Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

County will release agreement details at the proper time

Re: Unsettling secrecy, editorial, Jan. 27.

This Times editorial says, "If taxpayers are on the hook to pay a $300,000 settlement to former Pinellas County assistant administrator Rick Dodge, then the public has a right to know why." Change the word "if" to "when" and I would agree.

To know why this case is where it is, all documents would have to be revealed. Florida's evidence code provides that anyone seeking access to courts has a right to an attorney-client privilege and to keep such documents and information free from discovery and scrutiny while a case is in court. I believe Pinellas County citizens have the same rights when they are sued. In fact, premature revelation of certain details of a proposed settlement can wind up costing the taxpayers more money in the long run.

County commissioners recognize that they are subject to unique laws relating to their meetings and their documents in matters that are in litigation. With regard to documents, Florida law provides a screen of records for matters in litigation, "until the conclusion of the litigation." As the Times reported on Jan. 25, County Attorney Susan Churuti said that "it could be several months before remaining sticking points are resolved, at which time the settlement will be made public." It is also possible that these sticking points will not be resolved and the parties will go back into litigation. If all of our attorneys' files are opened up for review, our citizens will be at a distinct disadvantage, as the other side's files are not open.

The law also provides an exemption for public meetings for matters in litigation. In the Dodge case, the commissioners met for several hours in private, outside of the "Sunshine," in order to discuss this case and decide legal strategy. The law requires that a certified court reporter be present to report every word said at these meetings, and that an announcement be made that the shadow meeting is occurring, that a court reporter will be present, and that at the conclusion of the litigation, all transcripts will be made public. At the conclusion of the litigation, they will.

The commissioners would like to resolve the Dodge case and have reached "an agreement to agree," if certain things occur in the next several months. Right now, we don't know whether those contingencies in the agreement will occur, or whether we can resolve this litigation. We have offered the Times to allow a judge to look at the agreement and see if the county is correct. We think a judge will protect the public's interest.

There is no attempt at "secrecy" here. When the settlement is final, every aspect of the settlement agreement and the board discussions on the matter will be available to the public - as is always the case in such matters.

Happy with Medicare change

Over the past few months, I have read all the letters and some editorials complaining about the confusion over the new Medicare prescription drug program. When I received my 2006 Medicare book, I looked at the options available, and found it confusing.

But after I determined that I needed to act, I made a couple of calls to the Medicare-approved providers that are listed in the book, and I enrolled with a provider. I now have an enhanced Medicare program, the same doctor and a prescription plan that will cost me a little under $1,200 per year compared to $4,800 - all of this at no premium.

I am very happy with the change. I feel confident that those who are complaining have not taken the time to make a call or two.

Savings are far from certain

I, like many others, am disappointed in the new Medicare drug provision program for the many reasons stated in letters to th e Times. But I was especially astonished by the Jan. 19 letter speaking of the "positive side" of the legislation. The writers are already claiming they will save more than $2,700 for the husband and wife when the year has just begun. Don't they realize that they do not know what drugs they may need later in the year - which may not be covered by their plan - and that their provider can change coverage of any drugs with just a 60-day notice? They better not count their "savings" before the end of the year!

The val/sal situation

Re: A perfect storm in classroom, Jan. 26.

For the record, I want to clarify my position on the val/sal situation. When asked by a reporter how I felt about dropping the val/sal program, I honestly said that I thought that was a good idea. I can only use our own experience as a reference point, but I can also imagine how other top students that year must have felt. Wouldn't it have been better if the top 5 percent of the students were recognized? Believe it or not it does indeed help with colleges and scholarships. I disagree that this would take away the competitiveness that creates excellence. Students will still strive to reach the top 5 percent, not only because of the rewards, but also because many students just have the motivation to excel. Plus this would enable students to take courses they want to take that may not be weighted.

The central theme of my interview was that all middle schools do not offer the same classes so it is unfair in my opinion to use those grades to determine class rank. I would like to see the playing field leveled at each high school.

Our family never expected our daughter to be valedictorian. We knew by her sophomore year that her choice of middle school (which we were delighted with), and also some other class choices she made would likely disqualify her from valedictorian. My exact quote (which was not used) was that we were just happy she was salutatorian, because for a while it didn't look like even that was going to happen. And yes, that is hard (at the time) when you do watch your child work very hard. But that is also life, and life isn't always fair. However, our family never once complained, nor took up any matters with the School Board. My daughter would say that's just the way it is.

Ultimately our daughter got into Harvard, is doing very well, and honestly hasn't thought about val/sal until the reporter called up. Although the paper would lead the readers to believe we are still bitter and thinking about this, we are not. Instead we are grateful for the education and experiences our daughter had going through the Pinellas County school system, and we thank all of her teachers from the bottom of our heart.

It's a matter of patriotism

Re: Voting, with a side of worms, Jan. 25.

The owners of any bait and tackle shops or gun shops who are not willing to help with voter registration should not be surprised if they find business walking away from them due to their sorry unpatriotic views.

They are shutting out the very folks who keep them in business, and they are - even if they don't know it - helping the animal rights wackos and the fruitcake environmentalists drive them right out of business. Shame on them!

Rick Mallett, Glen St. Mary

[Last modified January 31, 2006, 15:21:50]