Skip to main content

Tag: Michael Barfield

Sunshine Law trial delayed until July

Sunshine Law trial delayed until July

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The trial for the Sunshine Law lawsuit filed against six former city advisory board members has been rescheduled for July 15. The trial was previously scheduled to take place in mid-March.

A pretrial conference has been scheduled for July 8.

The depositions for City Planner Alan Garrett, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and defendant John Metz also have been rescheduled. Perry is now scheduled to be deposed by Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, on Wednesday, March 20.

On behalf of the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke, attorney Robert Watrous is now scheduled to depose Metz on Thursday, May 30. Garrett’s recently-postponed deposition has not yet been rescheduled.

The attorneys also have submitted the lists of witnesses they will or may call upon to testify during the trial.

Paralegal Michael Barfield is assisting Watrous and said the trial was pushed back due to temporary health issues experienced by some witnesses and Shults’ plans to soon take a long vacation out of the country.

The court-ordered mediation session previously scheduled for Monday, Feb. 25 is expected to take place as planned. The mediation will provide all parties involved an opportunity to discuss a potential settlement, but Perry previously told the city commission she doesn’t believe a settlement is likely.

The only known settlement offer to date occurred in September 2017, when the defendants, minus Metz, offered to pay their own legal fees and pay $100 each toward the legal fees incurred by the city and Clarke. That settlement offer included no admission or denial of liability or fault and noted that all six defendants had resigned from their positions as city advisory board members. The city rejected that settlement offer.

Additional actions

During the Feb. 7 city commission meeting, Perry said Shults now plans to depose Mayor John Chappie, commissioners Ralph Cole and Jake Spooner and Building Official Steve Gilbert as well.

Sunshine Law trial delayed until July
City Attorney Ricinda Perry provided city commissioners with a lawsuit update on Feb. 7. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Perry also said former Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) webmaster Michael Harrington may be deposed a second time due to discoveries made during his first deposition in January.

During his deposition, Harrington testified under oath that he thought he had deleted all of his email correspondence pertaining to CNOBB. He later realized that was not the case and turned those and other emails over to Barfield and Watrous.

Harrington also testified under oath that he asked for the hard drive in his malfunctioning computer to be destroyed and he confirmed that former Planning and Zoning Board and CNOBB member Reed Mapes asked him to delete two CNOBB-related emails.

While deposing Clarke in January, Shults laid the groundwork for a potential line of defense based on the legal argument that the city and Clarke filed the lawsuit in bad faith due to contentious relationships between Metz and Clarke and Metz and the city.

In 2015, Metz filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against Clarke. In 2016, Metz filed a still-pending lawsuit against the city and Gilbert. In 2017, Metz was unsuccessful in his efforts to prevent Cole from continuing to operate his Coastal Watersports rental business on beachfront property leased from the Silver Surf resort.

The lawsuit

The 2017 lawsuit seeks a ruling from 12th Circuit Court Judge Ed Nicholas as to whether four former Planning and Zoning Board members (Metz, Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent) and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past, present and potential board and committee matters during CNOBB meetings that occurred that summer at the Annie Silver Community Center and the Pines Trailer Park. Under the law, official board and committee member business is only supposed to be discussed at properly-noticed city meetings, most of which take place at city hall.

The CNOBB members discussed the potential pursuit of a citywide prohibition on parking garages. They also discussed the updated Community Redevelopment Agency that references parking and other potential CRA projects. Email exchanges obtained from the defendants and others during the pretrial discovery process also include several references to parking garages, the CRA plan and other city business.

While deposing Mapes, Shay and Bill Vincent, Watrous established that these matters were previously reviewed by the advisory board members and he asserted they could have foreseeably come before them again.

Deposition Reed Mapes

Mapes and Martin deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin have been deposed by attorney Robert Watrous.

Defendant Patty Shay is scheduled for deposition this week. Defendants Bill and Rose Vincent were scheduled for depositions on Monday, June 4, but they were postponed in part due to Bill Vincent being legally blind and requiring special equipment and computer software to assist him when reading evidentiary exhibits presented to him. Defendant John Metz’s May 23 deposition was previously postponed.

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019

Watrous deposed Mapes on Wednesday, May 30, and Martin on Friday, June 1. They were given under oath with a court reporter transcribing what was said. The depositions took place at the Vincent M. Lucente & Associates office in Bradenton.

