8/10/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Eggert noted that the allegation has been made that Mr. Vitunac was asked about a power of attorney without names being given prior to that happening. Attorney Vitunac stated that is absolutely true. He was called in and asked if he would prepare a power of attorney for an unnamed person who had an unspecified problem to take away this person's children, and he said that is not county business; we have no business doing that; and he would refuse to do it - and they said okay, thank you, we will take care of it on our own. He reiterated that he was not told who or what the problem was, and he said that it is not proper for the county to be involved. The Administrator stated that it had nothing to do with taking away children - absolutely nothing, directly or indirectly. Commissioner Bird commented that he did not want to wash our dirty linen in public, but in regard to the Blankenship matter, he felt we surely must have something in our personnel policy which indicates that if an employee of the county is charged with a misdemeanor certain things happen - if they are convicted of it, certain things happen, and if they are found innocent, certain things happen. He wished to know if that is fairly clear in our personnel policy. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it is clear. The Administrator now has the power to suspend with or without pay, to terminate or hire back; it is up to him at this point. Attorney Vitunac continued that he heard yesterday through the newspapers that Mr. Blankenship pled not guilty and there will be a trial on September 26th. We have the choice of letting him sit with or without pay until September 26th or hiring him back until then or deciding independently that he has done this action and should be fired. Chairman Scurlock advised that, to complicate that matter, we have had an employee complaint filed here in Indian River AUG 1 r 1988