ~jlttl0it~! ,..I;:.......~.--.:...'~"..../'\-/.' ..~ ~~- --..--..... ~'i... "< QFfl.g. "'-----'" Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 8 of 18 February 10,2009 question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, forgive me. But I've still got concerns about all this, and I talked with Mr. Mudd about it several times. And I'm hoping in the vel)' near future I'll get a tour of all the county complexes to be able to see exactly what we have. But with 22 percent of our people laid off, it seems like we could consolidate what workforce we have and come up with enough room to make it operate. I never -- I've heard that it's not possible, but I still haven't been convinced. And I need to share that with you. I'm not saying this is a bad deal. I'm just saying that I do have concerns. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Continue, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And how about our county attorney? MR. KLA TZKOW: I have one item. It's a rather large one. The -- I want to talk a bit about the decision that came down on the clerk's case. As you know, the District Court of Appeals has come down reversing the trial judge. And the District Court of Appeals is saying that the clerk is entitled to the interest on the surplus funds that the county has; in other words, the amount that he's investing for you, the interest received on that is deemed to be income for the clerk. I learned about this decision, curiously enough, from a phone call from the Florida Association of County (sic) attorneys, Ginger de LaGalle (phonetic), who was horrified by the decision and wanted to know what we were going to do about it and offered, frankly, to get her organization to help us get to the Florida Supreme Court on this, because this has statewide implications. We have the ability to file a petition with the second circuit asking basically two things. One's for a rehearing of the decision. They'll deny that. The other one will be for them to certifY this as a matter of great state importance so that if they were to do that, we Page 254 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 9 of 18 February 10,2009 could then petition the Supreme Court to ask them if they want to look at this. The substantial probability is they're going to say no to that either way; however, it's a very minimal cost to do this, and the potential is to get the issue to the Florida Supreme Court, Now, the advantage of getting this in front of the Florida Supreme Court is, one, you may get a reversal but, two, even if the Florida Supreme Court affirms the decision, Tallahassee's now aware of this decision. They're more likely, from a legislative standpoint, if they're bothered by this, to make a change rather than just stay the district court opinion. We would probably get notice from the second circuit within 30 days of our application, and so I'd be able to come, you know, in a couple weeks and let you know what's going on. If the second court denied our motion, which is a substantial probability, at that point in time, I'd probably come to you, ask for a shade session so we can discuss settlement in the clerk's case. So this is really the last piece of it that's active right now that we have to make a decision on. I don't want to go forward without board direction on this. Jackie's already done pretty much all the work. Florida Association of Counties' attorneys, at this point in time my understanding is they're willing to help us with a brief in support of this. I need to let them know, because I think Friday is the day we're going to be filing, and their last day, I think, would be Tuesday to do that, but they would also intend to file Friday. It's just a quick time to turn around. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know the fee to file a petition in the Supreme Court is $300. That's what they have online. That's the only thing I know about the fiscal impact. So what is the fiscal impact to taxpayers? Page 255 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24. 2009 Page 10 of 18 February 10,2009 MR. KLA TZKOW: I would have Jackie do the paperwork so that there'd be no outside counsel on this. It would be Jackie's time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think I need to make you aware of where I stand on this thing pretty quickly. I think it's a bad decision. It means that taxpayers' money is going to be spent by someone who doesn't have to get approval for expenditure and doesn't really have any oversight. But the point is that I have said from the vel)' beginning, if we get a court decision, I'm going to accept it and abide by it. As bad as it might be, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further, okay? I've had it. We've spent enough time and enough money on this, and-- although I think it is wrong, but nevertheless, that's the way it's going to be. If the Court tells me that I've got to release millions of dollars to someone to spend taxpayer money without any accountability and without any approvals, then that's what I'm going to do. And I'll probably tl)' to get some audits from time to time to find out what's going to be going on -- what's being done with it, but I'm not sure we'll ever get that from the clerk. But in any event, I'm finished with it, okay? I'm through. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I wasn't quite done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know that -- I mean, the law's pretty clear that whatever the clerk in this case doesn't use for his office, he's to return it to the Board of County Commissioners. County manager budgeted those monies, and it's anticipated on a monthly basis; is that a fair statement? MR. MUDD: No, sir. I -- the clerk's particular budget -- there is no budget for the clerk in our -- in our approved budget because he claimed to be a fee officer. Page 256 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 11 of 18 February 10,2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But the law says whatever funds he has left over -- and it's just like the Tax Collector-- he's to turn over to the Board of Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNrNG: And my question is, were you -- on the interest money, you were anticipating it and trying to get that back at each month, if I'm -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's what the board's resolution that had passed in September of 2007 had stated. The issue now -- and oh, by the way, in your budget, clerk's interest on the budget that you passed was projected to be $20 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So Madam Chair, if