BRADENTON BEACH – The city has prevailed in the appeal of a 2019 court ruling that six former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law.
On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel in the District Court of Appeal of Florida’s Second District (Second DCA) in Lakeland issued a written opinion that provided no details but affirmed 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that the six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that requires elected and appointed city officials to conduct their official business in a public setting.
Paralegal Michael Barfield and Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry assisted attorney Robert Watrous with the legal work associated with the civil lawsuit that resulted in Nicholas’ 2019 ruling, and the subsequent ruling Nicholas issued later that year regarding the city’s recovery of attorney fees.
Barfield and Perry remained involved in the now-completed appellate process that did not require an additional in-person hearing or the re-arguing of the facts presented during the July 2019 trial.
When contacted by The Sun, Barfield and Perry both confirmed that the per curiam opinion issued by the Second DCA means the city prevailed in the appeal.
“I am pleased that the Second DCA upheld Judge Nicholas’ thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” Perry said. “I’m glad this part of the case is behind us and that Judge Nicholas’ ruling was vindicated,” Barfield said.
Case history
At the conclusion of the multi-day trial in July 2019 at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton, Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Sunshine Law in 2017 when discussing city business that could have foreseeably come before them in their official capacities as Planning and Zoning Board members or Scenic WAVES Committee members.
The Sunshine Law violations occurred during the non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings that were recorded by CNOBB members. Those recordings were shared at the CNOBB website and later presented as evidence during the trial.
In August 2019, Mapes, Martin, Metz and the Vincents filed an appeal of Nicholas’ July ruling. Shay did not join the appeal filed with the Second DCA.
In October 2019, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498 as reimbursement for a significant portion of the attorney fees the city incurred during the multi-year legal battle that remained ongoing at the time.
In that written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed in principle to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements could not be reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.
In November 2020, as the appeal process dragged on, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city in which they agreed to collectively pay the city $350,000 and drop their appeals. Shay and the Vincents then reached settlement agreements in which they agreed to each pay the city $500, with Bill and Rose Vincent also dropping their appeals. The settlement agreements left Mapes as the only remaining appellant.
In May 2021, a final judgment was issued against Mapes in the amount of $19,760, to be paid to the city of Bradenton Beach.
At the time of his death earlier this year, Reed Mapes was the only remaining appellant in the city’s Sunshine Law case. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Mapes passed away on April 13 of this year. On April 28, Watrous sent a letter to Mapes’ attorney and designated trustee, Robert Hendrickson, noting the amount due at that time, including accrued interest, was $20,563.
To date, the judgment against Mapes remains unpaid, but the city still hopes to recover the money owed.
“The city and its taxpayers have been entitled to recover the costs caused by Mr. Mapes and payment is long overdue,” Perry said when contacted regarding the Second DCA opinion.
BRADENTON BEACH – Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ordered Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $19,760.
According to the written ruling Nicholas issued on Friday, May 14, that amount represents $17,998 in attorney fees and $1,762 in interest fees. These are to be paid to the city as remaining reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred in its successful pursuit of a 2019 ruling from Nicholas that Mapes and five other city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
In July 2019, Nicolas ruled that Mapes and fellow planning and zoning board members John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent, and Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, violated the Sunshine Law when discussing matters related to their official public business at a series of non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said when issuing his 2019 ruling.
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
In 2019, Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes was one of six former advisory board members that violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, John Metz, and Tjet Martin to collectively pay the city $369,498. Because of an argument set forth by Shay, Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of that shared financial responsibility for the city’s legal fees. Nicholas reached that conclusion when he learned Shay and the Vincents reached settlement agreements with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those three settlement officers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not also agreed to similar settlement offers that would have alleviated the need for a trial had all six defendants agreed to settle.
Metz and Martin later paid the city $350,000 and agreed to drop their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. Shay and the Vincents then paid the city $500 each, and the Vincents agreed to drop their appeals. Shay was the only defendant who did not appeal the 2019 ruling
In his May 14 ruling regarding the remaining attorney fees sought by the city, Nicholas wrote, “Mapes was an especially active participant in the Sunshine Law violations committed by the members of Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach in the summer of 2017, appeared eager throughout the litigation to force the city to prove its claims despite multiple audio recordings which documented the violations, and appeared to be disinclined to settle on the plaintiff’s terms.”
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city in this legal matter, with significant assistance provided by paralegal Michael Barfield. City Attorney Ricinda Perry also assisted with this case.
BRADENTON BEACH – The city is seeking $31,645 in attorney fees, paralegal fees and legal costs from lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes.
Mapes is the only defendant who has not settled with the city in the 2017 Sunshine Law-related civil lawsuit in which the city prevailed.
In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Mapes and five other former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law by discussing official city business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
The Sunshine Law requires members of the same elected or appointed governmental commission, committee or board to conduct their official business in properly noticed public meetings. It prohibits members of the same elected or appointed body from communicating with each other privately about their official business.
In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to pay the city a total of $369,498 for the recovery of the city’s attorney and paralegal fees. When issuing that ruling, Nicholas relieved co-defendants Patricia Shay, Rose Vincent and Bill Vincent of those shared financial responsibilities after learning the three of them had agreed, before the trial began, to settle with the city for $500 each and an acknowledgement that Sunshine Law compliance errors were made.
The city commission then rejected those settlement offers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlements which would have brought the case to an end before it went to trial.
