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
and we have been specifically advised by plaintiff's counsel of an <br />intention to seek sanctions if the confidentiality of that <br />individual settlement or potential settlement were breached. <br />Attorney Reynolds stated he was completely unaware of the terms or <br />conditions *of that confidential settlement, which makes it <br />extremely easy. Again, the County was never a part of these <br />individual settlement negotiations. In mediation all of the <br />parties originally come in as one group, everybody states their <br />position, and then to facilitate the mediation process, the <br />Mediator asks different parties to go into separate meeting rooms <br />for settlement discussions. Essentially, Indian River County was <br />isolated from the individual settlement negotiations in this case <br />because we made it eminently clear at the inception of mediation <br />that the position of Indian River County as a governing board is <br />that we did not do anything wrong as a governing board. If Prince, <br />in fact, proved any of its allegations individually against _ <br />Commissioner Scurlock and or against Guettler, then we would file <br />indemnity claims against those two individual entities from whom we <br />would seek damages and reimbursement for both attorney's fees and <br />for any judgment entered against Indian River County in this cause. <br />For that reason, we were set separate and apart, and basically, <br />what transpired was that a settlement was reached or almost reached <br />between those three individual entities. We were then provided <br />with a request on behalf of Prince Contracting to write a letter to <br />Mr. Prince, as president of Prince Contracting Co., setting forth <br />that Indian River County Board of Commissioners and its staff have <br />concluded, based upon their investigation of the qualifications of <br />Prince Contracting Co., that Prince Contracting Co. was qualified <br />to perform the referenced golf course project. The referenced <br />lawsuit was dismissed by Prince Contracting Co. after all issues <br />were amicably resolved. Furthermore, Indian River County will sign <br />a statement that affirms and commits that Prince Contracting will <br />be equitably considered in the future for all golf course and other <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.