Let's put this to rest.
The Commissioners and our insurance company settled a potentially very expensive lawsuit against our county. It was the decision of the insurance company and the Commissioners that settlement was best for the county. In potential litigation the Commissioners as the Executives of the County and named as the lidagants have to act in the best interest of the people of the county.
The amount is approximately 10k that was taken out of the probation fund. It was to cover the taxes on the settlement. That amount has been replaced in probations account. The process that we followed to complete these transactions was completed after consulting with the State Board of Accounts. Since part of the settlement was back pay it had to come from the account that is was initially allocated. It is true that now the probation office has to come to the council and ask the money be reallocated. Not our rules, just state statute.
This was totally an over reaction by the judges and the probation department that is controlled by the judges. They ask why they were not consulted. That is simple, none of the judges or probation were named in the lidigation. We receive lawsuits against the county weekly and we do not consult every department head.
The judges and probation office say that Indiana is a right to work state and that they can fire someone for no reason. This is true but, that does not stop an employee that is terminated from taking action for wrongful termination or unemployment claims. Personally, I am tired of the way that some individuals have absolutely no regards for their employees and treat them as disposable.
There is absolutely nothing underhanded going on here. Since litigation such as this is bound by a confidentiality agreement I can not go into details.
Once again this all is an over reaction and Clark County politics at its best.
10k taken out for the "taxes on the settlement"????? just what kind of taxes would this be???
ReplyDeleteI just have one question for Mr. Stephenson... since this is "potential litigation" not an actual lawsuit...Why would it be "bound by a confidentiality agreement."
ReplyDeleteMr. Stephenson, can you answer me this, I can only assume it was Ms.Knobel that was paid the money as she was the only person fired from the drug court issue. How can the County county Commissioner Attorney be apart of this or give the commisioners advice when she represented Ms. Kobel in the first place... Is that not conflict of intrest...
ReplyDeleteA hypothetical discussion:
ReplyDeleteLet's examine a potential sequence of events
in a purely hypothetical drama.
$100,000 ?
Let us say that there is an explanation by the government
in a a hypothetical situation
and it is "a limited hang out."
In an imaginary situation, the disclosure and reasoning
might be possibly very specious and incomplete.
In a hypothetical and purely symbolic situation,
could an "off the radar" cash settlement occur
with a significant financial award
being given to one of the persons whom have alleged
that they were illegally detained and whom are claiming in pending legal proceedings that they were allegedly illegally arrested and allegedly illegally incarcerated for a period of time without correct due process?
Or, in our purely hypothetical dramatic example,
was a significant financial award
made by a governmental entity to a person
whom was alleged in court filings to have been involved with or allegedly COMMITTED
under the color of authority
the alleged actions of arrest and detention?
If we are to examine a purely hypothetical situation,
was a person given money because they were allegedly illegally detained?
Or was a person who allegedly committed illegal detentions given money?
In our purely hypothetical discussion,
there seems to be a SIGNIFICANT question raised
for an intelligent and transparent discussion.
Hmmmm....
The difference would seem to rather important.
Hypothetically.
There still are questions. Hopefully solved during executive session.
ReplyDeleteThe "executive session" dodge BS is a farce.
ReplyDeleteIn our "hypothetical example"
did the 'alleged VICTIMS' get secretly paid
a lot of cash by county government?
Or did the 'alleged PERPETRATORS' a.k.a. alleged "political pals"
get secretly paid a lot of cash by county government?
Hoosier Taxpayer and the Bat Blog
and their dedicated journalism have responsibly
asked the correct questions.
This is a big scandal brewing.
Bunch of conspiracy theorists. Not helpful.
DeleteAnother hypothetical question,
DeleteShould an attorney be allowed to represent a client that has a potential or pending lawsuit against that same attorney's employer?
Like the previous anonymous asked, didn't the current county attorney represent an individual fired by a county official!
ReplyDeleteWas the current county attorney part of the negotiations and settlement in this case?
If true wouldn't this be a serious case of being unlawful not to mention unethical?
Citizens deserve the truth.
The county attorney at no time during any process represent anyone taking action against the county.
ReplyDeletefrom:
Deletehttp://www.newsandtribune.com/news/fired-drug-court-director-i-am-a-scapegoat/article_ccbace6c-a6ed-57fd-938a-7dc9e801e555.html
"Knoebel’s attorney Lisa Glickfield
— who was present during her interview
with a News and Tribune reporter — said she was told Knoebel’s job was safe."
Did the newsandtribune.com report this?
It seems that they did.
I don't have the link but on the CCC someone posted an article from the tribune where the county attorney did in fact represent a fired county employee.
