2/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G"Vol LAWSUIT - PRINCE CONTRACTING CQ. INC. VS. DON C. SCURLOCR JR. INDIVIDUALLY, AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County Attorney Charles Vitunac recapped the background for this discussion: On February 18, 1992 the Board hired a golf course contractor. The low bidder was Prince Contracting Company, the second low bidder was Guettler & Sons, Inc. Staff recommended Guettler, and the Board, by a three to two vote, voted for Guettler. Yesterday at 3:00 p.m. the County was served with a complaint filed by Prince Contracting Company against Commissioner Scurlock individually and the County in its official capacity. The County Attorney's office is perfectly comfortable with its original recommendation, which is that the Board had the right to take the vote that it did on February 18. However, there are allegations in this complaint which, if true, would make our vote invalid. Attorney Vitunac felt it was appropriate to put this matter on the agenda today and ask Commissioner Scurlock to give his side of the story because if these allegations are true, the County will have to take another vote and take some other actions. If the allegations are denied by Commissioner Scurlock, Attorney Vitunac recommended the Board proceed until further notice from a Court. Chairman Eggert clarified, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed that he was advising that the County proceed as the vote directed as long as Commissioner Scurlock denied the allegations. Attorney Vitunac indicated that since this will involve a court hearing it would be advisable for Commissioner Scurlock to give his statement today under oath, if that would be acceptable to his attorney, Robert Stone. Attorney Robert Stone stated there is no need for a statement under oath because the ensuing discussion will be neither an official court proceeding nor a deposition. There is only an unverified complaint filed, signed by an attorney, and the plaintiff has not signed that complaint. Attorney Stone advised that in any civil proceeding it is not required to swear to an answer or affirmative defenses or counterclaim. There will be a time for Commissioner Scurlock to be placed under oath when his deposition is taken at which time all the attorneys will be given notice and will be able to question him. Attorney Stone further stated that he did not have the opportunity to discuss this matter with Commissioner Scurlock and objected to any sworn statement at this particular time. He felt that the County's request for a sworn statement would be aiding the plaintiff in his discovery process. Attorney Stone recommended that Commissioner Scurlock make a denial of the charges and state that his vote was based on_ what he thought was in the best interest of the County, that there 36 M