Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/15/1998 E (Payment of Pending Invoices for Court Administration) EMERGENCY MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 p.m. in EMERGENCY SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock ABSENT: Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Bob Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #2 PAYMENT OF PENDING INVOICES FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to call to order the meeting -- special meeting of January 15th, if you will all rise, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The reason for this special meeting is the -- is to approve payment of the pending invoices for court administration. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything other than that particular item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. We have a list totaling $98,961.66 that has been submitted to us for consideration by the finance director, and the request is that the board approve these invoices for payment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Can you tell me, are these as of today or what is the cut-off date on this 98,000? Jim, maybe you can -- MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, if I could, for the record, Jim Mitchell, the Director of the Finance and Accounting Department, Clerk of the Circuit Court. The list that you have in front of you is strictly a list of outstanding invoices as of January 7th of 1998. The list that you have does not include the preaudit function. Since that list has been prepared, we've gone back in and done the preaudit. And actually we've discovered certain invoices that may have been in there two times, so the actual dollar amount has come down. And if I could, I would like to provide you with an update -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please. MR. MITCHELL: -- of what's outstanding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey, Jim, how are you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Jim. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Jim. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doubling the payment to Nelson Faerber's firm would be a bad idea. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think they cut it in half. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was thinking about that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey, let's audit it again. MR. MITCHELL: There's -- there's a couple of things on this list that I'd like to point out to you. Since the original list was prepared, we've also gone back in and put in there the date that we actually received the invoices. And in the preaudit function, we've discovered three separate invoices on this list, that even though we have the invoices, they have not passed the preaudit function. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is the preaudit function? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. MR. MITCHELL: The preaudit function is a provision in the state law that requires the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as both the chief financial officer and also the auditor, to ensure that these payments are legal, properly appropriated and that they serve a valid public purpose. Now, part of the problem that we're having is that you -- someone mentioned the payment to the firm of Faerber-Cliff-Perez. That's a contractual payment. Now, that contract was originally entered into in 1995, January 1st of 1995, between the Board of County Commissioners and this firm. It was a one-year deal with an option to extend for 180 days by the county manager. It has been extended, but not by the county manager but by a representative of the court administration. So, our concern, does that represent a legal payment based off of that contract? We don't know. We're in conversation with our attorneys to determine if that is a legal payment or not. So, our recommendation is to withhold payment on that particular invoice, $6,033.33. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So that should come off of this -- MR. HITCHELL: That should come off. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Of the ninety-two seven fourteen? MR. HITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So take that away from -- MR. HITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry I've said anything because Nelson is going to call me tonight but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm going to tell him to. MR. HITCHELL: There's two other ones that are on Page 2 in the far right-hand corner. There's one for Paula J. Rhodes and one for Ronald L. Napier. Both of these counselors have been appointed as special masters by the Chief Judge. The only problem is the -- there's nothing that we can reconcile the feedback to, what they're charging us, $30 an hour, but we can find no agreement that we reconcile back to say that that $30 per hour is an agreed upon amount. So the amount of $126 and also the amount of $300 should also come off of that $92,714.91. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HITCHELL: Other than that, the invoices that -- that are listed here have passed the preaudit function with the exception of the budget. We're here today hoping that you will bless that so we can get these things out as quickly as possible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How quickly do you think you'll be able to issue the checks on these? MR. HITCHELL: Once again, we spent the weekend going through the preaudition function and getting them to the system. I wish I could tell you it's just a matter of hitting a button, but, realistically, I can have them probably available like 10:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hiss Hac'Kie, do you have any -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, just a, I guess, a comment that I'm not going to make my budget speech because I'm as tired of making it as you guys are hearing it, but I do have to say that I'm just disappointed that we find ourselves having to do this in a special meeting instead of -- I think the appropriate reaction to Mr. Hitchell's earlier letter would have been to have scheduled that as a rubber stamp, even a consent agenda item at Tuesday's meeting instead of having to continue to have these emergency meetings. I think that's absurd. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think -- normally, I would agree but I think part of the problem here was the -- the justification for the payment on these. From the list that we had the other day, some of this had not been attended to, so we could have passed that the other day but we may not have had -- it wouldn't have been accurate. So that was my concern and -- and that's the reason that I certainly, as one, held off from doing it at that point in time because we didn't have that justification for this payment. I mean it was a list, granted. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would you send us a list, Mr. Mitchell before the preaudit? MR. MITCHELL: We're just -- I mean, what we want to do is keep this board informed of exactly what's outstanding. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. MR. MITCHELL: Okay? And the process of going through the preaudit is very time consuming. We're starting to push the window on the 45-day period. Our goal was to get this to you. That is what's outstanding. And if you approve that, so be it. If I need to come back to you with changes, I'm more than willing to do that. But one of the things that I would offer to this board, while this -- this issue is being debated in the -- in the courts is that I have no problem with putting a list together, not only a list, but a preaudited list of outstanding obligations on a periodic basis, be it a 30-day basis, a 20-day basis, whatever you prefer, we can do that. And that would probably be the easiest way to handle it, that when I give you a list, it has met all the preaudit requirements. If there's something that doesn't meet the preaudit requirement, it's not on the list. That's what I would offer to you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'd hope we could do that because as long as we're going to continue with this ridiculous approving of a budget after the fact on a monthly basis instead of approving annual budget, I'd like to have some sort of an organized way of going about it. MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think this board needs an assurance that what we're approving has been -- has been approved; I mean, that it's done, everybody has said yes, this is -- we need to have that in writing because we have to be protected, too. So, chairman -- or Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We really have a two-prong approach in front of the us. One is the items that are -- are before us, which have been certified by Court Administrator, Mark Middlebrook, that they are appropriate. They have been preaudited by the Clerk's office so we shouldn't have any problem going ahead with what's in front of us today. The second prong to that which is not specified on the agenda, but I think we need some information on from Mr. Fernandez, is the concept of the long-term solution actually is right around the corner here if it's approved. Let's not forget here that there's a pending action in the courts where the Clerk has sued this board, okay? So, while we're moaning and complaining about being here today, taxpayers' money is being spent unnecessarily in several ways, whether it be by the Clerk or this board or a combination of the two, and this is stupid. This is just ridiculous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we could stop it right -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if I may finish, please? So I'm interested in what Mr. Fernandez has in a -- in the way of a long-term solution that hopefully we'll get agreement from the Clerk on and be done with, and we can stop spending money in a foolish manner and we can make sure that the people get paid in a timely manner, which when we approved our annual budget, we expected that to happen as it had in years past and it hasn't. So, you know, let's just stop the whining and let's get on getting something done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question, I guess maybe for Jim. I don't know who. I hear -- I get calls from people who haven't been paid who say they haven't been paid for months and months. And I know that you have given us everything you have. I'm just wondering where is the system breaking down that there are people who haven't gotten any -- that still haven't gotten paid for work they tell me they did in November. MR. MITCHELL: I understand that and I can't address that question fully because I'm not certain that I understand the full flow of documents coming out of court administration. Because it's my understanding that it starts here, flows to Fort Myers, comes back here and then eventually ends up in the Clerk's office, which is my shop, and by law we have to date stamp everything we receive -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. MITCHELL: -- and when we receive it and that's actually the date that the clock starts ticking on the prompt payment statute. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you. MR. MITCHELL: And if you look on the list of outstanding or preaudited invoices that I provided you, the date that we received it is there. And I brought all the invoices along with me. And there are certain vendors who are correct. They have not been paid for -- for services that were provided in a past period. But the one thing I have to make clear is that those invoices do not hit our shop until either December 22nd or December 23rd. The last time we came before this board was December 22nd and it got to my shop after the fact. So, I could not add it on to the approval that you did on December 22nd. As much as I -- I would have loved to have been able to do that, I didn't have the approval to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think this was a concern I had, that we were -- I think it was -- was it December 22nd or December 21st that we met? It doesn't make any difference. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I couldn't understand how we could accumulate with the holiday period in there, of two major holidays, which were long and I know the courts weren't in section, how we could accumulate some 98,000 or close to $100,000 worth of bills in that period of time. It just doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand that. MR. MITCHELL: Please understand that these bills do date back till October. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're old. MR. MITCHELL: They're old. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, this date on here is actually when it hit your desk. MR. MITCHELL: The date it hit my desk. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we don't know when these bills were incurred. MR. MITCHELL: Oh, I -- I've got the batch here and I can tell you, they do date back to October of 1997. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, I thought, and we asked in December. We said, does this make -- or we aren't to date. In other words, when we approved that amount of money, it was my assumption by the question asked that day that we were current. And, obviously, we were not. MR. MITCHELL: Current from where I stand -- from our position is, has it been received in our -- we -- we're not the ones incurring these obligations. I don't know what's been incurred. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: The only thing that I can attest to is what has been received. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think the misunderstanding, Jim, is when it hit your desk and when it is incurred are two different things. MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this seems to be the big problem though. I mean it's not readily understood by everybody, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe Mr. Middlebrook ought to tell us -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what the process is since we're going to -- because -- because, frankly, the question that I'd like to be able to answer for people who are calling who did work in November is what's the lag time from performance of work to payment if we continue with this system? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, just think, all this discussion is why we have an agreement in the first place in a lump sum contract so that we don't sit up here and review every nickel and dime that the court system pays or spends. That -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the clerk does. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we -- I think we understand it. Mark, would you, please? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court Administrator for the 20th Circuit. How our bills are processed, we receive them either from a vendor directly or from the County Attorney's office if it's a cost motion. If an attorney that is court-appointed, State Attorney or the Public Defender incurs a cost, there is a motion that is generated for payment. It first goes to the County Attorney's office for approval. From there it goes to me for approval. From me it goes to Fort Myers for approval. Then it goes to the judge for signature. And from the judge, it goes to the Clerk's office for payment. It usually takes, from the time it arrives -- and the reason we do that is -- and it's a check and balances, and we have saved the county some money doing it that way because of errors in the motion versus the order where they transposed numbers where we would have paid $11,000 instead of $1100 and so on. Because once the motion is signed by the judge, it's -- it's law. So, if a court-appointed attorney utilizes an investigator in April of 1997, the trial occurs in October of 1997, the bill was received by the attorney in May of 1997, we will not get that motion to our desk probably until the latter part of November of 1997 because it cannot be submitted until after the case is disposed of. It usually -- in -- in normal circumstances, prior to all this refusal to follow what we believe to be a contract, it would take between 21 and 30 days before those people got a check from the date that we receive it, meaning the system. It would take a couple of days within the County Attorney's office. It takes a couple days with me. It gets shipped up overnight to Fort Myers. They review it. The next day it's shipped back to us. It goes to the judge. It takes a couple of days for the judge to review and sign and then right to the Clerk. And the Clerk weekly is cutting -- used to, cut checks weekly for these bills. It was never sitting around for any length of time unless for unforeseen reasons there was a mistake and somebody failed to ship it to one point or the other. But we usually would do 21 to 30 days in a turnaround of payment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, how -- so the October -- I mean how does that -- how did that happen? What -- what broke? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I would have to know what specific bill we're referring to in October. Again, it could be a bill that was submitted to the State Attorney, Public Defender or court-appointed that could not be submitted to us until the disposition of the case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- I really don't know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I don't either. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I -- I'm not sure without seeing the exact bill. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a minute. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Middlebrook, we have your -- your letter here dated on the 14th which says that you've reviewed the court costs, these dated the seventh -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and that they're appropriate. But Mr. Mitchell just a minute ago named off a short list of ones that were not appropriate. I just wonder where is the -- the disparity here. What -- what happened? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They're appropriate to the Court Administrator and to the Chief Judge of this circuit. I'm not sure under whose authority they're deemed inappropriate at this point; however, this was a contract that was let by the county, written, set up for bid and signed for by the Collier County commission. We, on October 1st, 1995, took over responsibility for that contract. We continued with the county's contract and have renewed it. We were going to put them out for bid again, which they would have expired December 31st of this year, 1997. We were going to rebid and have a new contract as of January 1st, but since we can't ensure payment, we do not wish to be in default of a brand new contract with a brand new contractor. Therefore, we have continued with these same people that we have utilized since, I believe, 1994-'95 when the contracts were -- were originally signed. We do not feel that there's any impropriety in utilizing the contract that was originally designed for and by Collier County that we just continued to honor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, it's basically through our contract with you, we assigned those contracts and you've continued to operate. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Exactly. And we have paid -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- up until this time every bill generated by our contractual attorneys that service Collier County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then, perhaps maybe we better have Mr. Mitchell tell us one more time why he feels it's inappropriate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thanks, Mark. Commissioner Hancock, do you have a question for him? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I -- I do want to hear Mr. Mitchell's comments from John -- or Commissioner Norris' question, but I just -- I have to draw what is almost a comical parallel here. The Sheriff's Office has a budget of over $50 million and the ultimate authority to spend within the Sheriff's budget rests with one man, the Sheriff. I have no problem with that. No one has a problem with that apparently. The courts administration, the budget is what? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: $3 million. A local administrator, Mr. Middlebrook, checks it, an administrator in the circuit in Fort Myers checks it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a judge checks it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the Clerk checks it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And here we sit today wondering where the controls are. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Checking it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Checking it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Checking it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is about as stupid as it can get. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you know what the technical is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is a statute for the Sheriff and there is not a statute for courts administration because in reality -- let me just make a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I have to ask if you would stop interrupting me until I've completed at least a thought -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, guys, quit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- just out of courtesy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought you were. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I wasn't. The -- the point being that technical differences don't mean a heck of a lot to the people who are providing the services and the lack of willingness to recognize that is -- is just -- is asinine. So, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Middlebrook says these expenses are good, the judge has signed off on these expenses, the Court Administrator has signed off on these expenses. I don't really need to hear much more. I think that's about all that I need, three checkoffs. That's good for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I had wanted to point out before was, just to add to the level of absurdity here is, you know, the whole Article V fight; that is, the Florida Association of Counties, is one of its top fights. The reality here is that this proves that these are totally inappropriate funds to be expended by the county. These are state obligations. That's why there's no process in place for these. This is Article V money, $3 million, that we're having to make up a process to work because it should be funded by the state. That's the biggest issue here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now you and I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. You still wanted to hear from -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I still wanted to hear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Mr. Mitchell. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- maybe an amplification of the earlier explanation of why these are not appropriate. MR. PIRES: If I may in behalf of Mr. Mitchell in behalf of the Clerk -- for the record, Anthony Pires, Jr. of the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I guess the process, as Mr. Mitchell indicated, there are the -- with regards to the contract, I think Mr. Middlebrook was talking about? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think there are three separate ones that MR. PIRES: There are three separate ones. That particular contract is between the Board of County Commissioners Collier County and the law firm. I know Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned a reference to an assignment. I'm not aware of any assignment of that contract to COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In our contract with the -- I know that you don't like our contract and you think that we need to have a budget in addition or instead of our contract, but is there not language in our contract with the courts that says you take over these functions? There's nothing in there that's even argueably -- MR. PIRES: I don't believe there's an assignment -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- assignment language. MR. PIRES: -- of this contract. Assumption versus assignment, I think, are complete -- two completely -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yeah. MR. PIRES: -- different issues. One of the things, I think, that's important to point out though, I know Mr. Middlebrook addressed a motion cost as being -- and he was trying to say that the turnaround time used to be 21 to 30 days and now it's much longer because of the Clerk performing his preaudit function. But if you see the date that the Clerk received these, are indicated on this list, December 23rd, January 5th of this year, whether the costs were incurred in October, November or December of last year, the Clerk is not involved in the process of routing the various costs motion from the attorneys to the judge to court administration and finally back to the clerk. So, whether it took 21 or 30 days before it hit the Clerk's office, that's outside the control of the Clerk. That's a function of court administration. If it now takes 45 days, that's a function of court administration. One cost though that is not a function of that whole cost motion process is a telephone bill. You'll see on the list, just picking one out on the last page, a Sprint bill for $78.31 that was received December 22nd, 1997. The bill statement date is November 28th, 1997. The Clerk did not receive that until December 22nd, 1997. Payment was due December 18th. So, the court administration did not get it to the Clerk until after it was past due. There's a memorandum from Mr. Mitchell to Mr. Middlebrook earlier in December of 1997 that addressed that same issue. I know issues have been raised about, well, gee, will the phones be cut off because of nonpayment? Well, if payments get to -- payment requests get to the Clerk's office on a timely fashion, they can then provide it to this board on a timely fashion. I think that's important. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, is this answering your question, because I'm -- I'm -- I'm looking for the items that Mr. Mitchell said -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There are three items. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that are not appropriate and why. And this doesn't seem to have a whole heck of a lot to do with that. I understand that you're -- you're -- MR. PIRES: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- answering to statements made by Mr. Middlebrook, but that's really not the question as I understand it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, what are the three? MR. PIRES: Specifically as to the -- Nelson Faerber's contract with the county, we're not aware of any assignment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And three. MR. PIRES: We're not aware of any assignment of that contract to the court administration. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's one. MR. PIRES: Secondly, I think Mr. Mitchell articulated as to Paula Rhodes and Mr. Napier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. PIRES: There is an invoice submitted for charging a fee of $30 per hour, but there's nothing showing that that's what they agreed to charge and that's what court administration agreed would be the fee arrangements. There's no backup for that. I believe that's what Mr. Mitchell indicated. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask you. Is it a fee being charged for court-appointed appearance by those attorneys? MR. PIRES: I think those are special masters is what Mr. Mitchell indicated. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and is the normal course that there would be some fee agreement? Is that what you're looking for? MR. PIRES: I believe that's -- that's correct. Yes. Jim, in all other situations, special masters have written fee agreements? MR. MITCHELL: We've never seen any other special masters. MR. PIRES: Okay. They've never seen any other special masters, but if they had the documentation to show what the fee arrangement is, they could then make sure that's an appropriately -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you have that, Mark? MR. PIRES: -- incurred bill if that would be supplied to them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, isn't it Christine Hissam that does most of the work in the indigent -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She's not with them anymore. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's Cary. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Cary Cliff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just know that they do a lot of work over there -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Cary does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that is basically indigent type work -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that they don't get paid for and the last thing you want to do is stiff somebody whose -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 50 percent of their time is volunteered more or less. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Frankly, this -- this bill for six grand, what are they -- what was their hourly rate on that, Mark? HR. HIDDLEBROOK: It's not an hourly. It's -- it's basically a per case -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It ain't big bucks, I'll tell you that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even worse. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That was for all our dependency. There's roughly a hundred cases a year, so to answer the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What they're saying is that they don't have any backup material to show that these are expenditures that belong in this group or any other group whatsoever. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The special masters. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The general masters. We don't -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, but at the same time, you -- you've said you've reviewed them and found them appropriate so how are we going to reconcile the difference of opinion here? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay. First, they're general masters. They aren't special masters. Second, we put a bid process, an advertising process, that was posted in the -- in the advocate and throughout the courthouse and in Lee County courthouse advertising for a general master paying at $30 per hour, averaging ten to 20 hours biweekly to do Baker Act hearings and other hearings assigned. It was posted throughout this -- this county in areas where lawyers frequent; the law library and so on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The advocate is the county bar newsletter. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. MR. HANALICH: Adverse Witness. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Adverse Witness. As the editor, Ramiro would know that. That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I used to be the editor, Ramiro. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, guys. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: At 3:30 yesterday afternoon, I was in conversation with Mr. Mitchell in Mr. Hitchell's office, who first presented this to me as to why we are paying $30 per hour, how do we know that's what we're to be paying? How do we know we're paying a dollar ninety-five a bottle for water? Because that's what we're billed. But this, beyond that, is -- is a contract with these people that are court-appointed by the Chief Judge through a process, advertising process, which I have not yet been able to deliver to Mr. Mitchell the -- the advertisement that showed $30 an hour is the -- the fee that we will be paying because of all the other items that I've been trying to address today, but we will be getting that to him. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the documentation was basically the order of the Court. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, the order doesn't designate the hourly fee, the advertisement for this position, as it -- in our salaries and so on. When we advertise, we tell them what we're going to pay them. That's where the documentation exists. He just does not have it physically yet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How quickly can you get that to him? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: As soon as I can get out of here and go over there and try and run it over. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So maybe we can approve those on Tuesday. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we have on the record that it exists and, you know, I mean that -- why would we want to string something out until Tuesday? We have it on the record that it exists. It will be provided to Mr. Mitchell. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's not -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me get back in on my line of questioning here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go right ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mitchell, I need to ask you a question now in -- MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on this matter. Concerning the three invoices in question here that you don't feel you have appropriate backup for and our court administrator does feel there is, is it a -- would it be considered an appropriate expenditure if the Board of County Commissioners today finds that it is an appropriate expenditure and then can you therefore go ahead and pay these three invoices? MR. MITCHELL: If I have something to reconcile it back to. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So your answer is no. MR. MITCHELL: Correct. If it represents a legal payment, I will make the payment. Now, the attorney is here, and if he can -- our attorney is here and if he can tell me that it represents a legal payment, then payment will be made. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's hear -- let's hear what he says. MR. PIRES: Going to the last two items first, the one dealing with the general masters, once again, assuming that Mr. Mitchell gets the necessary backup to perform it, it tells from Mr. Middlebrook that it's there in their office but it has not yet been provided to the -- the Clerk's office. Once it's provided -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tony, would the advertising for the position and the -- and the proof of appointment be sufficient? MR. PIRES: Without seeing it all, it's hard to answer, but I assume that that would be sufficient backup. I mean, without seeing the materials, it's kind of like saying do we agree -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. MR. PIRES: -- agree to terms of a five-page contract? As to the other -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you know it's not going to be a contract. You know there's going to be a sign that was posted in the -- on the walls in the courthouse that said, take these cases, biweekly, here's about how many you'll get. We'll pay you 30 bucks an hour, and then something where the judge is saying, we appoint you to this general master job. MR. PIRES: Or the person may have said, I will agree to perform general master -- possibly what happened, that's why I'm just speculating, the attorney may have said, we agree to perform general master duties at the rates quoted in your advertisement. That may be what's there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's not going to be written down. It's going to -- MR. PIRES: No. And it might just be a letter from the attorneys to the Court indicating that which agrees to those terms. That may be sufficient but without seeing it, I don't think we can definitively say that but it may be. As to the issue concerning Nelson Faerber's firm, I still disagree that that contract has been assigned. If the board wishes to take action to assign that contract to court administration, you can look at it from that perspective. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to move that we assign the contract with the firm of -- what's the firm's name now? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Faerber, Cliff and -- MR. PIRES: I believe it expired. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Perez-Benitoa. What -- what is that -- I need some -- I'm not a legalee, so tell me, Mr. Weigel, what does assignment mean? MR. WEIGEL: Well, Mr. -- Mr. Pires noted that there is a difference between assumption of responsibilities and assignment legally. An assignment is in fact -- is the transfer of all of the rights and responsibilities from one entity; that is, a contractual partner to an agreement to some other entity, bearing in mind that the 1995 contract, which is, of course, part of the issue in the lawsuits, is an agreement that doesn't include the party to whom we're assigning these or attempting to assign the rights and responsibilities of a separate contract relationship with the county dating back some period in time. The 1995 agreement with the Chief Judge of the -- of the circuit dating back to '95 does in fact provide for the assumption of responsibilities of the contract to be by and through the -- through the 20th Circuit but it did not provide for an assignment. Now, another thing to keep in mind in regard to assigning responsibilities is that the -- the entity or personal service providers who are being assigned probably would need to approve that assignment of their rights and responsibilities to another entity than Collier County because they did not contract with someone else other than Collier County. I would expect in these cases that the -- Mr. Faerber's firm or the other firms would probably do so very quickly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Going through their performance -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is also an indicator of their assumption. I mean, what we're talking about here is they have assumed the obligation to do the work without having it officially assigned. I think we could just clarify our contract with the Chief Judge to indicate that all contracts for court-related services that were in place at the time of our 1995 contract with the Chief Judge are deemed to, we clarify, to deem them to have been assigned by virtue of that document, then we've cleaned up the back and the going toward. So, that's a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm willing -- I'll second the motion. Does the chair recognize that I think Mr. Pires has something. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Just briefly, just for clarification, the other contract that we're aware of, the contract involved here is Faerber, Hissam, Cliff and Perez-Benitoa. The only other one is Burzynski law office. That's the other -- another contract that's similarly -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually -- MR. PIRES: -- situated. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that's who had been calling me about her guardian -- MR. PIRES: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- payments and stuff so -- MR. PIRES: That -- those are the two that we have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My motion includes those two and any other MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for services. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does this -- this motion includes the authorization of all the expenditures as well? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question. All in favor of the motion? Motion carries four-zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your tax dollars at work. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where do we go from here? Is this -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Home. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for everything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was it, yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything further? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, did you want to give each commissioner individually a brief on -- on a potential solution or did you want to do it now? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. I'll be glad to present it now if you'd like to hear it now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll leave that to the chair's discretion. I just -- I didn't know if we wanted to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've heard it individually and, frankly, I think it might have more hope if it's talked about -- well, it's talked about publicly now, so let's talk about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear it publicly. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're preparing a budget amendment to be added to the agenda for Tuesday's meeting that would amend the budget creating a fund to be named probably Court Administration or something to that effect. The fund will have as a revenue the transfer in from the general fund and that the -- the lump sum amount that we've been talking about of $3 million, and will include on the expenditure side a single line item, Other Contractual Services. We've had preliminary discussions with the Clerk's office about that. They haven't seen anything in writing yet because it hasn't been completed yet. We're in the process of doing that as we speak. Preliminary indications that I've received from the Clerk's office are positive that it appears that it may in fact solve our problem. They did express some concern about whether there's sufficient detail in the contract to allow them to fully perform the preaudit function. If that's the case, that may be remedied by amending the contract. I -- I think that could be acceptable and it doesn't, I think, pull us into the -- the area of direct responsibility or liability that we have been trying to avoid all along. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One thing I don't understand is how -- if we have a -- what are you going to audit against, Jim, if you got one line? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The contract. The contract will be the document that would be the basis for determining whether expenditures are legal or not. MR. MITCHELL: Once -- once again, Jim Mitchell. What -- what -- that the county administrator is talking about is an expenditure line item. It would be a con -- it would be a contractual services, other contractual services single line item expenditure which we'd be able to reconcile back to provisions of a contract. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds wonderful to me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the cleanest way for all this to be wrapped up is for the state to pay its own costs. When that happens, we won't be here talking about this ever again and, hopefully, FAC's involvement will make that happen. Until then, the one thing I would like the public to understand is, at least from my point, my hesitancy to adopt a per-pencil cost, if you will, and include that as a line item for the court system can be summed up in three words; Cracker Barrel murders. Things happen in the court systems every year that may not have been anticipated in the original budget amount, and the courts needs to shift those funds internally throughout the year to meet the demands of court system are key. And we don't want to have to create a system where they have to come back to us every time before they do it, because with all of the checks and balances within the court system, no fewer than four, before a check is ever written is as good as it can get. And -- and until Article V is changed, we're stuck with that expense whether we like it or not. So, I don't want to create an accounting nightmare, number one, isn't necessary where one works against the operation of the court system. So that's all I'm trying to avoid here, and I think Mr. Fernandez' idea, if the Clerk of Courts is agreeable to it, does just that. And I thank you for -- for working on it because I think it makes a lot of sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything further? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing further? The meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE H. WITT, RPR