you don't mind, why don't you allow me to work with the County Attorney's Office and the clerk to see if we can get payments on a monthly basis. CHAIRMAN FIALA: First ofall-- I'm sorry if I stepped in front of you. Back in 2002 when we had -- when the clerk was a budget officer -- and he was a budget officer for as long as I can remember way back when and always was before this clerk was in office -- and I said -- he came to my office and he said, you ought to put your interest money with me. So I said, great. So I brought it to everybody's attention at that board meeting and said, let's put our interest money with the Clerk of Courts. And, of course, the main concern was, will we get our interest money back, not only the interest, but the interest on the interest money, because we need it for other things, especially in these down times when we're trying to keep our employees working. We need that money desperately. And he said, you'll get every single cent of your money back, and with that, we all voted for it. Now, all of a sudden, it's legal for him to take our money and, by Page 257 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 12 of 18 February ]0,2009 the way, he doesn't have to account for it. He can spend it on suing our pants off all the time, and that's perfectly okay, and it just bothers me tremendously. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I, myself, am in favor of joining with the Florida Association of Counties to pursue this to the utmost. I feel that, contrary to what's been published in the newspaper, I believe that the Board of County Commissioners in any county have the final say in regards to monies and how they are spent. And I feel that I want to pursue this until the final straw. So that's where I stand on this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I couldn't agree more. I think that we need to bring resolution to this. And this is something that will have a clear path. And once it gets there, it's the end results. There's nothing that can happen after that? MS. HUBBARD: Well, where we are right now -- the end of the road is the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. If the Florida Supreme Court accepts the appeal, then that's it. If the Florida Supreme Court does not accept the appeal, that's also it. But the rules of appellate procedure permit the county in this case to file a notice for a rehearing and also to file a petition, our motion for certification, to the Florida Supreme Court. At that point, which is pretty much strictly procedural, it's over. It's -- as far as this case is, and then you know exactly what the law is. You've taken it as far as it will go, and that is the law that's going to be until such time as some other incident arises. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm for proceeding. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle, then me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, it's my understanding -- and correct me in am wrong -- but the appeal that was -- the ruling came Page 258 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 13 of 18 February 10,2009 down on, that appeal was put in by the Clerk of the Courts; is that correct? MS. HUBBARD: That's correct. The entire litigation matter was instigated by the clerk, not the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So why didn't the county get involved in this, or is it strictly the clerk's side of the proceedings? MS. HUBBARD: No. Both parties were involved in the appeal. The county filed a brief -- the clerk filed his brief first, the county filed a brief in opposition, the clerk filed a responsive brief to our brief. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. HUBBARD: Then the clerk requested expedited appeal. We had oral argument on December 2. And, as you know, the ruling came down on January 29th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. HUBBARD: And really, the only thing left to do, if you vote to continue, is to file additional legal writings with the Court. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I hope that we -- that the-- what I hope that we gain out of this process is that someone tells us who has the utmost authority, the Board of County Commissioners or the Clerk of Courts. That's what I want to find out, okay? MS. HUBBARD: I understand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they've already told us. It's the clerk. But nevertheless. I do applaud the three members of the commission who want to proceed with this, and I don't blame you. The problem is, that unless we get some other counties in Florida to express concerns about this, it's not going to go anywhere. Nobody's going to care about it, and it-- now, I've been told that it's not likely anybody else is going to get involved in it because nobody else has a clerk like we have. MR. KLATZKOW: No. MS. HUBBARD: Well, they're -- well, go ahead. Page 259 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24. 2009 Page 14 of 18 February 10, 2009 MR. KLA TZKOW: The Florida Association of County attorneys are going to be filing a brief in support of this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, big deal. MS. HUBBARD: Plus Herb -- plus their county, Herb Teal (phonetic), his county. MR. KLATZKOW: Leon County. MS. HUBBARD: Leon County's filing -- wishes to file an amicus brief also. So you have two entities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are the only ones that are interested in doing anything? MS. HUBBARD: Well, the opinion is just starting to go around the state. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how long do we have before we make a decision? MR. KLA TZKOW: We have to file by Friday. It's a very -- it's MS. HUBBARD: It's a short process. MR. KLA TZKOW: It's a very short process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I can understand why you want to do that. But it's absolutely critical if we're going to get any attention from anybody to get more counties involved in this. Now, I want you to explain to me again, why are the other counties not so concerned about this? MS. HUBBARD: Well, if I may, we did a survey in the past week after the opinion came down, and what we found out was that of the 67 counties in the State of Florida, 57 ofthose counties utilize the clerk for their investments. Ten counties do not. The -- both Jeff and I participated in a conference call. The import of this decision is just starting to move around the state. Of those 57 counties, some of them are charter counties, some of them are not that, use the clerk to handle their investments. Page 260 