Laserfiche WebLink
December 3, 2012 (Recessed Meeting) Page 1322 <br />irregular, I'm not saying that it's not valid. I don't know if Tony would <br />like to weigh in on that at this point or not. It's just something I noted <br />in reading the document. <br />Small: I guess my reading is that Mr. Cash gets this same power of attorney <br />with regard to all the bonds he issues, that he has a - what would appear to <br />be an ongoing power of attorney issued by the Ohio Casualty Company. But <br />with specific regard to this particular bond, the power of attorney on the <br />bond document itself is noted and dated for today's date. That's my <br />understanding of what we have here in front of us. <br />Poole: Could you pass that - <br />Small: Certainly. <br />Koch: Typically, those power of attorney are ongoing, it's to make the <br />ability to issue these bonds convenient on a local basis. <br />Small: Right. <br />Koch: Rather than have them submit them all to the home office. <br />Small: Right. <br />Koch: So I understand that. It's just that there was a date, it was dated <br />differently from what I had typically... <br />Poole: Are there any other questions or- <br />Koch: May I ask a question of Mr. Cash, and this may help to clear it up. <br />How long have you been an attorney -in -fact for the Ohio Casualty Insurance <br />Company? <br />Cash: For this bond. <br />Small: No, just to be able to issue bonds, period. <br />Cash: I've been able to issue bonds there for a year and a half, two years. <br />Small: So that would explain the July 2011. <br />Koch: Well, that's what I'm trying to- <br />Cash: Yeah. That's - that's <br />Koch: Okay. So if I understand you correctly, even though it's made <br />specific to this bond, you have had the ability - you've been as appointed as <br />an attorney -in -fact by this insurance company, this surety company since <br />sometime last year. <br />Cash: That's correct. <br />Burrage: Does the county only work with one company that can write bonds for <br />the county? <br />Harris: We have the ability to. <br />Burrage: To work with more than one company? <br />Harris: We primarily use one company, but if we have to, we can get our agent <br />to research the market. <br />Burrage: Ya'll couldn't have sent this to some other bonding company and see <br />if they would have passed it? <br />Harris: We could have, but any information provided (inaudible) we can check <br />if we need to. But we generally use one company. <br />Burrage: But what I'm saying though is if one company turns it down, do you <br />have another company you can send it to? Just cause one company turned it <br />down don't mean another company won't accept it, does it? <br />Harris: It doesn't mean it exactly, our agent - when we were advised by our <br />agent - he said he could research the market; it's not a definite because we <br />never had to before, but he said we could. <br />Burrage: Why was that not done? <br />Harris: At that time, we did not proceed further. We made contact with Mr. <br />Small. <br />Carruth: (inaudible) - I guess just for a point of clarification by Mr. Koch <br />on the bond. I see there's two - really two issues. One issue is that is <br />the bond, the paragraph you read a while ago saying, did the bond that has <br />been presented to us, does it meet the level at which we want a bond issued? <br />And is there proper security put down on it? From the Ohio Casualty's <br />standpoint there is a $50,000 bond and they accepted payment of $569.00 for <br />that bond. That appears to me to meet the requirements of that particular <br />paragraph, right? <br />Koch: Yes, sir. <br />Carruth: Cause it's technically, the bond is a valid bond for the amount of <br />money that we stated we wanted is the $50,000 and the security has been put <br />down. The second question that comes in after this in the paragraph, if this <br />board is aware of any information that could cause that bond not to have been <br />issued or would be revoked and we don't disclose that or that we were aware <br />of that - and that comes to light later on and if the bond is held to be <br />invalid, that's when it kicks in to being personally liable for the bond not <br />being paid out because it was obtained under fraudulent circumstances. <br />Koch: That is correct. That is correct. That is an accurate statement of <br />the issue as I see it. <br />Carruth: So in some ways I see that we would probably have an obligation <br />knowing - and I know that we had this discussion about whether or not that <br />was a valid thing to do - is that to me, some of the findings that the State <br />Bar had regarding the suspension of the law license are things that to me, if <br />I were the underwriter, writing the bond that I would be concerned about, <br />certainly. And I wonder does this board have the responsibility if we <br />approve the bond, to also notify Ohio Casualty in writing of these concerns <br />