5/27/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 12. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON CLAIM OF WILLIAM O'BRIEN - ATTORNEY LYMAN REYNOLDS Lyman Reynolds, attorney for Indian River County, advised that the matter involved Mr. William O'Brien, which is set on a trial docket for July 1997. As a part of the requirements prior to going to trial, the courts required that all of the party litigants go through a process referred to as mediation. The mediation process has a unique effect upon any governmental entity, because any governmental entity which negotiates any settlement has very specific statutory requirements. So, in order to proceed in compliance with the court's order, Risk Manager Beth Jordan and he had attended mediation with the plaintiff and his counsel in order to see if there were any possibility for resolution of the case, short of a full trial and any subsequent potential claims which may be heard. The mediator advised that Ms. Jordan and he would not have any authority on their own to enter into negotiations, but would be able to determine whether there was a chance for the County to consider a settlement figure which would also be acceptable to the plaintiff and would be subject to a subsequent public hearing. Mr. Reynolds explained what the statutes provide and discussed the requirements of a public hearing to be held for discussion of settlement/negotiation strategy. He requested that the Commission authorize that the Claims Review Committee meet to discuss the response to the mediation process and where we are in terms of settlement negotiations, in order to consider a counter-offer to the plaintiffs demands at mediation, understanding that no offer can be made. The purpose would be to just give Mr. Reynolds guidance in advising plaintiff's counsel concerning a potential settlement, which will be subject to a public hearing and supported by his recommendations. If for any reason the Commission is uncomfortable with the process and would rather simply give him guidance for settlement negotiations in this open forum, he believed they could do that as well. Mr. Reynolds advised that there was no need for privacy, and County Attorney Vitunac recalled that they had discussed if there was any benefit in privacy and thought there was not. There was a brief discussion as to whether the meeting should be held in private, and Mr. Reynolds stated that he wanted the Commission to be fully aware of all of their options. 47 MAY 27, 1997 BOOK 101 P,i 626