DeleteI think you may be parsing words Mr. Commissioner and dodging the question, because in your own words this was a POTENTIAL lawsuit. NO legal action was ever taken, this was a payment to avoid a lawsuit.
So everyone in this "settlement" was without counsel???????????? You expect us to believe that????
DeleteAn anonymous posed: "Bunch of conspiracy theorists. Not helpful."
ReplyDeleteThe county DID pay out the money. It is NOT a "theory". It happened.
Hoosier Taxpayer's Bat Blog expose is very helpful.
The government hiding behind a "secret agreement' is not helping them.
Follow the money.
Who got the money?
Full disclosure is in order.
Thanks for patting yourself on the back HT.
DeleteThat's not my post dumbass.....
DeleteI still want to know what kind of "taxes" the $10,000 was for? If the person involved received a settlement from the insurance company, I fail to see what kind of taxes the county would be responsible for. This makes NO sense. Certainly should NOT be payroll taxes.
ReplyDeleteSettlements are taxable income.
DeleteFeel free to ask Mr. Stephenson any questions but keep in mind he may be limited to what he can say due to a confidentiality agreement he may have signed....
ReplyDeleteAlso keep in mind Rick has been the most transparent and open to communication official this county has ever seen and probably ever will see..
The BatBlog thanks Rick for his participation....
Feel free to ask Mr. Stephenson any questions but keep in mind he may be limited to what he can say due to a confidentiality agreement he may have signed....
ReplyDeleteAlso keep in mind Rick has been the most transparent and open to communication official this county has ever seen and probably ever will see..
The BatBlog thanks Rick for his participation....
Paying out large amounts of money in scandals by government officials
ReplyDeleteand then hiding behind a 'specious confidentiality agreement' is very wrong.
It is B*** S*** and won't wash.
Mr. Stephenson should never have signed any such sneaky agreement.
Sorry.
Commissioners need to hold a news conference to answer all these questions.
ReplyDeleteMost likely the $10,000 was the County's deductible on the claim and the insurance carrier paid the rest of the settlement. Most confidentiality agreements in settlement documents contain certain exceptions for when disclosure of the settlement can be made and to who, such as the IRS or tax professionals, financial advisors, etc. Such exceptions may or may not allow for disclosure of the settlement, depending on how they are worded. The exception in this case may come from how and where the deductible amount came from, since it apparently came from a specific fund that was restricted. It sounds like the Judges are unhappy that they weren't consulted before settlement was made and the deductible was paid out of this particular fund, but they probably would be bound by the confidentiality agreement if they had been consulted. Reading between the lines, what has probably happened is that people in the probation department who were there at the time of the drug court fiasco and who felt that the person in question deserved to be fired and should not have gotten any money, have gotten wind of the settlement and complained to their bosses, the Judges, who probably felt the same way and who are ticked that they were consulted before the settlement occurred. The issue of whether the County attorney also represented this person is the most problematic part of the entire case. That could have been handled (and may have been) in such a way to avoid the conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety, but with the confidentiality agreement in place, there is no way to tell. The parties should agree to waive the confidentiality agreement and make full disclosure so that the appearance of impropriety is explained and dealt with, imo. Most likely, the county and its insurance carrier do not want the settlement amount being made public because of the potential impact it might have on the other pending cases against the county related to the drug court mess; (i.e., drive up the value of those claims).
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before the county attorney in no way was representing the litigant. The County Attorney did not even give input as to whether or not we should settle. She made a point of stressing her non-involvement in this whole matter.
ReplyDeleteThe checks were made to_______?
DeleteDid the county auditor present the claims?
Did the county commissioners approve the claims?
Did the county treasurer write the various checks?
Full disclosure please.
Who did the legal work and advised the county then?
DeleteGood post Anon. This is probably the most logical explanation of what probably happened...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the attempt for confidentiality was a poorly kept secret and has created more questions that full disclosure may have answered...Now suspicions are rising about impropriety on several different fronts...
Suspicions only rise when people throw around ridiculous speculation. Well done HT And your tea party friends.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA "confidentiality agreement" is just a slick political dodge.
ReplyDeletePublic officials , elected or appointed, know they should not try
sneaky "back room" tricks like that.
It won't wash.
Full disclosure please.
In whose NAME was the check written?
The Bat Blog is waiting to hear additional details in this scandal.
The officials are on the clock....
And who asked the girls in the auditors office to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Surely your attorney didn't!
DeleteAnonymous posted:"And who asked the girls in the auditors office to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Surely your attorney didn't!"
DeleteThat should be answered.
It will be asked in the future as this scandal unfolds.
