Skip to main content

Tag: Bradenton Beach sunshine lawsuit

Sunshine lawsuit judge rules in favor of city recovering attorney fees

Sunshine lawsuit judge rules in favor of city recovering attorney fees

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON – Manatee County Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has granted the city of Bradenton Beach’s motion to recover attorney fees incurred in the Sunshine Law lawsuit the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke filed in 2017.

Nicholas has not yet determined how much former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, as defendants, will be ordered to pay the city.

Nicholas granted the city’s motion during a Thursday, Nov. 7 hearing at the Manatee County Judicial Center in Bradenton.

In July, Nicholas ruled all six city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law in 2017 when they discussed public business at their Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. The defendants are appealing that July ruling.

According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city had incurred approximately $468,000 in attorney fees and legal costs as of last week, not including costs associated with attorney Robert Watrous, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and paralegal Michael Barfield’s preparation and appearances at Thursday’s hearing.

Attorneys Thomas Shults and Jodi Ruberg represented Metz and Nicholas noted the legal arguments Shults presented also applied to the five pro se defendants who no longer have attorneys.

Attorney arguments

When presenting the city’s request for attorney fees, Watrous said, “Who caused the situation that necessitated the city of Bradenton Beach and Jack Clarke to take action? That was the actions of the defendants. Was this a situation where they accidentally stepped over the line? From the clear reading of your honor’s judgment, the answer is emphatically no. This was an intentional and calculated effort by the defendants to get around Florida law and to not abide by the public records law,” Watrous said.

Shults’ legal arguments centered on whether a city can sue its own advisory board members. Shults argued the city must first sue itself.

“For the city to request the award of attorney fees against the individual they must first obtain an award of attorneys’ fees against itself or one of its agencies,” Shults argued.

Shults claimed this was the intent of the Florida Legislature when it adopted the Sunshine Law.

He also argued Chapter 286 of Florida Statutes does not provide for the award of attorney fees in a Sunshine Law case.

Shults noted CNOBB’s public meetings were open to the general public and the press.

“They said the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of these meetings and I think that’s wonderful,” he said.

In response, Watrous said, “Mr. Shults indicated the fact that these individuals said the Pledge of Allegiance before they started their CNOBB meetings. The problem is they didn’t follow that pledge.”

When appointed, city advisory board members swear to support, protect and uphold the Florida Constitution.

“They made a pledge to the State of Florida. They made a pledge to the government and they didn’t keep that pledge. That’s why the attorney fees should be awarded to my client,” Watrous said.

Judge’s ruling

When issuing his ruling, Nicholas noted all six defendants received Sunshine Law training.

“Once you chose to become a part of the city by choosing to be a member of a government advisory board the rules change. There are laws that apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules,” Nicholas said regarding the defendants’ rights to assemble and discuss city matters.

“I’m not certain whether the Legislature intended individuals who clearly and unequivocally violated the Sunshine Law to be individually liable for attorney fees when sued by their own municipality. I do know that the purpose of the attorney fees provision is to discourage violations or potential violations of the Sunshine Law,” Nicholas said.

Nicholas referenced warnings and opinions the advisory board members received from Perry, Mayor Bill Shearon and others in 2017.

“Recall on July 25th, the city attorney sent them an email saying stop meeting. Ms. Perry, on July 25th, said these meetings are in violation of the Sunshine Law. Recall that on July 27th, Mayor Shearon CC’d to all the defendants the fact that their continued CNOBB meetings could be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Recall that the defendants sent a letter to the Florida Ethics Commission seeking advice about whether those meetings were violations of Sunshine Law. Recall that they made an inquiry to the Attorney General’s Office inquiring as to whether or not those meetings were a violation of the Sunshine Law,” Nicholas said.

“Even after being warned in two emails and not being able to be told by the Florida Ethics Commission and the Attorney General that ‘Yes, feel free to continue to meet,’ they did so on August 3rd,” Nicholas said.

“All the meetings were violations of the Sunshine Law, but it’s that August 3rd meeting that’s so problematic. It was this meeting that the city attempted to prevent. It was that continued meeting, after being put on notice that these meetings are in violation of the Sunshine Law,” Nicholas said.

“The city should not have had to bring this action. Once the defendants continued to meet after being warned not to do so, their continued meeting was at their own peril,” Nicholas said.

