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
J U 01 2 91992 <br />Chairman Eggert asked if it would affect any kind of <br />relationship we have on the building of the golf course. <br />Attorney Reynolds advised that it would not; the County only <br />would be dropping an indemnification claim that relates only to the <br />vote, (to the lawsuit). The indemnification claim is that, if the <br />Court finds that you and Commissioner Scurlock, individually, <br />conspired to violate the conflict of interest law such that this <br />County is found to have damages against it, then Mr. Scurlock <br />should pay those damages and our attorney's fees because we are <br />only being held vicariously liable due to his misfeasance, <br />malfeasance or improper acts in violation of the conflict. The <br />contribution claim is only for purposes of pro -rata distribution of <br />fault, which is a joint tort feasor theory that, in essence, says <br />if the Commission is at fault, we wouldn't be nearly as much at <br />fault as Commissioner Scurlock ,individually and Guettler, <br />individually, if in fact Prince is able to prove the conflict. <br />These are simply what are called derivative claims; there is not a <br />basis upon which to sue these two individual entities, in his <br />opinion, in a viable manner on an independent tort theory or breach <br />of contract or any other basis. It does not affect the contract; <br />if this case settles as we proceed, the contract goes forward and <br />Guettler builds the golf course. We're all done, except as it <br />relates to the individual claim against Mr. Scurlock. Again, the <br />individual claim against Mr. Scurlock, very importantly, is a <br />derivative claim. <br />Chairman Eggert felt if we if we could just take up <br />everything today, it just might be easier all the way around. <br />Attorney Reynolds went into greater detail regarding the <br />derivative claim against Mr. Scurlock. That claim is that we do <br />not believe there was a conflict of interest at the time of the <br />vote; however, if Prince proves that there was and you find that <br />there was either actual conflict of interest known only to Mr. <br />Scurlock or a conspiracy with Guettler to get this contract, then <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.