BC 2012 12 19 Recessed Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 19, 2012 (Recessed Meeting) Page 1365 decision that we're being faced with is one that on the face of it, it may be valid, but in the application of the bond itself, and not the application to get a bond, if a claim is made on the bond - then how is the company going to perceive the lack of information or the omission of the information that we specifically requested? That is the essence of what we're looking at because when you file an application that is your representation of all the information that they need to make or to determine in regards to whether to bond somebody, whether to insure somebody. And what my concern is and from the very first day that we started asking these questions is it needs to be full disclosure. Because if it is not full disclosure, those things which we know or those things that we reasonably through due diligence would know, if that would affect the integrity of the bond, then it comes back on to each and every one of us that voted for the bond to the person who is responsible - from what Mr. Koch said up to $50,000 per occurrence for the term of the elected position or the position. So that what my concerns are at this point in time is just that. Is that we have a vague statement about a disciplinary proceeding, not a suspension - and there's a difference. There is a difference being subject to an administrative proceeding resulting in disciplinary action and being suspended. You can be suspended from the practice of law for a number of reasons, you can be subject to an administrative proceeding resulting in disciplinary action for a number of reasons - you could, you could be reprimanded. (Inaudible) what I've told you today, there is a reprimand, that is a disciplinary proceeding that does not result in a suspension, or that is not resulted in a suspension and has not resulted in a disbarment. So what I'm concerned about is the clarity in which we asked information to be presented and that information was not relayed to the bonding company. So that we are sitting in a position to make a determination about whether a bond is sufficient in surety, it would be nice to be able to have that information to be clear, no questions, unequivocal. Nothing no greyer, at this point in time, it ought to be black and white. I thought it was pretty black and white the way we raised it and the way we talked about it. We don't have that in front of us so that I would not be in favor of this bond - not that it's on the face not valid, but I don't think that the full disclosure and full information has been provided and I would not be able to vote for the bond (inaudible). Small: I'd like to respond to that, Mr. White. First of all, when we were here on November 29 or November 30 there were absolutely no concerns about any state bar action, the concerns of the board at that particular time were the dates of the bond from Western. We had a lengthy discussion about the fact that the original bond from Western was to expire on December 3, 2016 and the other item that we discussed on that particular date was the fact that the bond was not made out to both the State of North Carolina and Cabarrus County. Once those problems were amended and I returned with a new bond on December 3 rd you raised the issue of state bar proceedings. Now, at some point in time this board and its attorney have to get together and come to a consensus because the information I got from your attorney, Mr. Koch, was that he wanted an amended application with administrative proceeding, the North Carolina State Bar and a case number. That's what you have in front of you. Now - White: Let's stop right there. Mr. Koch, did you ever speak to Mr. Small about this amended application, directly? Koch: No. White: Okay, so Mr. Small you're saying that Mr. Koch told you this. That's - that's not what happened. Small: Mr. White, that's exactly what happened because the information was given to Mr. Lewis while Mr. Lewis was considering whether or not to make an appointment. White: To make - okay. Small: Now, if Mr. Koch is going to represent the interest and the wishes of this board then I'm entitled to be able to rely on those representations. Otherwise, what we have is bad faith. White: I do not agree with that assessment. (Multiple people speaking.) Poole: Excuse me, I'm sorry, please I understand that you have concerns here - you're here to listen at this point in time. Please don't interrupt everybody. Small: So the information that you have provided today, Mr. White is not (inaudible). White: The information - when we were here in the meeting, Mr. Small we asked three things: we asked for full disclosure in regards to your suspension from the bar - Small: And you have that several times. You have it here in front of you. White: And then number two is that we asked for you to put in the application about the bond being denied, that you were denied on a bond. And that is not in this application - anywhere on this application. Small: It's not on - it's not on the application, Mr. White but, but these insurance agents are certainly fully aware of everything that they need to know.