In November, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city that resulted in the pair paying the city $350,000 and dropping their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. In separate actions, Shay and the Vincents agreed to pay the city $500 each, with the Vincents also agreeing to drop their appeals. Shay did not appeal Nicholas’ ruling.
Final hearing
On Monday, March 29, a virtual hearing on fees and costs was held via Zoom, with Nicholas presiding. Assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield, Robert Watrous again represented the city. Mapes represented himself at the hearing, which lasted slightly more than 30 minutes.
Watrous noted the amount sought is in accordance with statewide uniform guidelines for the taxation of costs and civil actions. Watrous said he would provide the court and Mapes with a cost summary and detailed supporting documents that verify all legal fees and costs billed to the city of Bradenton Beach through the conclusion of the 2019 civil lawsuit trial.
“Mr. Mapes is the only remaining defendant. We have settled with Mr. Metz. We have settled with Ms. Martin. The other defendants we have settled with also,” Watrous told the judge.
Watrous said the $350,000 payment made by Metz and Martin and the $1,500 received from Shay and the Vincents total $351,500, leaving a remaining deficiency of $17,998 in unrecovered attorney and paralegal fees.
“It’s our position that those would be the responsibility of Mr. Mapes because he is the only remaining defendant,” Watrous said.
Watrous and the city seek an additional $13,647 in legal costs that include court reporter fees, court reporter transcription fees, photocopying and other non-attorney, non-paralegal costs.
“It’s our position that Mr. Mapes be responsible for the costs,” Watrous said.
Nicholas then provided Mapes a chance to respond.
“I find it interesting that Mr. Metz and Tjet Martin paid $350,000 to end their issues. Then, after all of this time, Patty Shay and the Vincents settled for $500. I can’t quite figure out why I wasn’t offered the same. It seems somewhat odd to me that they settle with these three people that we know have very little funds. I have no funds. I’m a little bit befuddled about that and can’t quite figure out how they got such a good deal at the last minute,” said Mapes, who was dealing with health issues before and during the 2019 trial.
Mapes owns a home in Parrish which, according to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, has an appraised value of $501,732. In 2018, Mapes and his wife sold their Bradenton Beach condominium for slightly more than $1 million.
Regarding the rejected settlement offers that Shay and the Vincents signed before the trial began, Mapes said, “I didn’t sign the document that came out in 2019 because I knew good and well John Metz was not going to agree to it. I saw no reason to sign something I knew was not going to go anywhere, but all of a sudden it went someplace at the very end with Patricia Shay and the Vincents.”
12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas intends to issue his next ruling without conducting another hearing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun file photo
Nicholas did not ask Watrous to do a line-by-line review of the costs and fees sought, but he did ask Watrous to swear that the information contained in the summary of costs was true.
Nicholas directed Watrous to provide Mapes with copies of the cost summary and the supporting documents. He also ordered Watrous to file a sworn affidavit regarding the remaining $17,998 in attorney and paralegal fees sought.
“I’m not going to rule today with regard to this issue. I have to review the summary of costs in more detail now that it’s sworn to,” Nicholas said.
Nicholas gave Mapes until Friday, April 16 to file any objections he has regarding the fees and costs sought.
In closing, Nicholas said, “This case is almost at the finish line and I’m not inclined to have any more hearings. I don’t think that it’s necessary. I’m not likely to make any decisions prior to April 16.”
As of Sunday, April 11, Mapes had not yet filed any formal objections to the fees and costs sought.
Updated Nov. 29, 2020 – BRADENTON BEACH – The city has received a $350,000 settlement agreement payment from former Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants John Metz and Tjet Martin.
The city has also received $500 settlement payments from co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent.
On Thursday, Nov. 19, the city commission unanimously accepted the Metz-Martin settlement agreement previously discussed during a private shade meeting on Nov. 5.
The $350,000 payment serves as partial reimbursement for the more than $572,000 in attorney fees and legal costs the city incurred as a result of the civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether Martin, Metz, Reed Mapes, Shay and the Vincents violated the Sunshine Law when discussing advisory board matters at their Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017. Those meetings included a discussion about the potential pursuit of a citywide prohibition on the construction of parking garages.
In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that pertains to government transparency and conducting official public business only at properly noticed public meetings. Minus Shay, the other five defendants appealed Nicholas’ ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.
On Oct. 28, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498. In his written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements were not reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.
Settlement acceptance
City Attorney Ricinda Perry presented the Martin and Metz settlement offer for commission acceptance during the Nov. 19 meeting. She also presented a new settlement agreement reached with Shay.
The commission accepted the Martin and Metz settlement agreement and received the transferred funds the following day.
Vice Mayor Jake Spooner praised Perry’s efforts.
“Great job. We did what we’re supposed to do with protecting the transparency of the government, and the taxpayers are being reimbursed,” he said.
“I agree totally, and we said that all along about open, fair and transparent government,” Mayor John Chappie said.
Co-defendant agreements
During the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry also presented the settlement agreement with Shay, in which Shay agreed to pay the city $500 despite the judge’s recent order absolving her of financial responsibility.
“It dismisses everything as it relates to her. She is not a party to the appeal,” Perry said.
“Defendant Shay acknowledges she had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case, and further acknowledges that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” Perry said when reading aloud the settlement agreement language.
“That was a very important piece of information the city wanted to make sure was addressed. There was compensation provided for the error, but there was an admission that the Sunshine Law had not been complied with,” Perry said.
The commission unanimously approved Shay’s settlement agreement.