“I will grant the city’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and reserve jurisdiction for purposes of determining that amount,” Nicholas concluded.

Related coverage

City seeks reimbursement for Sunshine lawsuit expenses

Metz deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

Commission considers, rejects three Sunshine lawsuit settlements

Metz deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

Metz deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Anna Maria Island, Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON – Former Planning and Zoning Board member and Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant John Metz has been deposed, but his computer may be subjected to a forensic examination.

Representing the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke in the lawsuit filed in August 2017, attorney Robert Watrous deposed Metz under oath on Tuesday, July 2. Paralegal Michael Barfield assisted Watrous.

The lawsuit alleges Metz and former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law.

The allegations pertain to discussions and email exchanges the city advisory board members had while also serving as members of the Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) group. Some of those discussions and email exchanges pertained to parking garages, Community Redevelopment Agency projects and other city business that had or could foreseeably come before the advisory board members in their official capacities.

Last month, Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that a parking garage would absolutely come before the Planning and Zoning Board. The one-week trial begins Monday, July 15.

Document production

Watrous produced a copy of the oath of office Metz signed in 2014 when appointed to the planning board. When signing that document, Metz swore to uphold the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

Watrous also produced copies of documents Metz signed in 2014 and 2017 acknowledging his participation in mandatory Sunshine Law training and his promise to comply with city resolution 09-757.

The resolution serves as the city’s written and electronic communication policy. It references the Florida Public Records Law and states all correspondence pertaining to official city business is public record and shall be produced upon request.

Watrous referenced an email Mapes sent Metz after the lawsuit was filed. That email provided Metz with time sequences for a recording of the July 25, 2017 CNOBB discussion about a charter initiative that could have prohibited parking garages citywide.

Metz said he used the time sequences to refresh his memory of what he said that day.

“Why did you not provide that email through discovery request? We did not receive it,” Watrous said.

Metz said he didn’t remember the records request or when Mapes sent that email.

Watrous asked Metz if he attended an informal meeting shortly after the lawsuit was filed at which the defendants discussed their response strategies to case-related records requests.

“I don’t recall any discussion about withholding, destroying or not turning over any documents,” Metz said.

On Aug. 8, 2017, Martin sent an email to Metz, Mapes, Shay and Bill Vincent that included the header “Barfield.”

“I was advised not to give him anything, not a single thing,” Martin wrote.

Earlier that day, Barfield sent Martin his initial records request.

CNOBB webmaster Michael Harrington’s January deposition revealed Mapes asked Harrington to delete emails that referenced a parking garage. Harrington produced those emails, Mapes did not.

“I would request that nothing be deleted from that computer because we may seek an emergency motion to do a forensic (investigation) on that computer,” Watrous said of Metz’s computer.

On Monday, Barfield said Watrous would seek a court order to inspect Metz’s computer.

CNOBB discussions

Watrous referenced a June 12, 2017 email Mapes sent to Bill Vincent about Metz joining CNOBB.

“I spoke to John. He is concerned about Sunshine issues,” Mapes wrote.

“I was pointing out that we have to be aware of the Sunshine Law; I wasn’t saying I was concerned about it,” Metz told Watrous.

Metz said he did not recall attending a CNOBB meeting that included discussion about Bill Vincent’s July 19, 2017 inquiry to the Florida Commission on Ethics regarding city advisory board members participating in CNOBB meetings.

The audio recording of the Aug. 3, 2017 CNOBB meeting confirms Metz was present when Martin read aloud the Ethics Commission response that stated it does not have jurisdiction over Sunshine Law compliance. That response recommended Vincent visit the Attorney General’s website or consult with private counsel.

Metz said he was not aware of anyone from CNOBB contacting private counsel regarding the Ethics Commission response.

Constitutional challenge

In 2017, Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, filed an affirmative defense questioning the constitutionality of the Sunshine Law.

“Do you believe the Florida Sunshine Law is unconstitutional?” Watrous asked Metz.

“Yes,” Metz replied. “I think it’s extremely vague. I believe it chills free speech and association and the right to assemble and petition.”

Metz expressed his belief that his “direct democracy” rights regarding petition initiatives allowed him to participate in the CNOBB discussions about potential petition initiatives. Metz also expressed his belief that petition initiatives pursued according to state law do not require Planning and Zoning Board review.

