That is the question House Speaker Johnnie Byrd and his attorneys are having trouble answering about a supposedly "nonexistent" computer system.
Published December 6, 2003
For those keeping score, the decision by House Speaker Johnnie Byrd to fire a computer firm hired by his predecessor has now cost Florida taxpayers more than the original contract itself. Hayes Computer Systems contract: $2.9-million. Byrd's open wallet to attorneys and companies that, without competitive bid, took over: $3.1-million.
This milestone passes as the speaker's attorneys are dispatching platoons to fight a lawsuit filed by Hayes in March. When Byrd refused to pay Hayes, the company sued and asked a judge to order immediate payment or the return of its computers. Byrd's attorneys argued that no immediate action was necessary because a quick trial would resolve the issue.
But these days, Broad & Cassel attorneys are scheduling depositions in Seattle, North Carolina and Georgia, and have succeeded in getting the trial delayed until October. At a deposition last month, four Broad & Cassel attorneys were present. And why not? The firm's attorneys bill at $250 an hour. After 10 months, the tab is $579,000 and counting.
At least taxpayers are getting some entertainment for their money. Hayes alleges that its task took longer because programmers were asked, once Byrd took over as speaker last fall, to build a separate computer tracking system that could be viewed only by the speaker's office and would secretly rate legislators on their voting records. As evidence, the Hayes attorneys produced mockup computer screens, sworn testimony and software documentation. They also used the description "political IOUs."
Byrd has responded with a form of calculated denial that would inspire Bill Clinton. Not content merely to object to the loaded term "political IOUs," Byrd insists, against all contrary evidence, that such a computer tracking system doesn't exist. Or, as it turns out, his denial depends on what one means by the word "exist."
Though Byrd has refused to be questioned under oath, he has not been nearly so shy in public. Most recently, he wrote to condemn the Times for "rehashing allegations of a nonexistent tracking system." This, according to the transcript of a sworn deposition of Byrd's chief of staff, P.K. Jameson, is apparently what Byrd meant:
Hayes attorney: There was, in fact, a tracking system, wasn't there?
Jameson: If you mean, as we've talked about, they worked on something. We never received anything - I never received anything that worked. So to the extent that we never received a product that we could use, it is nonexistent in that way.
Hayes: Did you tell him there is no such thing as a tracking system, it doesn't exist?
Jameson: No.
Hayes: So you don't know where he came up with this idea about a nonexistent tracking system?
Jameson: I know that . . . our press secretary referred to it in that way, because I did talk to her about that when I read something. In her mind, nonexistent means it doesn't, because we don't use it, we don't have it - it's nonexistent. . . . That doesn't mean it's nonexisting.
No one wonder Byrd's attorneys are so delighted to bill by the hour.