Perry said paralegal Michael Barfield expected a call later from the Vincents later that day regarding individual settlement agreements similar to Shay’s.
“I expect they will execute the same settlement agreement with the same admission that Ms. Shay did. The Vincents are part of the appeal. They would be obligated also to release us and terminate all proceedings in the underlying case,” Perry said.
The commission authorized Chappie to accept and execute the Vincents’ settlement agreements when received.
After the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry was asked about Mapes’ settlement status.
“The city commission has authorized me to make a settlement offer to Mr. Mapes. Communication will be made to Mr. Mapes following the execution of the settlement agreements with John Metz, Tjet Martin, Bill and Rose Vincent and Patty Shay,” Perry said.
When contacted last week, Barfield said the Vincents’ settlement agreements had been finalized.
As of Sunday, Mapes remained the lone defendant still appealing Nicholas’ 2019 ruling.
On Nov. 24, Mapes sent Perry an email saying he would agree to the same settlement terms reached with the Vincents.
“I will dismiss my appeal with prejudice. I will need a response to this by Monday, Nov. 30, so that my attorney has time to file the necessary appellate paperwork,” Mapes wrote in his email.
Mapes’ settlement offer has not yet been presented to the city commission, which meets again on Thursday, Dec. 3.
“It is the commission’s expectation to make the public whole and Reed’s offer fails to do so,” Perry said regarding Mapes’ offer.
“He will remain solely responsible for all future costs to fight the appeal, and for any costs upheld or awarded by the Second DCA,” she noted.
BRADENTON BEACH – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has issued an order calling for Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to potentially pay the city of Bradenton Beach at least $369,498 for attorney’s fees.
In the eight-page written order on the amount of fees and costs that Nicholas issued Wednesday morning, the judge relieved co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife, Rose Vincent, of any financial responsibilities regarding the city’s efforts to recover attorney fees and additional legal costs for the civil lawsuit the city filed in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open meetings and public records.
On July 19, 2019, Nicholas ruled that Mapes, Martin, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent each violated the Florida Sunshine Law in the spring and early summer of 2017 when discussing public business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. At the time the violations occurred, Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.
“It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the attorney’s fee award, as applied to defendants Patricia Shay, William Vincent and Rose Vincent is stricken,” Nicholas stated in his most recent order.
Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of their financial liabilities after learning earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the July 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected the settlement agreements initiated on the city’s behalf because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not expressed interest in entering into similar pre-trial settlement agreements.
From left, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin were among the six defendants in the 2017 lawsuit that resulted in Mapes and Martin and John Metz (not shown) being ordered to reimburse the city for attorney’s fees. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city of Bradenton Beach) shall have and recover from the remaining defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin attorney’s fees in the amount of $369,498,” Nicholas stated in his order.
The order also addresses approximately $31,000 in additional non-attorney-related legal costs that include court reporter fees and filing fees also sought by the city.
“The court also reserves jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the city’s costs to determine if they too should be imposed upon defendants Metz, Mapes and Martin,” the order says.
“The court anticipates that one additional hearing will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues of apportionment, joint and several liability and to again determine the amount of the costs and whether they should be awarded in addition to the attorney’s fees awarded herein,” the order says.
Nicholas’ ruling was the result of hearings that took place via Zoom video conferencing on June 10 and Aug. 13.
Pre-trial settlement offers
The fee recovery proceedings took an unanticipated turn during the June 10 hearing when Shay, representing herself as a pro se defendant, presented the argument that she should not be ordered to pay more than the $500 she agreed to pay in the settlement offer that Watrous and Barfield presented to her before the trial began.
Nicholas said he was not aware that Shay had agreed to settle with the city.
“Why should Ms. Shay bear the cost of a trial that she did not want to have?” Nicholas said on more than one occasion that day.
The Vincents then presented similar arguments regarding their rejected settlement agreements. Nicholas said he was not aware of the Vincents’ settlement offers either.
He learned that on June 28, 2019, the city commission rejected the three settlement agreements that acknowledged Sunshine Law compliance failures. He also learned that each of the three defendants provided the city with $500 settlement checks that were returned uncashed.
Representing the city, attorney Robert Watrous told Nicholas the city commission rejected those three settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlement agreements. Watrous said anything less than six settlement agreements would have still subjected the city and its taxpayers to the costs of a trial.
During the August hearing, Mapes, Martin and Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, claimed they never received the same pre-trial settlement offers presented to Shay and the Vincents.
Reactions to order
When contacted Wednesday morning, Shay commented on Nicholas’ order.
“I am grateful and so relieved. I’m just happy that it’s over. It’s been three tough years. As I stated in court, I was willing to settle this from the very beginning and on numerous occasions, when offers were made, I was willing to accept them. But as I said in the hearing on June 10th, I didn’t have the power or ability to convince the other pro se defendants to do that,” Shay said.
When contacted via email Wednesday afternoon and asked if he wished to comment on the ruling, Mapes said, “No.”
As of Wednesday evening, Martin, Metz, Shults and the Vincents had not responded to The Sun’s email requests for comment.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said, “I am pleased with the detailed order from Judge Nicholas that serves to make the taxpayers whole and we look forward to obtaining a judgment to award the costs as well. The order clearly stands behind the transparency required of government so as to prevent the erosion of trust and integrity by those who serve the public. Government is called to serve the people; not the people who form the government.”
What next?
Sarasota-based paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield has been assisting the city with this case since its inception in 2017.