Metz, a former attorney, agreed with Watrous’ statement that one’s constitutional rights can be voluntarily waived by signing a document – such as a sworn oath of office.

Past disputes

Watrous reviewed Metz’s past disputes with the city and its residents. These include a still-pending 2016 lawsuit Metz filed against the city challenging a permitting decision made by the building official; the unsuccessful 2015 lawsuit Metz filed against mayoral candidate Jack Clarke; Metz’s unsuccessful efforts in 2016 to prevent Commissioner Ralph Cole from operating the Coastal Watersports beach rental business he opened with city commission approval in 2001; and the successful 2018 lawsuit the Keep Our Residential Neighborhoods political action committee filed against the city regarding ballot initiatives.

Watrous asked Metz if these disputes have decreased his quality of life in Bradenton Beach.

“This litigation certainly has decreased my enjoyment – financially, reputation-wise, etc. – more than any of these other disputes,” Metz said.

Metz said he anticipates living in Bradenton Beach for the rest of his life.

Related coverage

Commission considers, rejects three Sunshine lawsuit settlements

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ruled in favor of the city of Bradenton Beach regarding the reasonable foreseeability of a parking garage being something that would come before the city’s Planning and Zoning Board.

Nicholas’s ruling came in response to a partial summary judgment requested by the city and presented on Thursday, June 20, at the Manatee County Judicial Center in Bradenton.

Reasonable foreseeability is a central argument in the civil lawsuit filed by the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke in 2017. The trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, July 15.

After hearing from both sides during last week’s hearing, Nicholas said denying the city’s request for partial summary judgment would be the safe and easy thing to do.

“However, there is no universe wherein the issue of whether a parking garage should be permitted or approved in a small community would not come before a planning and zoning board. If that’s the issue before the court today, that is not a close call,” Nicholas said.

The lawsuit alleges former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing parking garage prohibitions and other potential board business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in 2017. Former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent are also named as defendants.

Judgment sought

Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city at last week’s hearing, accompanied by City Attorney Ricinda Perry and paralegal Michael Barfield.

“We have provided the court with voluminous information that parking garages were discussed at CNOBB meetings and they sent correspondence that this was on their written agendas,” Watrous told the judge.

“This is a classic example of individuals who were appointed to a city board, chose to form an organization and chose to discuss the same topics in their CNOBB meetings as they had been discussing at their P&Z meetings,” Watrous said.

“The Florida Government in the Sunshine Law was enacted to protect the public from closed-door politics,” Watrous said, noting the law is “construed to frustrate all evasive devices.”

“Not only was it reasonably foreseeable, but if one looks just at the April 12th and 19th (2017) P&Z meetings an issue of parking and parking garages did occur and was subsequently discussed weeks later in CNOBB meetings,” Watrous said.

“There’s been an argument made that there was a cure of this situation by the resignation of the P&Z members. That is only a partial cure. Case law is very clear that the cure can’t un-ring the bell and the plaintiff is still entitled to a determination or a declaration of the fact that there was a wrongful act,” Watrous concluded.

Shults’s response

Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, questioned whether the request for summary judgment was facially insufficient. He noted the request did not pertain specifically to the July 25 CNOBB meeting that included discussion on a potential petition-initiated charter amendment that would have banned parking garages.

Shults argued the defendants, as private citizens, had the constitutional right to assemble and discuss potential amendments to the city charter.

Shults acknowledged that in 2018 the current planning board members reviewed comprehensive plan amendments that now prohibit parking garages citywide.

At one point, Bill Vincent stood up and told Nicholas it was not reasonably foreseeable that a parking garage would come before the planning board because it would have been inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.

When those 2017 CNOBB meeting discussions took place, the comp plan still allowed parking garages in several zoning districts.

“I can say with 100 percent certainty – not reasonably foreseeability, but absolute certainty – that this is a very issue that should and would come before a planning and zoning board. I feel like I’m missing something, it’s so obvious to me,” Nicholas said.

“Whether or not there is a Sunshine violation here, that remains to be seen,” he added.

Nicholas said he didn’t know how his ruling would impact the trial. He said he would not limit any arguments made by the defendants but said there is no need to further litigate reasonable foreseeability.

