7/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr- -7 Boa 95 rACE 756 exercising their contract rights and obligations. Your recommendation that the County consider an attorney's initiation of the arbitration proceedings and Martin's and Cummings' actions in the privileged mediation proceedings in evaluating future bids on County projects is unprecedented and unlawful. Such action would constitute a violation of Martin's and Cummings' constitutional rights under Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Let me first point out the ludicrous history of the County's and your actions. The County first required Martin and Cummings to tear out and replace almost $300,000 of work. The County denied all liability, and then directed the contractors to proceed to arbitration. When the arbitration demand was filed, and thousands of dollars in arbitration fees incurred, and you agreed to a date for the arbitration, you then filed a complaint in circuit court alleging the arbitration was illegal. You asked for, and the American Arbitration Association scheduled, a mediation. At the mediation you compelled the County's selected Infiltrator vendor to offer to pay 25% of all proven damages if the contractors provided proof of the damages. Our damage backup was present at the mediation site, but there was absolutely no use to go through the laborious task of documenting the costs if you were not offering to pay all documented costs. From a legal standpoint, the merits of Martin's and Cummings' claims against the County is an issue for decision by the arbitrators and, subsequently, the court. It is unlawful for the County to retaliate against Martin and Cummings for legitimately pursuing their contractual rights to seek redress for injury caused by the County. Such retaliation violates the protected right of access to courts. Article I, Sec. 21, Fla. Const. The County cannot deny Martin and Cummings future contracts in -retaliation for previous claims and for complying with the dispute resolution procedures established by the County's contract. The contractors initiated the arbitration proceedings against the County in good faith and based upon a legitimate belief that, pursuant to the terms of the express written contract, the County, together with its engineer, consultant and chosen manufacturer, caused Martin and Cummings to suffer increased costs. We are not, as you suggest, maintaining a "stone -wall" position. Rather, as you well know, the mediator appointed by the American Arbitration Association agreed with Martin's and Cummings' position and was dumbfounded by the County's meager offer. The "stone -walling" in these proceedings, and at the mediation, is by the County's alone. It is the County that seeks to avoid its contractual responsibilities by improperly hiding behind its engineer, consultant.and chosen manufacturer. We will take whatever measures are necessary to protect Martin's and Cummings' constitutional and contract rights. Should you or the County continue to threaten these rights, we will, at a minimum, bring this matter to the attention of the American Arbitration Association, the arbitrators, and Circuit Court Judge Makemson. No party can retaliate during protected arbitration, mediation and judicial proceedings and expect to go unpunished. Although we obviously disagree with the County's position in the referenced proceedings, we accept the County's decision to defend against the contractual claims at issue. We have an equally strong belief in our position and expect the County to similarly accept our opposing position without engaging in unconstitutional and improper coercive conduct. Martin and Cummings are resolved to not allow you to intimidate and penalize them for the exercise of protected constitutional rights and for invoking procedures required by the County in its contract. 56 July 18, 1995