“It’s not over yet, but I think this is a significant victory that will go a long way towards making the city whole and healing its treasury,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon in response to Nicholas’ order.
Barfield is now assisting attorney Mark Caramanica and Perry in the city’s defense of the appeals filed by five of the six defendants regarding Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that they violated the Sunshine Law – an appeal process Shay is not participating in.
From left, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield served as the city’s legal team during the 2019 trial and the attorney’s fees hearings that followed. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to Barfield, “The payment of $369,498 in attorney fees, and any additional legal costs ordered by Nicholas must be paid by the three defendants in full or by posting a bond. Only if the defendants prevail in the appeals process that is currently proceeding through the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland would the monies be returned.”
Regarding Nicholas’ latest order, Barfield said, “The order is not final yet in terms of it being subject to appeal. And there’s still some steps that need to be taken on the costs, as well as apportionment among the three defendants that Judge Nicholas saddled with the fees. When that happens, the city will then take the position that they (Mapes, Martin and Metz) need to obtain a supersedeas bond. If they lose the appeal, then there’s no further fighting. The city gets its money. That’s the position we’ll take and the city will insist that they post a supersedeas bond,” Barfield said.
According to the Colonial Bonds & Insurance website, “A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant’s appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.”
Previous settlement offers
On Sept. 5, 2017 – less than one month after the city filed the civil lawsuit – attorney Jim Dye submitted to Watrous a settlement offer proposed on behalf of the five defendants he represented at the time: Mapes, Martin, Shay and the Vincents.
Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city board positions and were each willing to pay the city $100 toward the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke’s legal fees. That offer stated there would be no admission or denial of liability or fault regarding the alleged Sunshine Law violations. The city commission rejected that offer because it contained no acknowledgment of violating the Sunshine Law.
In March 2019, the defendants collectively rejected a settlement offer proposed by the city that requested each defendant pay the city $500 each, or $3,000 collectively, and the defendants collectively acknowledge errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. The city’s settlement offer was contingent on all six defendants’ acceptance.
The defendants collectively rejected that offer and responded with a counteroffer that proposed they make a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center and contained alternative language that said “errors may have occurred” rather than “errors did occur” regarding Sunshine Law compliance.
In April 2019, the city commission offered to accept a settlement offer that stated “errors may have occurred” if the defendants agreed to pay the city’s attorney’s fees and legal costs to date, which at that time totaled approximately $203,000.The defendants rejected that offer.
In late May of 2019, the defendants presented the city with individual settlement counteroffers that collectively sought a total of $60,902 in attorney fee reimbursements from the city and an additional $24,444 from Clarke.
John Metz is one of three defendants facing a possible shared financial obligation to the city of Bradenton Beach of more than $369,000. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“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,” said the offer Shults prepared on Metz’s behalf.
“The open meetings law permits the award of attorney’s 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 said.
The city commission rejected all of those counteroffers and instructed the city’s legal team to continue preparing for the trial.
BRADENTON BEACH – On behalf of the city of Bradenton Beach, attorney Robert Watrous has filed a motion seeking to impose sanctions on Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes.
In July, Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law in 2017. The Sunshine violations occurred when the then-city advisory board members repeatedly discussed advisory board business at their non-city-sanctioned Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings.
In November, Nicholas ruled the city was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the defendants, but he did not issue a ruling at that time as to what the recovery amount would be. Nicholas later ordered the parties to participate in a mandatory mediation session and the parties agreed on Bonnie Marmor as their mediator.
The motion Watrous filed on Friday, Feb. 14. pertains to the court-ordered, closed-door mediation session that took place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton on Jan. 13.
The mediation session provided the defendants and the city an opportunity to broker a settlement as to how much the defendants were willing to reimburse the city for the attorney fees and costs the city and its taxpayers incurred in this case.
As of Tuesday, Feb. 18, the city had incurred $477,062 in attorneys’ fees and costs, according to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson.
Watrous’ written motion notes all parties who attended the Jan. 13 mediation session were advised by the mediator to keep the details of that session to themselves. And that any settlement offer proposed would have to be discussed with and either accepted or rejected by the Bradenton Beach City Commission.
Watrous’ motion cites Florida Statute 44.405, which says, “Except as provided in this section, all mediation communications shall be confidential. A mediation participant shall not disclose a mediation communication to a person other than another mediation participant or a participant’s counsel. A violation of this section may be remedied as provided by s. 44.406. If the mediation is court-ordered, a violation of this section may also subject the mediation participant to sanctions by the court, including, but not limited to, costs, attorney’s fees, and mediator’s fees.”
According to the motion, the mediator contacted Watrous on Jan. 14, the day after the mediation session, to facilitate communication of a new settlement offer. Watrous then communicated with Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, who in turn relayed mediation-related information to his client and the co-defendants who no longer retain the services of their own attorneys.
Watrous’ motion notes that on Jan. 28, the Bradenton Beach Commission held a closed-door shade meeting that provided city commissioners an opportunity to consider and respond to a settlement offer tendered by Shults.
“On January 29, a media article appeared in the Islander stating that ‘Reed Mapes, one of the six defendants alongside John Metz, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent, told the Islander that John Metz offered $200,000 to settle with the city after a Jan. 13 closed-door mediation session failed to result in an agreement,’” Watrous’ motion states.
Watrous’ motion states that on Feb. 10, he sent Shults the city’s written response to the settlement offer Shults tendered on Jan. 14. Watrous’s motion does not indicate what the city’s response was.
