My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/29/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/29/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/29/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JU11 2 9 1992 <br />POOK 41 <br />allegations and the indication of a past relationship that has been <br />conceded to the Court already in the temporary injunction hearing. <br />For that reason, the fact that the Commission from the appearance <br />of a past claim or a relationship between Guettler and Scurlock has <br />paid $35,000 or more in defense of the County in this action in <br />trying to go forward with its golf course and trying to protect the <br />revenue bond, he would say to Commissioner Scurlock the same thing <br />that we said to Prince and the same thing we said to Guettler, <br />which is, we, in our official capacity, did not do anything wrong <br />and we are not paying one dime. So, the representation that I have <br />done extensive research and found no conflict on the day of the <br />vote is not completely accurate; I have not been charged with the <br />duty, as yet, to prove Commissioner Scurlock had a conflict on the <br />day of the vote. That would only arise should Commissioner <br />Scurlock choose to pursue his attorney's fees and the Commission <br />choose to pursue their attorney's fees against him, which would not <br />be in the best interest of either party. His representation to the <br />Board is that Prince, in four and one-half months has not found, in <br />essence, the smoking gun on the day of the vote, but we are all <br />well aware of the past relationships that are a matter of public <br />record, that were alleged by Prince and brought as the basis for. <br />this particular claim. For that reason, he felt it is in <br />Mr.Scurlock's best interest and this Commission's best interest for <br />each to walk away from the attorney's fee claim; he didn't think <br />that Indian River County should pay nickel one to any entity, be it <br />Prince, Guettler, Smith or Scurlock. <br />Chairman Eggert felt part of her frustration with this is <br />after coming from a totally innocent position and having voted for <br />Prince in the first place, finding herself paying to talk to <br />outside attorneys about several situations throughout this thing. <br />She would have a hard time paying legal fees to Mr. Scurlock on <br />that basis. <br />22 <br />- M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.