Public Records Through a Glass Darkly

7/6/2012   In an article today in the Brevard Times Mitch Needelman claims I was notified July 2nd of a partial fulfillment of my FS 119 request. I was never notified of anything on July 2nd, it sure looks like July 3rd to me, but the sandbagging went on for over a month.

From: Merrily Longacre [mailto:Merrily.Longacre@brevardclerk.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:01 AM
To: sellis@spacey.net
Cc: Sean Campbell; Mitch Needelman; Renee McGrory; Diana Spivey; Michael McDaniel
Subject: Public Records

However, I like when Mr. Needelman talks to the press as he continues to dig a deeper hole. I have highlighted his comments below, so let me elaborate. [Editor's Note: Due to copyright restrictions, the article included in the e-mail is linked below without highlighting.]

My requests are simple, no great ‘search’ is needed. Invoices done properly are indexed by vendor name. Type in ‘BlueWare’ and print out the invoices. Maybe this does not work well when the Clerk’s SAP Financial system is bypassed using Electronic Funds Transfers from bank account to bank account.

When I say things are not ‘right’ they are not right. For example, I asked for all payments to BlueWare or RoseWare or BlueGem or BestBond or any other corporate name used by Ms. Harr. I was only sent two Electronic Funds Transfers (ETF), $90,000 on June 29th and $500,000 on May 23rd.

I know on April 6th $100,000 was transferred to RoseWare (no invoice given me) and I know $10,000 was sent to RoseWare earlier, paying them $10,000 for a $100 off-the-net anti-virus (no invoice). I believe other monies have been sent to BlueWare. So yes, I continue to complain about requests not being right because THEY ARE NOT RIGHT. The only reason requests seem redundant is they go unanswered.

By the way, just what is so ‘complicated’ on my requests and just who is now ‘assigned’ to them?

If I were Mr. Parker I’d be careful about the following in the timeline. It is correct on May 23rd the $500,000 was transferred to BlueWare. However, the night of May 24th Needelman stated in the candidate forum (and we have the tape) as he vehemently denied he knew Matt DuPree had anything to do with Blueware, NO firm had yet been selected under the ITN process for negotiations.

5/23 – The Clerk’s Office selected BlueGem, provided a $500,000 contract guaranty payment to BlueGem, and began final contract negotiations.

The ITN is a two step award. FIRST a firm is selected to begin negotiations. SECOND, if negotiations are successful, a contract is signed. I have no doubt Mr. Parker (again) got it right, but watch for (again) Mr. Needelman to now claim he never said (what he said).

How can $500,000 be sent to a firm on May 23rd yet to even be selected for negotiation, much less over a month before a contract has even been signed?

I have a strong belief the contract given to me is not what was given the newspaper (slight differences) and definitely not the contract signed on May 23rd.

Scott

Note: Due to copyright restrictions, the article included in the e-mail is linked: Needelman: Ellis' "Complicated" Requests Delayed Release of Clerk Documents, BlueWare Contracts.

All I got from my FS 119 requests were transfer receipts. Where are the invoices and journal entries? Whose account or what account did the money transfer to?

Just what was the Clerk paying for? Is the $500,000 the Guaranty payment mentioned in the contract, basically a due on signing amount? If so, HOW can it be paid over a month before the ‘public’ signing?

“Initial payment upon signing” is noted on the ETF receipt. Signing what? Signing the REAL contract as I have always suspected?

It is important to note there is NOTHING I was given under the FS 119 with a MAY 23rd SIGNATURE, so what was signed to generate the $500,000 payment?

Things really are never right.

Scott

Paid political advertisement, paid for and approved by Scott Ellis, Republican candidate for Clerk of the Court