The legal work for the County on the case was likely done by separate counsel paid by the County's insurance company. The County's regular attorney may have previously represented the person making the claim, but may have withdrawn from the case and probably did not have any thing to do with the settlement. This appears to be what Mr. Stephenson is saying. However, I believe the identity of the person making the claim and the identity of their attorney are not confidential, only the terms of the settlement. Lawsuits are settled everyday with confidential settlement agreements, but the identity of the parties and their attorneys are matters of public record, as is the fact that the case settled. The fact that a claim was brought against the County, probably by way of a tort claim notice, which did not result in a lawsuit, is not confidential,imo. As a practical matter the financial terms of the settlement have already been disclosed, so the County may have already violated the agreement, inadvertently, by discussing the case at the council meeting. I doubt that it was a "back room deal", or "slick political dodge", but it does give that appearance without more disclosure and explanation, to extent that can be done without further violations of the confidentiality portion of the settlement agreement.
ReplyDeleteAnother good post !!!
DeleteHopefully the information will come out about the items you spoke of...
DeleteHT. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it was wrong or suspicious or bad or malicious or all the other crazy words that you like to throw around
DeleteWhen the commissioners attorney represented the person filing a tort claim (and thay get a large sum of money) and the commissioner states they don't confer with the department head before agreeing to settle. It seems suspect. Why would you not check the legitimacy of claims against the county before making a decision? Or do you just ask your attorney. It seems suspect. When the auditor paid the claim that was not signed by the Dept head without question it seems suspect. When the auditor has a son who was also terminated and possibly received money it makes a little sense. When employees are pressured to sign agreements that are matters of public record it seems suspect. When employees get 1.5% raises and other employees get paid 3 years a normal employees salary it gets people pissed. When inmates are held in jail and forgotten about it makes this matter. When inmates are illegally arrested, it makes this matter. This is why people care!
DeleteIf the commissioners hired an outside attorney (no not the insurance attorney they used once they turned it over to insurance) then things will seem less suspect. Surely an attorney consulted with them before they submitted it to the insurance company. Who is this attorney?? Surely the commissioners didn't just turn it over to the insurance company without talking to the Judges (who are also attorneys).
Why did you not fight this even if the county lost!
Typical Clark County politics. No
ReplyDeleteThis so called confidentiality agreement has to be the least confidential agreement ever signed. The whole county seems to know the amount, the recipient and who the attorney was before it was even announced that there was such an agreement. Jeez who let the cat out of the bag? It had to be one of the signers of the agreement. Who actually signed the damn thing?
ReplyDeleteWho actually gives a crap? Find something worthwhile to use your time on
DeleteClearly a lot of people by the number of thread posts!
DeleteIf the State statute which governs the particular fund where the money was taken from requires that the money in the fund be used for the probation department, the Judges are well within their rights to question what for, when and where the money went, and ask why they weren't at least consulted ahead of time, when the money was used for some other purpose.
ReplyDeleteHow long does someone have to file a tort claim? I thought that whole thing happened a long time ago?
ReplyDeleteStephenson said..."The amount is approximately 10k that was taken out of the probation fund. It was to cover the taxes on the settlement. That amount has been replaced in probations account." Then he says, ..." It is true that now the probation office has to come to the council and ask the money be reallocated." So was the money replaced or not???? This is rather confusing to me. ....Who took the money out of the probation fund in the first place... and then who supposedly put it back and where did the funds come from to replace it???
ReplyDeleteThen Mr. Stephenson makes this comment..."Personally, I am tired of the way that some individuals have absolutely no regards for their employees and treat them as disposable." Who is he talking about and why would he make such a comment? Seems to me like someone needs to explain exactly what transpired and how much money was given to litigants --- what the $10k was actually for -- and whether or not it has been replaced and from what source the money came from to replace it. Transparency is the key ..... but this is Clark County and transparency is a word that those in power seem to ignore.
Agreed Anon.the so called "confidentiality agreement" is no longer confidential. The commissioners and council need to open their executive session to the public and press..
ReplyDeleteWithout some answers and transparency voters and taxpayers are going to feel screwed once again...
Agreed Anon.the so called "confidentiality agreement" is no longer confidential. The commissioners and council need to open their executive session to the public and press..
ReplyDeleteWithout some answers and transparency voters and taxpayers are going to feel screwed once again...
Confidentiality agreements are parts of litigation and settlements all the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is really a nothing to see here issue and the towns people with their pitchforks and torches need to settle down.
Hmmm if it's really a "nothing to see" issue, then why the secrecy?
ReplyDeleteArgh!!!! Someone know something I don't know!! Conspiracy!!! Let's revolt like Turkey!!!
ReplyDeleteThieves.
ReplyDeleteAny news on the closed meeting?
Delete