Still no access to settlement documents
By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer
The wait continues for access to documents in a former employee’s claim against the Columbus County Department of Social Services.
The commissioners and DSS board both appointed contract defense counsel Rachel Esposito, of Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, the “public information officer” in the case.
The News Reporter has been trying to obtain information and access to public records related to the case since learning the $150,000 settlement was voted on in a closed session held Dec. 11.
A written response came after Mike Tadych, a N.C. Press Association attorney with Everett, Hancock and Stevens, sent Esposito a request demanding inspection of the document as a follow up to The News Reporter’s formal requests.
The county “will be in a position to estimate the cost of any copies and further respond to your request after the settlement is concluded and after the terms of any settlement have been reported to the appropriate public body/ies,” Esposito wrote in a letter drafted Dec. 20 and received Dec. 22.
Esposito pointed out that under N.C. General Statutes 143-318.11, the terms of any settlement shall be reported to the public body and “entered into its minutes as soon as possible and within a reasonable time after the settlement is concluded.”
Esposito underlines “after” and wrote “(emphasis added)” at the end of the explanation.
“At this point, it is anticipated that these obligations under state law will be fulfilled in January 2007, although this date is subject to change,” Esposito wrote.
“Please be assured we will provide documents responsive to your request, subject to the restrictions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 132-1.1, et seq, and as otherwise required by law.”
The cited statute states written communications “to any public board” made within the scope of attorney/client privilege concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement or litigation of any judicial action shall not be open to public inspection unless “specifically made public by the governing body.”The written communications become public records three years from the date received, according to the statute.
Formal requests were made both to Esposito and the county manager’s office with no responses as of late last week.
At that time, Esposito was contacted via telephone and said a letter had been mailed from her office to the The News Reporter, but refused to explain what the letter specifically said.
“It will speak for itself,” Esposito said.
It is unclear if material terms of the contract have changed since the Dec. 11 meeting when the county clerk to the board was sent to her office to obtain her notary seal and Esposito tucked what appeared to be a typed document in her brief case.
The cost to the county for Esposito serving as a “Public Information Officer” is not evident. At the Dec. 11 meeting Esposito was asked what her fees were and she responded that she did not know why that was relevant and said she was retained by the county’s insurance carriers.
There has been no response from the county to The News Reporter’s formal request to the county for access to financial documents related to attorney fees billed to the county since January 2003 and professional liability insurance premiums, among others.
Commissioners to meet
The commissioners will meet Tuesday, Jan. 2 at 6:30 p.m.
Preliminary agenda items include presentation of the 2005-2006 audit performed by CPA Alan C. Thompson, a water department update, approval for soil and water conservation staff to apply for a Livingston Creek study, and various board appointments