Watrous represents the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke in the civil lawsuit filed against the defendants in August. Paralegal Michael Barfield is assisting Watrous.

Mapes was represented by attorney Jim Dye and Metz brought attorney Tom Shults, even though he wasn’t being deposed. Martin represented herself, but Dye and another Metz attorney, Jodi Ruberg, provided occasional assistance.

All six defendants attended Mapes’s deposition and all but Shay attended Martin’s deposition. Martin’s significant other, Bill Shearon, attended both depositions. Clarke attended the morning sessions of both depositions.

The defendants are accused of violating the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing city matters that could have foreseeably come before them in their official capacities as city advisory board members. The alleged violations pertain to Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings and email exchanges between members who at the time served together on the Planning and Zoning Board or the Scenic WAVES Committee.

Some of those discussions and email exchanges referenced parking garage prohibitions, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan, the comprehensive plan and future land use maps.

The six defendants helped form CNOBB while serving as appointed city board members. They resigned from their city positions last summer and CNOBB was disbanded last fall.

Mapes deposition

When Mapes’ deposition began, Shults and Dye objected to the presence of two newspaper reporters but didn’t demand their removal.

Mapes served on the Planning Board for about a year and he acknowledged receiving mandatory Sunshine Law training that included attendance at a seminar conducted by County Attorney Mickey Palmer.

Watrous posed several questions regarding communications between planning board members and the overlap between CRA and planning board matters.

He also asked several questions about CNOBB’s formation and intent. Mapes said the intent was to educate citizens on city issues. CNOBB pursued three charter amendment initiatives and later registered as a political action committee.

During a July 25 CNOBB meeting, Mapes suggested a charter amendment that prohibited parking garages citywide. A recording of that meeting was played during his deposition.

Watrous referenced a June 12 email Mapes sent to Bill Vincent regarding Metz’s concerns about Sunshine Law compliance and a June 13 email Mapes sent to Vincent about the creation of a CNOBB website that could be public, semi-public or private.

“Here again is the issue of Sunshine violations,” Mapes wrote in that email.

When asked if he discussed Sunshine Law concerns with Metz in person, Mapes said he presumed he did, but couldn’t recall.

Watrous noted that Vincent received an opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics that advised CNOBB to consult an attorney if they had concerns about their meetings being Sunshine Law compliant.

Watrous cited email exchanges Mapes had with his attorney Bob Hendrickson about CNOBB matters and asked if he ever sought Hendrickson’s advice on Sunshine compliance. Mapes said he did not.

“I pushed for the parking garage. It might have been on my street and I didn’t want a parking garage,” Mapes said, noting the parking garage prohibition was not pursued by CNOBB.

“Our first meeting, which was back in June, we discussed dropping it. I kept bringing it up,” Mapes said regarding parking garages.

He said he did not feel the parking garage discussions violated the Sunshine Law.

“Why not make the effort and be more certain?” Watrous asked.

“Sometimes we decide what we want, the way we want it,” Mapes said.

“Did it occur to you what CNOBB was doing was negotiating in back room deals?” Watrous said at one point.

“Not at all,” Mapes responded.

Martin deposition

Martin formerly chaired the Scenic WAVES Committee that advises the City Commission and CRA on landscaping and beautification projects. Several questions pertained to projects discussed and/or pursued by the CRA, the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Committee or the City Commission.

These included the Bridge Street planters and plants, benches, park signs, trolley stops, Chickee huts and more. Watrous noted all these items had been or could foreseeably need to be reviewed by Scenic WAVES.

Martin said she did not feel the CNOBB discussions violated the Sunshine Law and she acknowledged participation in several Sunshine Law training sessions.

Near the end of her deposition, Martin was asked if she discussed the Sunshine lawsuit with Metz, a former attorney. Martin claimed she didn’t have to answer that question and Watrous told her she did.

She said she would “rant” to Metz, but he didn’t say much in response that she could recall.

“Normally, he sat and listened to me,” she said.

Martin said her lawsuit conversations with Bill Vincent were of a more technical nature pertaining to emails requested from her as part of the lawsuit.

When Watrous asked Martin if she discussed the lawsuit with anybody, Martin said, “Mr. Shearon.”

“And what have you two discussed?” Watrous asked.

Martin tried to hold back her tears as she said, “Just my disappointment with the city. My disappointment in how they treated us.”

Through her tears she said she dedicated a lot of her time to the city and then she got up and left the conference room. She returned a short time later and answered the few remaining questions Watrous had.

