BRADENTON BEACH – The city will try to recover some or all of the estimated $450,000 in attorney fees and legal costs city taxpayers incurred in the Sunshine Law lawsuit filed two years ago by the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke.
On July 19, Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled former city advisory board members Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law when they discussed their advisory board business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
These matters were discussed at two city meetings on Friday, July 26.
At 1 p.m., city commissioners participated in a special meeting that provided for public discussion on the judge’s ruling and the recovery of attorney fees and legal costs.
At approximately 2 p.m., the commission and City Attorney Ricinda Perry convened a non-public shade meeting that allowed for a private discussion on the city’s legal strategies regarding attorney fees, legal costs and a possible appeal filed by some or all of the defendants.
After emerging from their private discussion, the commission voted 4-0 to pursue any and all available remedies to recover the city’s fees and costs
Mayor John Chappie and commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner supported this course of action. Commission Randy White did not attend Friday’s meetings.
Earlier that day, attorney Robert Watrous filed a motion notifying Metz and his attorney, Thomas Shults, of the city’s intent to recover its attorney fees according to Florida Statute 57.105.
Judge Nicholas will preside over a post-trial hearing in the next few months and decide what, if any, reimbursements the defendants must make to the city.
Legal insight
During Friday’s first meeting, Perry addressed the pursuit of attorney fees according to state statute.
“It has not been a secret that attorney fees are something that would be considered at the conclusion of the judge issuing his order. You have an obligation and a responsibility to your constituency to fully discharge all of the rights they own in that statute, and those rights include healing the city treasury,” Perry told the commission.
Perry noted the defendants rejected a settlement offer in March that sought $500 from each defendant and a collective acknowledgment that errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance.
In May, the defendants proposed individual settlement offers that collectively sought $60,902 from the city and $24,444 from Clarke. Some of those settlement offers stated the defendants’ financial demands would increase if the case went to trial and the city lost.
“It was not lost on these defendants that there was a lot at stake financially. It was not lost on this commission, because repeatedly you attempted to settle with them. They took the gamble, they lost,” Perry said.
Paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield assisted Watrous and Perry with this case. He also addressed the commission.
“Thank you for doing your job and making sure the Government in the Sunshine Law was upheld. While I thought all along that it was an easy case, the bills that you see before you don’t reflect that. They reflect work that was done unnecessarily because of the defenses that were mounted in the case. They were tenacious,” Barfield said.
Barfield noted Nicholas used the words “contrived, after the fact, not credible,” when addressing the defenses unsuccessfully presented to him.
“Those, we believe, are the magic words for sanctions that will be imposed by the court when the court is fully aware of the efforts of the city to try and resolve this case pre-trial,” Barfield said. “We think we are well-positioned to recover, if not all, a significant portion of the city’s fees.”
Between meetings, Barfield said he thinks the judge will likely award the city approximately $30,000 to cover the legal costs that included a court reporter’s transcription services, copying fees and other non-attorney expenses.
Barfield said the defendants have 30 days to file an appeal.
Commission comments
“We’re not giving high-fives here. This is pretty simple stuff: it’s about the Sunshine Law. What price do you put on defending people’s constitutional right to open and fair and transparent government? This commission made a tough decision, and we stuck with it. And it was the right decision,” Chappie said.
Cole said the judge’s ruling can serve as a learning tool for others who serve on city boards. “If you’re ever in doubt, the first thing you should do is ask the city attorney.”
Maro said, “I know we’ve taken a lot of flack for this. It was hard, but nobody gave up.”
Spooner said, “I’m a little surprised that we’re here a week later, and there’s still no apology from the defendants to our taxpayers.”
After the meetings, Spooner said, “I understand some people’s concerns about the city seeking reimbursement from our former advisory board members, but whatever money we don’t recover from the defendants is money our citizens and taxpayers are going to be responsible for.”
Related coverage
Judge rules CNOBB members violated Sunshine Law
Sunshine trial gets underway
City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing
