2/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was no conflict of interest, and that he certainly was not doing this because he was promised anything at all. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the County must decide on the golf course and we need to have some indication on the record as soon as possible, under oath or not, whether the allegations in the complaint are true. Attorney Stone understood the County's position but argued that Commissioners were not placed under oath when they voted on the motion for a golf course contractor. Commissioner Scurlock can explain why he voted the way he voted, but placing him under oath will not make a difference in the Board's action in this matter. Commissioner Scurlock explained that before he told the County Attorney's office that he would give a statement under oath he had not been advised by counsel, and now he must follow his attorney's advice. He emphasized that after he received the complaint he suggested to the County Attorney that this matter needed to be discussed at this meeting. Commissioner Scurlock denied each and every allegation of the complaint and addressed certain allegations individually. Starting with allegation 10 regarding an illegal conflict of interest, Commissioner Scurlock reported that he had consulted with the County Attorney on numerous occasions and was told that a conflict of interest would occur if he or his company or someone he is doing business with were benefitting financially. In addition, if commissioners have no conflict of interest, they are required to vote. Commissioner Scurlock next addressed allegation 9 of the complaint and stated that he never received any compensation from Guettler & Sons as an employee or consultant or in any other capacity. There was a time when Guettler & Sons submitted a proposal to the City of Ocoee and asked him to serve as financial consultant and project coordinator for that particular project. A presentation was made, Guettler was not selected and he never received any fee from Guettler for any of that preparation. Commissioner Scurlock further explained that on the day before the February 18 vote he met with Mr. Prince and Mr. Prince's attorney, Chester Clemfto go over any issues to convince him that he should vote in favor of Prince. They never raised any question about any conflict of interest; they never requested that he excuse himself or that there were any improprieties. They asked what it would take to change his mind about staff's recommendation and he specifically cited the items he thought needed to be resolved. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he voted solely on the recommendation of our administrative staff. Commissioner Scurlock denied allegations 6 and 7 and asked 37 5 1992