Shults questioned Nicholas’s ruling and suggested he refrain from issuing a written order because there were more hearings scheduled. In response, Nicholas told Shults the court was in recess.

Afterward, Watrous said he agreed with the judge’s ruling and he appreciated it.

Perry said the city must now prove at the trial that the CNOBB discussions and email exchanges occurred and that those actions violated the Sunshine Law. CNOBB meetings were recorded and posted at the CNOBB website. The recording of the July 25 parking garage discussion and several parking-related emails and documents will be presented as evidence.

Related coverage

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine hearing

Sunshine filings continue

 

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – The six defendants in the Sunshine Law lawsuit have proposed compromise offers that seek financial reimbursement from the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke.

Collectively, the six defendants seek $60,902 from the city and $24,444 from Clarke.

The offers to compromise include no admission of wrongdoing or errors made regarding compliance with the Florida Sunshine Law, which is at the center of the civil lawsuit the city and Clarke filed in 2017.

Defendant and former Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz was the first to present his offer to attorney Robert Watrous and others last week. Watrous represents the city and Clarke.

Metz is the only defendant still retaining legal counsel. His offer was prepared by attorney Thomas Shults and dated May 28.

Metz’s offer was followed by similarly worded offers from the other five defendants: former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent.

The financial reimbursements sought differ for each defendant.

“Mr. Metz will settle with the city and Clarke only if they dismiss this lawsuit against all defendants with prejudice. The city must pay Mr. Metz the amount of $42,000 and Clarke must pay Mr. Metz the amount of $14,000. The total of these sums represents approximately 40 percent of Mr. Metz’s attorney fees and costs as of the end of April. This offer shall remain open until 5 p.m. on June, 7. Unless the case is resolved by that date, any future proposals by Mr. Metz shall require the city and Clarke to play a higher percentage of his attorney’s fees incurred,” Metz’s written offer says.

Attorney Jim Dye had been representing Mapes, but Mapes discontinued those legal services in March. Mapes’s offer seeks similar settlement terms and $14,000 from the city and $8,400 from Clarke.

The other defendants discontinued Dye’s legal services in early 2018. Martin seeks $1,000 from the city and $600 from Clarke. Shay seeks $901.52 from the city and $444 from Clarke. The Vincents seek $3,000 from the city and $1,000 from Clarke.

At press time on Monday, the city and Clarke had not responded to the offers. The city commission will meet at 6 p.m. on Thursday, June 6, and it’s possible the defendants’ offers may be discussed at that meeting.

Settlement language

“It appears to be lost on the city commission and Mr. Clarke that they are exposed to substantial monetary liability in this case. This liability consists of not just the attorney’s fees and cost the city will expend for the trial and the appeals thereafter, but also the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by all defendants,” Metz’s offer says.

“The Open Meetings Law permits the award of attorneys fees and costs against the city and Clarke if the court finds this suit was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. The city and Clarke can rest assured that Mr. Metz will pursue his right to such award if this matter is not resolved,” Metz’s offer says.

The defendants’ latest offers were in response to a settlement offer the city commission made on April 23. That offer proposed the defendants collectively pay the city $203,118 to settle the lawsuit with an acknowledgment that errors may have been made as it related to the Sunshine Law. The $203,118 represented the city’s attorney fees and legal costs to date.

Metz’s offer to compromise says it’s puzzling that the city commission would make a proposal they knew he would never accept.

The city’s previous March 1 settlement offer included language that said errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance and sought $500 from each of the defendants.

The defendants rejected that offer and proposed a counteroffer that instead said errors may have been made. They also offered to donate $10,000 to the Annie Silver Community Center. The city commission rejected that offer because it did not include an admission of errors made.

The case is scheduled for a nonjury trial beginning July 15, to be preceded by a city-requested summary judgment hearing on June 20.

Related coverage

City attorney deposed for Sunshine lawsuit

Commission rejects Sunshine lawsuit counteroffer

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Sunshine filings continue

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Several court filings have been made recently regarding the Sunshine Law lawsuit filed against six former city advisory board members.

On Friday, March 21, one day after deposing City Attorney Ricinda Perry, defendant John Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, filed a motion to dismiss Perry as the co-counsel representing the city of Bradenton Beach in the Sunshine Law lawsuit. The filing notes Perry is listed as a witness for the city.

Citing rules regulating the Florida Bar, Shults’ motion to dismiss says, “Ricinda Perry cannot serve both as an advocate at trial for the city and a witness on the city’s behalf.”

Attorney Robert Watrous is the lead attorney for the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke in the efforts to determine if six former city board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law in 2017. Perry serves as co-counsel and paralegal Michael Barfield is providing Watrous and Perry with additional legal assistance.

Right after Perry’s March 20 deposition, Watrous said he has not yet decided whether he will call Perry as a witness in the trial currently scheduled to take place in July.

On Friday afternoon, Barfield and Watrous were asked if they thought the motion to dismiss Perry had legal merit.

“We don’t think so. Motions to disqualify one’s counsel is one of the most disfavored motions there is,” Barfield said. “The citizens of Bradenton Beach wisely rejected Mr. Metz as a candidate for elected office. Mr. Metz is free to be frivolous with his own funds, but it’s sad when he wastes taxpayer resources in his personal crusade against the city attorney.”

Sunshine Law questioned

On March 15, Shults filed a notice of filing return of service of constitutional question on Florida’s Office of the Attorney General. The court document includes a copy of the certified mail receipt sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi in Tallahassee.

On Oct. 10, 2017, Shults previously filed a notice of constitutional question that questions whether the Florida Sunshine Law enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1995 infringes on an individual’s First Amendment rights regarding free speech, assembly, association and petition rights. The 2017 filing also questions whether the Florida Sunshine Law is “vague and overbroad.” The 2017 filing was sent to Bondi’s office when it was filed.

According to Perry and Barfield, representatives of the Attorney General’s Office have expressed interest in potentially joining the city and Clarke as co-plaintiffs in this case.

Mapes going pro se

On March 14, defendant Reed Mapes’ attorney, Jim Dye, filed a motion for withdrawal of counsel informing the 12th Judicial Circuit Court that he would no longer be representing Mapes. On Friday, March 21, Judge Edward Nicholas issued an order approving that request. Mapes now joins Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent as pro se defendants who are representing themselves.

More depositions scheduled

On March 14, Watrous filed notice of taking depositions for defendant Rose Vincent and former CNOBB member Mike Bazzy on May 8, former CNOBB member Carol Harrington and continued deposition for former CNOBB webmaster Michael Harrington on May 14, former CNOBB members Connie Morrow and Janie Robertson on May 20 and former Bradenton Beach Mayor Bill Shearon on May 24.

On March 14, Shults filed a notice of taking depositions for Mayor John Chappie and Commissioner Ralph Cole on May 31, City Planner Alan Garrett on June 12, Building Official Steve Gilbert and Commissioner Jake Spooner on June 13 and Commissioner Marilyn Maro on June 18.

Related coverage

City attorney deposed for Sunshine lawsuit

Commission rejects Sunshine lawsuit counteroffer

City attorney deposed for Sunshine lawsuit

City attorney deposed for Sunshine lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON – Attorney Thomas Shults spent six hours deposing City Attorney Ricinda Perry under oath.

Perry’s videotaped deposition took place Wednesday, March 20 at the Manatee County Judicial Center in Bradenton. The deposition was part of the ongoing pre-trial discovery process in the Sunshine Law lawsuit the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke filed in 2017.

Shults spent much of the day posing questions unrelated or distantly related to the city’s efforts to obtain a judge’s ruling as to whether defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law while serving on a city advisory board in 2017. At the time, the six defendants were also members of the non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) group.

Among other things, the civil lawsuit alleges the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law when discussing CNOBB’s potential pursuit of a charter amendment that would prohibit parking garages. The lawsuit complaint states parking garages were previously discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board that included Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent and could have foreseeably come before those individuals again in their official capacities.

Shults spent the first 80 minutes questioning Perry about her education, bar exams, electronic communications and role as the city attorney. He spent the next 60 minutes questioning her about the 2018 lawsuit the Keep Our Residential Neighborhoods (KORN) political action committee filed against the city.

The KORN lawsuit was filed after the city commission rejected the group’s request to place four petition-initiated charter amendment questions on the 2018 city ballot. Judge Lon Arend recently ruled the KORN amendments must be placed on a future ballot.