“At present, the defendants have not responded to that offer,” the motion states.
A fee award hearing has been scheduled before Judge Edward Nicholas on Wednesday, April 29. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
If the parties can’t reach a settlement on their own, Nicholas will eventually be asked to determine how much the defendants must reimburse the city and its taxpayers.
Barring a settlement, the parties are scheduled to see each other in court again on Wednesday, April 29, when they appear before Nicholas at 1:35 p.m. for a three-hour hearing pertaining to award/amount of attorney fees.
BRADENTON – Manatee County 12th Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas ruled Friday that 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 violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
The Sunshine Law violations occurred at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in June, July and August of 2017.
The potential Sunshine Law violations were first reported by The Sun on Aug. 2, 2017.
The city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke filed the civil lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2017. The lawsuit sought a judge’s determination as to whether the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law by discussing advisory board business at CNOBB meetings.
The non-jury trial took place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton and began on Monday, July 15. When the testimony and legal arguments concluded on Thursday, July 18, Nicholas said he’d issue his ruling Friday morning.
The defendants and defense attorneys awaited the judge’s ruling Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city and Clarke in the case, assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield and City Attorney Ricinda Perry.
Attorneys Thomas Shults and Jodi Ruberg represented Metz – and to a lesser degree the five pro se defendants who previously discontinued the services of their shared attorney.
“I am hoping to some extent the conclusion of this trial may help close the wound that has been so open and so raw out in Bradenton Beach for so long,” Nicholas said before issuing his ruling.
Judge’s ruling
When issuing his detailed ruling, Nicholas first cited the Florida Constitution and the Sunshine Law contained within it.
“We begin with Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution that reads: ‘All meetings of any collegial body of the executive branch of the state government, or of any collegial body of any county, municipality, school district or special district at which official acts are to be taken, or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed shall be open and noticed to the public,’” Nicholas said.
Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six former advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Nicholas noted the defendants were all duly sworn advisory board members who acknowledged participating in Sunshine Law training.
During the trial, Watrous established that each defendant took an oath of office as an advisory board member and swore to protect the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. Watrous said those oaths followed the advisory board members wherever they went, including CNOBB meetings.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting.” – Edward Nicholas, Manatee County 12th Circuit Court Judge
In their testimony and/or pre-trial depositions, Metz, Mapes, Shay and Bill Vincent expressed their beliefs that CNOBB’s parking garage discussions did not violate the Sunshine Law because the city’s comprehensive plan prohibited parking garages and it was not reasonably foreseeable that one could ever be built.
Nicholas noted City Planner Alan Garrett testified the comp plan only prohibited parking garages in two of the city’s 11 zone district designations in 2017.
“A parking garage could theoretically be built in nine designated areas within the city,” Nicholas said of the comp plan as it existed in 2017.
Compliance concerns
Nicholas noted Perry sent an email to the Planning and Zoning board members on July 25, 2017, notifying them of the potential Sunshine Law implications of their CNOBB meetings and email exchanges.
Nicholas noted Perry also emailed then-Mayor Bill Shearon two days later, and Shearon forwarded that email to the planning board members. That email also expressed concerns about advisory board members attending CNOBB meetings in violation of the Sunshine Law.
City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous successfully presented the city’s case.
The trial included extensive discussion about the 2017 correspondence Bill Vincent had with the Florida Commission on Ethics and the Florida Office of the Attorney General regarding advisory board members participating in CNOBB meetings.
The Commission on Ethics response advised Vincent to review the Sunshine Law manual at the Attorney General’s website and possibly consult with private counsel. The Attorney General Office’s response advised Vincent to consult with the city attorney.
“The defendants never got answers to those questions. The defendants continued to meet despite their concerns, despite not getting answers to these very important questions. Had they contacted Ricinda Perry, she would have answered: ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies.’ Had they contacted any attorney in the state of Florida they would have said, ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies,’ ” Nicholas said.
Constitutional rights
During the trial, Shults, Metz, Mapes and Vincent expressed their opinions that state law allowed the advisory board members to discuss city issues that pertained to the possible pursuit of citizens’ initiatives.
Attorney Thomas Shults, left, was unsuccessful in his defense of John Metz and the five pro se defendants. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The defendants attempt to characterize these violative meetings as ballot initiative meetings pursuant to Section 166.031 (Florida Statute) is simply not persuasive. This ballot initiative defense strikes this court as an after-the-fact attempt to justify or otherwise rationalize what were otherwise clear and unequivocal violations of the Sunshine Law. It is a clever explanation for such violations, but it is not a compelling or persuasive one,” Nicholas said.
“The efforts to characterize their violative meetings as the right to assemble and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment also is not persuasive. Every citizen has the right to assemble and has the right to free speech. However, when an individual joins a government advisory board the Sunshine Law still applies. If that were not the case, every county commission, every city council, every advisory board could hold secret meetings and simply say I have a First Amendment right to do so. That would largely make the Sunshine Law meaningless and void,” Nicholas said.
Meeting recordings
During the trial, Nicholas heard audio recordings of entire CNOBB meetings and audio excerpts from CNOBB meetings.
“It’s certainly unusual that we have tapes of at least some of the meetings that took place outside of the Sunshine,” Nicholas said.