Sunshine reaction

Sunshine press conference reactions differ

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

Updated May 26, 2018

BRADENTON BEACH – City residents Jim Hassett and Jack Clarke hold differing views on statements made during the Thursday, May 17 Sunshine Law lawsuit press conference.

After paralegal Michael Barfield concluded his remarks inside city hall, Hassett said, “Anybody wanna hear what some of the citizens think?”

Hassett was a member of the now-disbanded Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach neighborhood group at the center of the lawsuit, but he is not named in the lawsuit.

“I firmly believe the city, the council and the mayor could’ve looked at this entirely different.”
Jim Hassett, Bradenton Beach resident

Standing outside city hall, Hassett acknowledged he’d only heard the tail end of the press conference and that he was friends with some of the defendants.

“I truly believe the mayor and council have very strong feelings about the Sunshine Law and I kind of agree there’s reasons to have the Sunshine Law. However, my feelings are the interpretation of the Sunshine Law in this scenario could easily have been handled a lot quicker, a lot sooner and a lot cheaper than what we’re putting some everyday citizens of Bradenton Beach through,” he said.

“Yes, they did take a Sunshine Law class, but it appears in doing so they put themselves in harm’s way. They did do some things that might have crossed a line – some of them with more personal knowledge of doing so than others, and some with no intent whatsoever to do anything bad for the city,” Hassett said.

“I firmly believe the city, the council and the mayor could’ve looked at this entirely different. I think the city could’ve said, ‘Look folks you messed up and these are some of the things we can do right away,’ ” Hassett said, citing board member resignations as one quick cure.

Planning and Zoning Board members Bill Vincent, Reed Mapes and Patty Shay tendered their written resignations on Aug. 4 – before the City Commission, on Aug. 7, voted 4-1 in favor of pursuing legal action. Metz, Martin and Rose Vincent resigned after the lawsuit was filed.

“I’ve been naïve and perhaps misguided in thinking that grown adults, knowing about the Sunshine Law, could voluntarily and effectively stay away from it,” Vincent said when informing the commission of his intent to resign, which he did the following day.

Barfield referenced Vincent’s remarks during the press conference and he said none of the defendants has formally admitted to committing Sunshine Law violations.

“We have been reasonable and measured in reaching out to the defendants in an effort to gain their cooperation,” Barfield said.

“What they did was wrong. It’s against the law.”
Jack Clarke, Bradenton Beach resident

Rejected settlement offer

Later in the week, Hassett said he was not aware of the settlement offer proposed in September.

Representing five of the six defendants at the time – Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay and Bill and Rose Vincent – attorney Jim Dye sent attorney Robert Watrous a letter on Sept. 5 stating that each defendant was willing to pay the city a $100 settlement, with no admission of wrongdoing.

“There will not be an admission or denial of liability of fault,” Dye’s letter said.

“My clients categorically reject your settlement offer,” Watrous wrote in his Sept. 22 response on behalf of the city, noting there wouldn’t be a counteroffer.

Clarke’s take

Clarke, a former Bradenton Beach mayor, also addressed the media. He and the city are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“What they did was wrong. It’s against the law. The law is not that complicated, but it does define the Sunshine Law violations as not only meeting in a room or in a group, but any type of communication up to and including email,” Clarke said.

“I don’t know a way it could be handled differently. A violation is a violation. When the city embarked upon this lawsuit the city itself was open to a lawsuit. If the city took no action in this case then they would be subject to a lawsuit from outside. Somebody could say the city did not exercise proper oversight and the opportunity to cure this would not have presented itself. I think Mr. Barfield and the city attorney and the mayor did a terrific job of laying this out for you folks,” Clarke said.

Related coverage

Press conference sheds light on Sunshine lawsuit

Judge denies witness sequestration in Sunshine suit

Metz defense challenges Sunshine Law

Sunshine lawsuit filed

Sunshine Press Conference

Press conference sheds light on Sunshine lawsuit

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Paralegal Michael Barfield says Sunshine Law violations that former city board members are accused of committing were not innocent mistakes made by uninformed volunteers.

He also accused the now-defunct Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) group of operating as a “shadow government.”

Accompanied by Mayor John Chappie and City Attorney Ricinda Perry, Barfield held a press conference that directly preceded the City Commission’s Thursday, May 17 meeting. Barfield, a Sunshine law expert from Sarasota, is assisting attorneys Robert Watrous and Perry in the case.