Attorney Robert Watrous, representing the city and Clarke, accused Shults of engaging in discovery for the KORN lawsuit instead of the Sunshine lawsuit. Mapes and Metz served as KORN officers.

Two and a half hours into the deposition, Shults referenced a 2015 Arizona court ruling that may support Metz’s affirmative defense argument questioning whether the Florida Sunshine Law is unconstitutional because it infringes on an individual’s First Amendment right to free speech. Shults also referenced a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling that struck down a provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act the court deemed unconstitutionally vague.

“I pay attention to Florida law,” Perry said.

Parking garages

Three hours into the deposition, Shults asked Perry if anyone ever applied for a permit to build a parking garage in Bradenton Beach. Perry said she didn’t know because the city was founded in the 1950s and she has not been the city attorney that entire time.

When asked if anyone applied to build a parking garage during her time as city attorney, Perry said that would be a question for City Planner Alan Garrett or Building Official Steve Gilbert. She noted that in 2016 then-mayor Bill Shearon proposed partnering with Manatee County to build a parking garage near the public works building.

Perry said she reached out to the CNOBB members before the lawsuit was filed and encouraged them to refrain from engaging in discussions that could result in Sunshine violations. She said those efforts included a written appeal to Shearon to take preventative action – a request Shearon didn’t act upon.

Perry also noted CNOBB meeting recordings posted at the CNOBB website were later disposed of by website administrator Michael Harrington, which he acknowledged when deposed under oath.

Shults referenced a recording of the July 25, 2017, CNOBB meeting and asked Perry if she heard Metz use the term “parking garage” when she previously listened to the recording.

“I heard enough to know Mr. Metz participated in a conversation that violated the Sunshine Law,” Perry said.

On that recording, Metz can be heard sharing his thoughts on whether CNOBB should pursue a parking garage prohibition.

“I say that we do and that we put it more that no parking garage built for public paid parking or something like that. It doesn’t matter whether it’s by the municipality or some huge corporation,” Metz said during the July 25 meeting.

Perry said she also heard Mapes and Shay on the recording.

“I know they were talking about city business and taking votes,” she added.

CNOBB ultimately decided not to pursue a parking garage prohibition, but KORN later took up that initiative.

Shults’ last line of questioning pertained to several disputes Metz has had with city officials and city staff.

“When I look at Mr. Metz, I see a man who is probably so unhappy. He’s widowed and has absolutely no relevance as an attorney anymore because he’s not licensed in Florida. He wants some semblance of validity and some purpose to serve. I actually feel very sorry for him,” Perry said.

At 5 p.m., Shults adjourned the deposition and said he would set a date for its continuance. Watrous objected to setting more deposition time for Perry. Shults said he would seek a court order if needed.

Related Coverage

Commission rejects Sunshine lawsuit counteroffer

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Trial date set for Sunshine lawsuit

Sunshine defendants propose settlement counteroffer

Sunshine defendants propose settlement counteroffer

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – The six defendants in the 2017 Sunshine Law lawsuit filed by the city of Bradenton Beach have made a counteroffer to the city commission’s recent settlement offer. Attorney Thomas Shults drafted the counteroffer on behalf defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent. The counteroffer was emailed to the parties involved at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 8. The counteroffer drafted by Shults attempts to revise a clause included in the settlement offer unanimously approved by the city commission on Feb. 28. “All defendants shall acknowledge they had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case and further acknowledge that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” says the clause included in the city’s settlement offer.

The defendants’ counteroffer proposes that language be revised to say, “errors may have been made” instead of, “errors were made.” The counteroffer proposes the defendants collectively make a $10,000 donation the Annie Silver Community Center instead of paying the city $500 each or $3,000 collectively, as proposed in the commission’s settlement offer. The counteroffer states the city may instead designate all or some the defendants’ $10,000 to another charitable entity that benefits the city and its residents. The counteroffer encourages the city to also consider contributing an unspecified amount to the Annie Silver Community Center, which is not a city-owned or operated entity. The defendants’ counteroffer stipulates a Friday, March 15 acceptance deadline. The city’s settlement offer stipulates a Tuesday, March 19 acceptance deadline. The city’s deadline is based on witness depositions being scheduled to resume on March 20, at which time the city’s legal fees will again increase significantly. As of Feb. 28, the city’s legal fees exceeded $168,000, according to City Attorney Ricinda Perry. When contacted Friday afternoon, Perry said she reached out to Shults that afternoon to further discuss the settlement language
pertaining to the defendants’ admission of errors. Perry noted the defendants’ proposed $10,000 donation to a charitable entity would negate the $3,000 the city requested be paid to the city. Perry also said a matching donation from the city would require an additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars. On Monday morning, Perry said she and Shults planned to speak by phone later that day. The city commission must approve any settlement offer or counteroffer made by Perry and the defendants must approve any offer or counteroffer made on their behalves. If a settlement cannot be reached, the case will continue proceeding toward the trial scheduled in mid-July.