He then recited some of the statements made at CNOBB meetings:
“I have concerns about how the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is functioning;”
“We need to prohibit the construction of a parking garage in the city of Bradenton Beach;”
“It is on the CRA list;”
“Parking garage could easily come before Planning and Zoning;”
“That whole strip over there would be a parking garage;”
“We need to specify a municipal parking garage;”
“It would be a huge building;”
“We need to prohibit construction of a parking garage in Bradenton Beach, it doesn’t matter if it’s by a municipality or a huge corporation;”
“Horrendous traffic problems with a parking garage.”
Nicholas then said, “Those were all quotes. That is the very definition of a discussion about public business. And it wasn’t just parking garage discussions: CNOBB discussed ropes and bollards, sidewalks, parking issues, the Bridge Tender (Inn) land swap, Bridge Street planters – all issues that had come before Planning and Zoning or Scenic WAVES.”
The judge ruled that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes and Bill Vincent violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said.
“Also, there were at least four CNOBB meetings that were not recorded early on as the group was becoming organized. What was discussed at those meetings? Who attended those meetings? These questions point to the obvious need for Sunshine Law compliance,” Nicholas said.
Nicholas said the defendants’ passionate and firmly held beliefs regarding city issues caused them to abdicate their obligation to follow the law.
“My finding that all the defendants clearly and unequivocally violated the Sunshine Law does not in any way suggest that they are bad people. I do not agree with the suggestion that the defendants attempted to form a secret government or a shadow government, or that their meetings were surreptitious or clandestine in any way,” Nicholas said.
The judge ruled that former advisory board members Rose Vincent, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
“Judgment is in favor of the city. The court finds that all the defendants, as members of Planning and Zoning and members of the Scenic WAVES Partnership Committee were subject to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Section 286.011 of Florida Statute,” Nicholas ruled.
Additional comments
Nicholas said a post-trial hearing will be scheduled to address potential sanctions. These include the city’s request to be reimbursed for a portion of its legal fees that now exceed $250,000.
“We agree with everything the judge said,” Watrous said after he left the courtroom.
“The Sunshine Law has been vindicated,” Barfield said.
“We agree with the judgment and look forward to the city moving forward and healing. The city does not wish to sue any of its board members, and it’s unfortunate this wasn’t settled earlier, but the Sunshine Law is important. It provides the city and its citizens with an open government,” Perry said,
“Obviously, I’m pleased with the verdict,” Clarke said.
“Government in the sunshine is why we are here. It’s as simple as that, it’s as important as that. It’s the foundation of what good government is built on; openness, transparency and accountability. Anything less is just not acceptable and now’s the time to heal,” Mayor John Chappie said.
“I’m very pleased with the judge’s ruling and I would like to thank everyone involved for presenting a clear case to the court. This was an unfortunate circumstance the city commission was put in to uphold our oaths to protect the laws of the state and to protect the city from litigation. I wish this would’ve been resolved through our previous settlement offers for a less expensive and earlier conclusion,” Vice Mayor Jake Spooner said.
Co-plaintiff Jack Clarke, Vice Mayor Jake Spooner (second row), Mayor John Chappie, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous await the judge’s arrival Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In March, all six defendants rejected a settlement offer from the city that proposed a collective admission that mistakes were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance and a $500 payment from each defendant. The defendants rejected the settlement offer that required them to acknowledge non-compliance with the Sunshine Law.
In May, Metz and the other defendants submitted counter proposals that sought significant financial reimbursement from the city. Metz’s offer also expressed a willingness to subject the city to a future appeals process.
BRADENTON – The Sunshine Law lawsuit involving the city of Bradenton Beach and six former city advisory board members is underway.
The civil trial began today. The suit was filed in 2017 on behalf of the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke. It alleges that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past, present and potential board business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in July and August of 2017. The lawsuit alleges similar Sunshine Law violations were committed by Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent.
The trial is expected to last all week and possibly conclude on Friday.
Attorney Robert Watrous is representing the city and Clarke in this case, assisted by City Attorney Ricinda Perry and paralegal Michael Barfield. Attorney Thomas Shults is representing Metz, assisted by attorney Jodi Ruberg. The other five defendants are representing themselves.
Defendants Reed Mapes, Bill Vincent, Rose Vincent (obscured), Patty Shay, Tjet Martin, attorney Jodi Ruberg (obscured), attorney Thomas Shults and defendant John Metz sat side by side as the trial began. – Media Pool Photo | Submitted
Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas is presiding over the bench trial and he alone will determine the innocence or guilt of the six defendants. The trial is taking place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton.
The trial began with Watrous and Shults seeking rulings on pretrial motions and other legal housekeeping matters.
When seeking a motion regarding the alleged spoliation of evidence, Watrous accused the defendants of intentionally withholding information during the pre-trial discovery process – included a recording of the July 14 CNOBB meeting that Shults did not provide Watrous until the day after Metz’s July 2 deposition. During that CNOBB meeting, Mapes initiated discussion on a quasi-judicial land use issue that was currently before the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the Bridge Tender Inn’s Dockside Bar seating capacity.
Nicholas denied the preliminary motions and said he would take them under advisement individually as the trial moves along.
Opening statements
During his opening statements, Watrous said the city’s legal team has compiled a large amount of information that he believes supports the allegations. The evidence includes email exchanges, audio recordings of CNOBB meetings, city meeting minutes, newspaper articles and more.
City resident Jack Clarke, Mayor John Chappie, City 0Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and Attorney Robert Watrous sat together at the plaintiffs’ table. – Media Pool Photo | Submitted
Watrous said the evidence would show that CNOBB consisted of extremely zealous individuals that formed their own shadow government because they did not feel their voices were being heard by the city commission.