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019

“Anything less than government in the sunshine is just not acceptable and that’s why we’re here today,” Chappie said.

“We don’t view these violations as an accident or technical. They were serious, substantive violations,” Barfield said.

He later noted past Sunshine violations cost Venice taxpayers $1.6 million and recent violations cost Martin County taxpayers more than $12 million.

Enacted in 1995, the Florida Sunshine Law requires local governments and advisory boards to conduct business in properly noticed public meetings, with all related documents and correspondence made available to the public.

The lawsuit filed last August by the city and resident Jack Clarke names as defendants former Planning and Zoning Board members John Metz, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent. The lawsuit alleges they violated the Sunshine Law by discussing past and potential board and committee business during CNOBB meetings and in private emails.

Lawsuit update

While providing an update on the lawsuit, Barfield referenced “the efforts the city has undertaken to bring transparency and sunshine to the acts of the few who have attempted to hijack city government.”

“Last year, several members of advisory boards planned the creation of a shadow form of government called CNOBB under the guise of an association. Much of the business they were doing mirrored what you would expect your local government to be doing, including discussions about parking garages and the Community Redevelopment Agency.

“The reason the Sunshine Law exists is to ensure transparency and the avoidance of backroom deals. Our goal was to find out what happened, bring awareness to the public of those violations, cure them and send a clear message that no one is above the law,” Barfield said.

“In our view, Mr. Metz is clearly the ringleader of this group. He’s a retired, wealthy attorney from California and he’s sued the city multiple times over the past few years. He is yet to prevail in any legal action against the city. The only thing Mr. Metz has done successful is deplete the treasury. By our calculations, Mr. Metz has cost the citizens of Bradenton Beach more than $150,000 through his legal actions against the city,” Barfield said.

The Sunshine suit has cost the city more than $56,000 so far. If the city prevails, the court will be asked to order the defendants to reimburse a portion of the city’s legal expenses.

Questionable intent?

“An email John Metz wrote on June 24 best summarizes the intent of these folks to operate in the shadows to change the form of government,” Barfield said. “In that email, Mr. Metz noted, ‘Changing the form of government would be better, but that will take too much time.’ Mr. Metz advocated for granting strong powers to the former mayor (Bill Shearon) and said that would ‘allow us to get rid of the lawyer (Perry) and then change the form of government.’

“There’s also an email exchange on July 21 between Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin that illustrates the intent of these individuals: ‘You are evil. It will be fun to see the panic when some begin to read what we’ve planned,’ ” Barfield said, quoting Mapes’ email to Martin.

The emails referenced CNOBB’s efforts to place three charter amendment questions on the November 2017 ballot. According to the Sunshine Law, discussing the city’s form of government is not a Sunshine violation, because that’s not something advisory boards would review. Discussions and emails about parking garages and the CRA constitute the alleged Sunshine violations.

“Other email exchanges we’ve discovered show that this is not a case where volunteer citizens stumbled upon a Sunshine violation innocently,” Barfield said.

He noted all the defendants previously received mandatory Sunshine Law training.

Sunshine Defendant Reed Mapes
Sunshine lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes listens in on Thursday’s press conference. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Barfield referenced a June 12 email Mapes sent to Vincent regarding Metz’s concerns about Sunshine issues. He also referenced a July letter Vincent sent to the Florida Commission on Ethics asking if CNOBB was subject to Sunshine Law compliance.

“The Ethics Commission wrote back and said you need to consult with an attorney. They also called upon the Attorney General’s Office in Tallahassee and were told to check with their city attorney. Did they do that? No,” Barfield said.

“Mr. Metz seeks to have the Sunshine Law removed from the books to justify, after the fact, his conduct,” Barfield said of the motion Metz’s attorney filed challenging the state law’s constitutionality.

He also referenced the recent hearing in which Circuit Court Judge Lon Arend ruled against the defense’s requests to sequester witnesses and deposition transcripts. Defendant depositions begin May 23 and the city seeks a trial in late summer or early fall.

After the press conference, Barfield made a similar presentation to city commissioners.

Related coverage

Sunshine press conference reactions differ

Judge denies witness sequestration in Sunshine suit

Metz defense challenges Sunshine Law

Sunshine lawsuit filed

Sunshine defendants

Judge denies witness sequestration in Sunshine suit

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

BRADENTON – 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Lon Arend has rejected defendant John Metz’s request to sequester non-party witnesses in a Sunshine Law lawsuit.