Past Actions

In September 2017, the city rejected a settlement offer proposed on behalf of five of the six defendants, minus Metz, that stated: “There will not be an admission or denial of liability or fault, but a recognition that the parties agree it is in their best interests to settle the differences.” To date, the city commission has not expressed interest in a settlement that does not include an admission of errors from the defendants. The August 2017 lawsuit filed on behalf of the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke seeks a judge’s ruling as to whether four Planning and Zoning Board members and two Scenic WAVES Committee members violated the Florida Sunshine Law. The lawsuit alleges the six defendants, who are now former board members, violated the Sunshine Law when they discussed parking garages and other advisory board business or foreseeable advisory board business during Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings that occurred that summer. The CNOBB meetings were not conducted at city hall, were not publicly noticed by the city clerk’s office and were not considered city meetings.

Related coverage

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Trial date set for Sunshine lawsuit

Commissioner deposed regarding Sunshine lawsuit

Bradenton Beach sunshine lawsuit Sanclemente

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Former mayor Jack Clarke and current City Clerk Terri Sanclemente have been deposed in the city’s ongoing Sunshine Law lawsuit.

On Monday, Jan. 7, Clarke was the first person deposed by the attorneys representing two of the six defendants.

Clarke is a co-plaintiff with the city of Bradenton Beach in the civil lawsuit that seeks a circuit court judge’s determination as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law that requires elected commission members and appointed advisory board members to conduct their official city business in properly noticed public meetings.

Clarke’s deposition revealed a defense strategy being pursued by attorney Thomas Shults, who is representing former Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz.

Early in the seven-hour deposition, Shults asked Clarke if he’s familiar with the phrase “acting in bad faith.” Shults spent much of the day trying to establish that Clarke, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and the City Commission acted in bad faith when filing the lawsuit against Metz, Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent in August 2017.

The allegations stem from the Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings that took place that summer when all six defendants served as city board members while participating in CNOBB meetings that were not conducted at city hall.

Shults’s defense strategy is partially based on the contentious relationship Clarke and Metz have had in recent years. Shults questioned email exchanges that occurred between Clarke, as a private citizen, and The Sun reporter who first reported the alleged violations. Several of those emails pertained to letters to the editor Clarke penned regarding Metz’s actions.

These actions included lawsuits Metz filed against the city and the 2015 lawsuit Metz filed against Clarke personally in hopes of keeping him off the special election recall ballot that resulted in Mayor Bill Shearon being removed from office.

Shults noted that one of Clarke’s letters was critical of the legal fees Metz has subjected city taxpayers to and how that differs from the cost of the Sunshine lawsuit in which the city is now involved.

Clarke acknowledged that he has not yet been billed for any of the more than $116,000 in legal fees the city has accrued so far. He also said he’s aware that Metz could come after him for his legal fees if it’s proven the lawsuit was filed in bad faith.

When asked why he agreed to be a co-plaintiff, Clarke said, “They broke the law. It’s that simple.”

Sanclemente deposition

Shults spent much of Sanclemente’s Jan. 9 deposition discussing her responsibilities as the city’s official records keeper. He asked about her training and certification and the duties placed on her staff.

He questioned the role Sanclemente played in preparing the signed affidavit and exhibits attorney Robert Watrous filed in support of the city’s lawsuit.

Shults noted one of those exhibits was the oath of office Metz took when he joined the Planning Board in 2014. Shults questioned why that document was not stamped as being notarized. Sanclemente said that occurred before her time and that would have been the responsibility of then-deputy clerks Tammy Johnson or Audra Lanzaro.