Watrous said the defendants have claimed they are the victims in this case, portraying themselves as innocent retirees who volunteered their time to serve on city advisory boards.
Watrous said that all six defendants received Sunshine Law training while serving as city advisory board members but chose to “turn a blind eye” when moving forward with their CNOBB activities.
He also noted the defendants never sought the advice of the Manatee County attorney’s office or outside counsel regarding whether their participation in CNOBB meeting discussions were Sunshine Law-compliant.
“This an intentional act on their parts. I’m not saying they’re bad people, but they exercised bad judgment,” Watrous said.
During his opening statements, Shults said this case is really the story of six citizens who volunteered to serve on city boards without compensation. He also said this is the story of six citizens and their constitutional rights to petition their city government for changes to the city charter.
Shults said the defendants should be commended for their service to the city and halting their July 25, 2017 discussion about prohibiting parking garages after only six minutes of discussion.
Shults said no Sunshine Law violations occurred, but if they had they would have been cured by the resignations of all six defendants before or after the lawsuit was filed in August 2017.
“That should have been the end of this matter,” Shults said. “They should have been saluted instead of being sued. Here we are two years later.”
After the lunch break, Watrous and Barfield read aloud excerpts from the printed transcript of Bill Vincent’s December 2018 deposition. Barfield read Vincent’s responses to questions Watrous posed late last year about his city-mandated Sunshine Law training, the April 2017 Planning and Zoning Board discussions he participated in regarding parking garages and his role in creating and chairing CNOBB.
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.
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.
BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach Commissioners have rejected four charter amendment initiatives pursued by the Keep Our Residential Neighborhoods (KORN) political action committee.
Barring a court order or a new petition initiative done according to the city charter, KORN’s proposed charter amendment questions will not appear on the city ballot this fall.
KORN’s charter initiatives propose a citywide prohibition on multi-level parking garages, hiring a full-time city manager, increasing setback restrictions and prohibiting vacant commission seats from being filled by commission appointment.
The commission based its decision on KORN not following the charter’s referendum procedures and on insufficiencies and concerns cited by City Clerk Terri Sanclemente, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and City Engineer Lynn Burnett.
After nearly two hours of debate on Thursday, June 21, the commission adopted three motions. The first was for the commission to uphold Sanclemente’s decision to reject the proposed amendments according article 4 of the city charter. The second stated KORN’s initiatives do not comply with Florida Statutes 166.031 and 101.161. A third motion directed city staff to defend the city charter and represent the city in any litigation arising from the KORN petitions.
All three motions were approved by 4-1 votes, with Commissioner Randy White in opposition.
As he left city hall, KORN chairman Reed Mapes said, “I’m calling my lawyer.”
As of mid-day Monday, a lawsuit had not been filed.
Petition insufficiencies
On June 4, KORN treasurer John Metz submitted the signed petitions to the clerk’s office with a note citing 88 signatures for the parking garage petition, 87 for the vacancies petition, 83 for the setbacks petition and 76 for the city manager petition.
The referendum requirements in the city charter and state law require verified signatures from at least 10 percent of the registered electors in the preceding general election. According to the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Office website, Bradenton Beach had 744 registered in November 2017.
“Now you put us in a position where we either don’t follow our city charter or we go to litigation.”
– Jake Spooner, Bradenton Beach Commissioner
On June 11, Sanclemente sent Metz a letter stating KORN didn’t form a five-member petition circulating committee, didn’t use the city’s required forms and didn’t provide accompanying affidavits stating each petition was signed in the presence of a committee member.
“This office has testimony that petitions were mailed to residents and were not signed in the presence of a committee member,” Sanclemente wrote. “Accordingly, your petitions are deemed insufficient pursuant to the city charter.”
KORN was given 10 days to file amended petitions. Sanclemente recapped these insufficiencies for the commission and said Metz refused to accept the petitions mailed back to him.
During that morning’s Charter Review Committee meeting, the city engineer said KORN’s setback amendment could negatively impact stormwater retention. She recommended revising the amendment language or addressing those concerns in city code instead. Perry said the amendment could expose the city to Bert Harris claims.
KORN treasurer John Metz tells city commissioners KORN’s charter initiatives were conducted according to state law and not the city charter. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Commission discussion
“We’re using the same process that was used last year, a state process under 166.031,” Metz told the commission.
He was referencing charter initiatives pursued by the Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) in 2017. Perry said those voter-adopted charter amendments still contain unresolved conflicts.
“The city is a conduit through which we operate. There’s nothing the city’s to do except to follow statute. I’m here to ask you to send these petitions on. I think there’s enough litigation going on that we don’t need more,” Metz said.
“Did you follow the procedure in our charter?” Cole asked.
“It’s not appropriate,” Metz responded.
“You don’t find it appropriate, but our job is to follow our city charter. Now you put us in a position where we either don’t follow our city charter or we go to litigation. Why didn’t you follow our charter?” Commissioner Jake Spooner said.
“We’re not required to,” Metz said.
Perry said the Elections Office only determines whether enough verified petition signatures were obtained and it’s up to the commission to review referendums for compliance with the charter and state law.
“You were sworn in to uphold this city’s constitution, which is its charter, and state law,” Perry told the commission.