“I don’t find that I have the authority to sequester the witnesses, so I deny the motion,” Arend said, as the 40-minute hearing concluded on Wednesday, May 9. Arend also denied the defense’s last-minute, verbal request to sequester the transcripts of depositions given by non-party witnesses.

During depositions, defendants, plaintiffs and witnesses give individual testimony under oath in a non-courtroom setting with a court reporter transcribing what’s said. The written transcripts can then be used in court to support or contradict additional testimony given, or used if a witness can’t be present.

In some cases, witnesses are sequestered from hearing the testimony of others to prevent them from being influenced by that testimony or trying to match it.

“We want this to be open to the public, why don’t they? Who are they trying to keep out? They don’t want the press to attend these depositions,” attorney Robert Watrous successfully argued for the co-plaintiffs, the City of Bradenton Beach and Jack Clarke.

“It’s not the general public, it’s not the citizens, it’s not even the media that we’re concerned about. It truly is non-party witnesses, somebody who would potentially be a witness,” said attorney Jodi Ruberg, representing defendant Metz.

The co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Metz and five other members of two Bradenton Beach boards last August, alleging they violated the Florida Sunshine Law. Metz and three other defendants – Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent – are former Bradenton Beach Planning and Zoning Board members. Defendants Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent are former members of the city’s Scenic WAVES Committee. All six defendants resigned after the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants discussed past and potential future board and committee business outside of a city meeting publicly noticed by the city clerk’s office. The alleged Sunshine violations stem from a Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meeting in July and additional email exchanges discovered later.

On April 13, Metz’s attorneys filed a motion asking the court to sequester the depositions of non-party witnesses. Non-party witnesses are those not directly named as defendants or plaintiffs.

Sunshine Judge
Judge Lon Arend rejected the defense’s request to sequester witnesses. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Arend said he has some concerns about how the deposition proceedings would be handled and he noted he has the authority to limit who’s in attendance. It is not yet known if the press or public can attend the defendant depositions scheduled to begin with Metz on May 23. Arend said that question may require another ruling from him if the parties can’t agree.

Attorney’s arguments

Metz and Martin attended Wednesday’s hearing accompanied by former mayor Bill Shearon and former City Commissioner Janie Robertson. Clarke also attended the hearing.

Attorney Jim Dye represented Mapes, with Ruberg representing Metz. The other four defendants have withdrawn their legal counsel and will represent themselves.

Paralegal Michael Barfield was on hand to assist Watrous, with City Attorney Ricinda Perry serving as co-counsel.

Watrous successfully argued the defense didn’t meet the burden of proof needed to support the request to sequester, and he noted that neither he nor the defense has yet named any non-party witnesses.

Perry suggested the non-party witnesses might include herself, the city clerk and the city planner. She said as co-counsel, sequestering her from the testimony of others would prevent her from protecting her client, the city.

“The can of worms we’re opening here is daunting.”
– Robert Watrous, Attorney

Citing past cases, Arend expressed concerns about hundreds of people wanting to attend depositions and showing up in T-shirts that express support or opposition for the parties involved.

In response, Perry pointed out the four non-party attendees present: Shearon, Robertson and two newspaper reporters.

Watrous said the limited space inside the court reporters’ offices would automatically limit attendance.

Attorney Robert Watrous, paralegal Michael Barfield and City Attorney Ricinda Perry are serving as the city’s legal team. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Arend said that even if sequestered, witnesses could still be given written transcripts of others’ depositions, which are also later made public at the Manatee County Clerk of Circuit Court website.

“Are you asking that as part of my order as well?” Arend asked.

“We actually are,” Ruberg said.

Arend said he’s never had anyone come before him expressing concerns about non-party witnesses attending depositions. He asked if there was anything particular that made the defense think this was going to happen.

Ruberg said Watrous had already filed affidavits for non-party witnesses. Watrous filed affidavits on Aug. 11, the day the lawsuit was filed; the parties mentioned were the clerk, the planner and the city attorney who has since joined as co-counsel.

Watrous said he did not know who he planned to call as non-party witnesses and he’s never heard of a request like this.

“Are they going to move to exclude witnesses when nobody knows if they are or aren’t going to be witnesses? The can of worms we’re opening here is daunting,” he said.

Due to time constraints, a second hearing pertaining to the defense’s motion to compel Clarke to provide additional documents was postponed to a later date.