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 15 of 18 February 10,2009 We spoke to quite a few of those counties in compiling this list. Apparently some clerks feel that they don't have a lot of surplus funds, so it's not a major issue to them. It's going to be an issue, it seems to me, to the counties in which they do have substantial surplus funds, which we don't know which counties do and which counties don't, and we don't know -- we have copies of all the charters, but we don't really know whether or not there are ordinances that prevent the clerk from taking the interest in all of these counties or whether each charter county prevents the kind of problem that we have. That analysis has really not been completed, and I think people around the state are just beginning to look at that issue. So it's a new issue. It does have some room for argument that the opinion was incorrect. And the briefs are pretty much prepared. We do have at least two amicus people who are going to petition the court to file briefs in support of our position. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- all right. It looks like we've got a majority that want to proceed, so I'm not going to try to talk them out of it. I encourage them to proceed. But the other issue I want to make absolutely clear -- and I believe, based upon past comments by other members of the board, most of the members of the board agree with this statement -- this has absolutely nothing to do with trying to limit the clerk's ability to properly audit funds or the expenditure of money in Collier County. If the clerk walked through the door in the next five minutes and gave this board reason to believe that there was something wrong in some department, there was something wrong with some contract and he felt it needed to be audited, I would vote to give him the money to do it, okay. So this has absolutely nothing to do with the clerk's ability to audit. The point is, he has never once, in the seven years I've been here, come before this commission and said, I think we have a problem. I think we ought to audit somebody or some department or some fund. Page 261 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 16 of 18 February 10, 2009 I've never heard that from the clerk. And so for people to allege that we're doing this because we want to restrict the clerk's ability to perform valid audits is absolutely -- is a distortion of the facts, okay. But nevertheless, that's my position, and I applaud the majority of the board for proceeding. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good luck. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I'd like to ask, how many of the clerks around the State of Florida, 67 counties, how many are actually budget officers and how many are fee officers? MR. KLA TZKOW: We believe that pretty much all are budget officers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, with this decision, they may be doing the calculus in their head, are they better off as a fee officer or budget officer. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would think that the other counties would get pretty nervous. And when they see that their interest dollars have wings on it and they can't even ask for any accounting, I would guess a lot of people are going to be very nervous. And I liken it to a bank. When I take my money to a bank and it earns interest, I expect to be able to get my interest when I want it. I don't expect the bank to say, well, you know what, we've had a lot of extra expenses, so I'm going to -- I'm going to take your money and, really, I don't have to tell you where I'm spending it. Anyway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what it is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me. So is that all? You've got some direction from us. MR. KLATZKOW: That's all, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three people that said please move forward, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Page 262 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24, 2009 Page 17 of 18 February 10,2009 Coletta. Thank you very much. MS. HUBBARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have -- yes, I do have something very quick. I had a constituent come talk with me within the past week. I hope he's gone to the county manager to get on the schedule for public petition. It has to do with Mr. Thompson. Okay. So I'm told that it is -- is going to be on a public petition. And I want to tell you where this -- I think what I'm going to do. I'd like to ask the county manager to get me a report from all of the appropriate agencies listing the times that Mr. Thompson has called the police department, the fire department, the EMS, the code enforcement people, anybody who goes out to his property and spends their time listening to his stories, because I would like to have this board investigate charging him a fee that covers the cost of the time wasted by our staff, the sheriffs staff, anybody else's staff, in going out on these wild goose chases. I saw a list of calls for one day. For one day there were 25 calls, and there were police officers who were out there, there were code enforcement people who were out there, you know. It just goes on and on and on. It doesn't ever stop. And the only way I think we're going to stop this is to charge Mr. Thompson a fee for wasting the time of our personnel. We are having a difficult budget time, and we need to take some action about this. This has been going on for the seven years I've been on this commission. He's come here hundreds of times, and that's only -- and he's talked with the staff more than he's talked with us. So we've got to take some action about this. We just can't pennit this to continue. He harasses everybody in the neighborhood about something. MR. MUDD: Two years. Commissioner, you're making a request for two years? You don't want to go any deeper than two Page 263 Agenda Item No. 12A March 24. 2009 Page 18 of 18 NOTICE OF CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the Commission conference room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager James Mudd, County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief Jacqueline Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement negotiations in the pending litigation case of Board of Countv Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock. Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1 056-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DONNA FIALA, CHAIR DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK by: Isl Patricia L. Morgan Deputy Clerk (SEAL)