Perry said state law limits ballot summaries to 75 words and ballot titles to 15 words. The ballot summary for the vacancies amendment contains 102 words and the setbacks summary contains 89. According to Perry, all four ballot titles exceed 15 words.
The word “outrageous” appears in the parking garage summary and “cronyism” appears in the vacancies summary. Perry’s June 19 memo to the commission referenced a Florida Supreme Court ruling that says, “The ballot summary should tell the voter the legal effect of the amendment and no more. The political motivation behind a given change must be propounded outside the voting booth.”
Perry said state law no longer allows land-use referendums and Cole noted the charter’s building height restrictions predate the change in state law.
Chappie said the first question to be answered was, “Does the charter apply or not?”
Perry said the charter was created according to state law and works in tandem with Florida statues.
“It’s not specific to KORN. Our charter has to be followed,” Spooner said.
“This is an attempt to stop these KORN initiatives,” White said.
White said the state process provides citizens with another option if they feel they’re not being heard at the local level.
“Had the city been willing to work with us, we’d probably been able to work all those items out. We’ve found that very much impossible,” KORN chair Reed Mapes said regarding last year’s referendum efforts.
“That’s not true. The city was clearly pleading to work with CNOBB to set up a charter review committee to get it done correctly. CNOBB said no,” Chappie responded.
“What is the problem with following a simple procedure?” Cole said of this year’s efforts. “If you would have done that, it would have allowed us to say yes, let’s put it to the voters without breaking our own city charter.”
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.
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.
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.
BRADENTON BEACH – Six current and former city board and committee members are named as defendants in a Sunshine Law suit filed Friday.
“This is an action of the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law against the defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for holding meetings outside the Sunshine Law and contrary to the express written directive of the city attorney,” the lawsuit complaint states.
Bradenton Beach Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz and former board members Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent are named as defendants. Vincent, Shay and Mapes resigned from the planning board after the alleged Sunshine violations were discussed at the Aug. 3 City Commission meeting.
Scenic WAVES Committee chair Tjet Martin and committee member Rose Vincent (Bill Vincent’s wife) are also named as defendants. All six defendants are affiliated with the non-city-sanctioned Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) group.
The city of Bradenton Beach and former Mayor Jack Clarke are named as co-plaintiffs and will be jointly represented by Sarasota attorney Robert Watrous. Paralegal Michael Barfield will provide legal assistance. The case is assigned to Judge Lon Arend.
The lawsuit seeks rulings on whether Sunshine violations occurred and what corrective actions can be taken.
“Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs for prosecuting this action,” the complaint states.
CNOBB discussions
The complaint cites a July 25 CNOBB meeting where Mapes, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent, Martin and others discussed prohibiting parking garages.
“The Sunshine Law requires advance notice to the public and an opportunity for public comment at any meeting or discussion on issues that are reasonably foreseeable to come before any board or collegial body,” the complaint states.
CNOBB agendas are posted at the group’s website, but residents and business owners were not given formal city notice about a parking garage discussion.
The planning board participated in Sunshine-compliant parking garage discussions when reviewing the updated Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan in April.
“Because the P&Z board acts as the local planning agency, it is reasonably foreseeable that its duties will include future consideration of whether a parking garage should be constructed within the city. Only after engaging in substantive discussion did the defendants recognize that they should not discuss the matter any further because of the Sunshine Law,” the complaint says.
The complaint mentions an Aug. 3, CNOBB meeting discussion on the proposed CRA district master plan and says Martin and Rose Vincent knew or should have known that issues discussed at a CNOBB meeting could foreseeably come before Scenic WAVES.
“It will come before Scenic WAVES,” Martin said during the meeting.
Rose Vincent did not participate in the master plan discussion, but she was present during part of the meeting.
Barfield requested e-mails, text messages and social media communications exchanged by any of the four planning board members from June 1 to Aug. 8. He made a similar request to Martin.
On Friday, Barfield sent the city clerk and city attorney a 793-page document containing Mapes’ e-mails and attachments, some of which predate CNOBB’s first public meeting on July 11.
On June 12, Mapes e-mailed Bill Vincent about Metz joining CNOBB.
“I spoke to John. He is concerned about sunshine issue,” Mapes wrote.
On July 11, Mapes sent Vincent, Metz and others an e-mail referencing a parking garage prohibition and the city’s future land use map.
Co-plaintiffs
On Thursday, Aug. 3, commissioners voted 5-0 in favor of joining the proposed legal action at a cost not to exceed $5,000. This was after Perry told them three potential plaintiffs contacted Barfield. The commission agreed that joining as co-plaintiffs would signify proactive measures being taken by the city to address existing and future Sunshine concerns.
Earlier that day, Metz suggested the city would pay the board members’ legal fees if legal action ensued. It’s unlikely the city, as co-plaintiffs, will do that.
On Monday, Aug. 7, Clarke reached agreement with Watrous to serve as a plaintiff and the commission voted 3-1 in favor of Mayor Bill Shearon executing a similar retainer agreement on the city’s behalf. Shearon said he changed his mind and now opposed the legal action. Martin, his life partner, had not yet been named as a defendant.
Commissioner Marilyn Maro was not present for the Aug. 7 vote.
“As a former city official, I am acutely aware of the Florida statutes referred to as Sunshine Law,” Clarke said later. “When it became clear to me that the core group of CNOBB disregarded these laws, I sought remedy against those I knew were putting the city at risk.”
In 2015, Barfield assisted in the successful defense of a lawsuit Metz filed against Clarke.