Shults asked if the city’s Land Development Code (LDC) is posted on the city website. Sanclemente said it is, but the city’s website currently is shut down while being upgraded. Shults asked if the LDC is posted at the city’s Municode page. When Sanclemente said it was, Shults produced a screenshot that indicated otherwise.

Perry and City Planner Alan Garrett are scheduled to be deposed next. The case is scheduled for a March trial.

Related coverage

Trial date set for Sunshine lawsuit

Commissioner deposed regarding Sunshine lawsuit

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Bradenton Beach Sunshine lawsuit Mapes

Trial date set for Sunshine lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in First Place, Special Sections.

BRADENTON BEACH – The Sunshine Law lawsuit involving six former city board members is tentatively scheduled for trial on or around March 11.

The trial date was established during a Monday, Dec. 3, case management hearing. City attorney Ricinda Perry then provided city commissioners with an update during the commission’s Thursday, Dec. 6, meeting.

Perry said the parties involved have agreed to a pre-trial mediation session on Feb. 25 in an attempt to reach a settlement before the case goes to trial.

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019

“Nothing can be binding until it comes before you all,” Perry told the commission regarding any proposed settlement.

Perry said the goal is to try to convince some or all of the defendants to apologize for their past actions and come up with a reasonable settlement.

Perry said she’s not optimistic about a settlement because John Metz’s attorney, Tom Shults, recently scheduled depositions for her, city resident Jack Clarke, City Planner Alan Garrett and City Clerk Terri Sanclemente.

Filed on behalf of the City Commission and Clarke as co-plaintiffs in August 2017, the lawsuit alleges Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent violated Florida’s Sunshine Law.

The allegations pertain to open public meetings and discussions about city matters that had or could foreseeably come before the board and committee members in their official capacities. The lawsuit also alleges violations of Florida’s public records law regarding private email exchanges in which the defendants discussed parking garages and other city business.

During the July 25, 2017, Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting, Mapes proposed a charter amendment initiative that would have prohibited parking garages citywide if pursued and adopted. During that meeting, Metz and others also expressed opposition to parking garages. That meeting was recorded and posted on the CNOBB website.

When Perry learned of that discussion, she told the commission a request to build a parking garage would require Planning and Zoning Board review and would likely require Scenic WAVES Committee input too. Perry feared this now put the city at risk of being sued should an application to build a parking garage be submitted.

The commission later voted 4-1 in favor of taking legal action, with then-mayor Bill Shearon casting the only opposition vote.

The lawsuit seeks a judge’s ruling as to whether the violations occurred. The city also seeks to recoup some of its legal costs if the defendants are found guilty. As of last week, those fees totaled $116,305.

Mapes letter rebutted

While discussing these matters last week, Perry and Mayor Chappie rebutted what they said were some false claims contained in a letter written by Mapes that was recently published in both Island newspapers.

“The city codes at the time did not allow for a parking garage and still don’t. Our discussion was about an initiative, not about a parking garage,” Mapes stated in his letter

When Mapes proposed a citywide parking garage prohibition in 2017, the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code still allowed parking garages in several areas. It was not until August of this year that the commission adopted two ordinances that now prohibit multi-level and stand-alone parking garages throughout the city.

Mapes’ letter also referenced the only known settlement offer to date: “They could have accepted our initial offer to give token amounts to charity and resign from the boards and walk away,” he wrote.

On Sept. 5, 2017, attorney Jim Dye, on behalf of his five clients at the time, minus Metz, submitted to attorney Robert Watrous the first and only settlement offer.

Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city positions and were willing to pay $100 each toward the city and Clarke’s legal fees, with no admission or denial of liability or fault. There was no mention of any charity.

Watrous’ written response to Dye said, “My clients categorically reject your settlement offer.”

Last week, Chappie said, “With regards to some claim by him (Mapes) that a settlement offer was made with a donation to charity, that’s the first I heard of this. What are you trying to do, putting out a totally false statement to the people of our community? That never happened,” Chappie said.

Chappie noted the settlement offer was proposed when the city’s legal costs were only about $5,000, and all the commission wanted was an admission of guilt and to have the city’s legal costs taken care of.

“They flat-out said no and countered with $100 from each and that was it,” Chappie said.

Related Coverage

Commissioner deposed regarding Sunshine lawsuit

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Mapes and Martin deposed in Sunshine lawsuit