Skip to main content

Tag: Sunshine law

Van Ostenbridge and Baugh’s Sunshine Law compliance questioned

Van Ostenbridge, Baugh Sunshine Law compliance questioned

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Featured, Manatee County.

MANATEE COUNTY – Constituent Dave Tank believes he heard Manatee County Commission Chairman Kevin Van Ostenbridge and County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh discussing county business in a manner that was not compliant with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.

The Sunshine Law requires elected city and county officials to conduct and discuss their official governmental business with one another in properly noticed public meetings, and the state prohibits them from doing so in non-public, non-noticed settings.

On June 8, Tank expressed his Sunshine Law compliance concerns in an email addressed to Van Ostenbridge and Baugh. Tank’s email was also shared with the five other county commissioners, County Administrator Scott Hopes and County Attorney Bill Clague.

“I ate lunch at Robin’s Downtown today. You sat down at the table next to me and talked loudly about various Manatee County matters. I assume you are aware that a conversation between two or more commissioners about public business, without public notice, violates the state’s open meetings law. I’d appreciate you avoiding this sort of thing in the future,” Tank’s email said in its entirety.

Tank also included a link to the Office of the Attorney General website that includes information on the Sunshine Law and a link to the 2022 Government-in-the-Sunshine manual.

In her June 8 response to Tank, Commissioner Misty Servia wrote: “Mr. Tank. Thank you for the email. I hope they were not discussing county business, as that would be a criminal offense.”

In his two-word response to Servia, Tank wrote: “They were.”

As the county’s District 3 commissioner, Van Ostenbridge was elected by constituents from Anna Maria Island, the northern portion of Longboat Key, Cortez and west Bradenton. Van Ostenbridge was contacted by The Sun on June 16, and asked about Tank’s Sunshine Law compliance concerns.

Van Ostenbridge said he and Baugh discussed politics and politicians but did not discuss official county business.
“The Sunshine Law was not violated because I did not discuss anything the board could potentially vote on. I respect Mr. Tank for reaching out to me out of concern. I did respond to him as well and I assured him we didn’t discuss anything we’d vote on,” Van Ostenbridge said.

When contacted by The Sun that same day Baugh declined comment.

“Nothing to comment about,” she wrote in her message to The Sun.

Van Ostenbridge and Baugh’s Sunshine Law compliance questioned

County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh declined comment on the Sunshine Law compliance concerns. – Joe Hendricks | SunBaugh remains the subject of an ongoing Ethics Commission investigation regarding her role in organizing a controversial COVID-19 pop-up vaccine clinic only for those living in zip codes specific to the Lakewood Ranch area she represents as the county’s District 5 commissioner.

On June 17, The Sun emailed Tank and asked him if he would clarify which specific county issues Van Ostenbridge and Baugh discussed during their lunch outing.

In response, Tank wrote, “I don’t see the upside in going into what the commissioners were talking about, other than what I’ve said and written. It wasn’t ‘just politics.’ Since Mr. Van Ostenbridge denies that, all that will result is a lot of ‘he said, he said’ back and forth.”

In his email response to The Sun, Tank also noted, “Mr. Van Ostenbridge and the county FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) people have not produced all of the emails about the conversation.”

On June 14, The Sun requested from the county all email correspondence from any county commissioner as well as Hopes and Clague regarding Tank’s Sunshine Law compliance concerns. At week’s end, the county had not yet provided those requested public records. Earlier this month, the Mantatee Clerk of the Court’s Inspector General’s office notified the county that the Inspector General’s office was reviewing how the current county administration responds to public records requests.

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760

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

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.

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760
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.

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant

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

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.”

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant
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.

Van Ostenbridge seeks Fifth Amendment protections

Van Ostenbridge to invoke Fifth Amendment in public records case

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights when deposed under oath by Michael Barfield on Friday, March 12, according to court filings.

Barfield, a paralegal, is representing himself in a civil case he filed in 12th Judicial Circuit Court on Dec. 7, 2020, against Van Ostenbridge and commissioners Vanessa Baugh and James Satcher, claiming they violated Florida’s public records law.

During a hearing Friday afternoon conducted via Zoom, Judge Charles Sniffen denied Van Ostenbridge’s March 1 motion for an order protecting him from being deposed.

During the deposition, Van Ostenbridge will invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him, according to Van Ostenbridge’s attorney, Morgan Bentley.

Van Ostenbridge seeks Fifth Amendment protections
Attorney Morgan Bentley is representing Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Bentley Law Firm | Submitted

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is conducting an independent criminal investigation of the case. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Barfield began making public records requests of Van Ostenbridge and fellow commissioners Baugh, Satcher and George Kruse on Nov. 20. That was one day after Van Ostenbridge made a motion at a county commission meeting to put then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her proposed termination would be discussed and decided in early December.

Van Ostenbridge made that motion two days after he, Satcher and Kruse took office, and with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole. Baugh, Satcher and Kruse supported the motion, which was later rescinded at the request of Kruse, who is not named as a co-defendant in the case.

Coryea and the county commission agreed to a $204,000 separation settlement on Feb. 23, which ended by mutual agreement her tenure as county administrator.

Motion for protective order argued

In the motion denied by the court, Bentley wrote, “Van Ostenbridge has produced all items requested by plaintiff. Nonetheless, on Feb. 19, plaintiff filed his notice of taking deposition. Such deposition is improper in the context of the current litigation, the purpose of which was to obtain documents. As such documents have been produced, there is no ongoing purpose and no need to take the deposition of Van Ostenbridge other than to annoy and harass.

“Moreover, there exists a pending Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation. The FDLE investigation centers on the same issues as those involved in this case. As such, during the pendency of that investigation, Van Ostenbridge will necessarily invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to questions related to any matters subject to the investigation,” Bentley stated in his written motion.

In his response to Bentley’s motion, Barfield wrote: “Van Ostenbridge claims he has produced all records responsive to the records request but wants to avoid questions about his production by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights due to a pending criminal investigation. As set forth below, there is a factual dispute about whether Van Ostenbridge has produced all records. Moreover, a blanket assertion of Fifth Amendment rights is not permitted under Florida law.

“The contention that Van Ostenbridge produced all records responsive to the records request prior to the amended complaint is disputed by the parties. As one example, Van Ostenbridge’s response to the amended order to show cause, filed on Dec. 23 claimed ‘all items’ sought in the records request had been produced. However, as recently as Jan. 26, Van Ostenbridge produced records responsive to the request that had not previously been produced.

“Two days later, Van Ostenbridge produced another version of the same record but with a different filename. An evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the dispute about whether all records have been produced. It is inconsistent for Van Ostenbridge to claim he has produced everything while seeking shelter under the Fifth Amendment to prevent any adversarial inquiry to test his claim of full compliance,” Barfield stated in his response.

Van Ostenbridge seeks Fifth Amendment protections
Paralegal Michael Barfield wants to question Kevin Van Ostenbridge under oath. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“The litigation is related to the commissioners’ compliance with Florida’s open-government laws, which includes the Public Records Act and the Government in the Sunshine law. The purpose of the pending litigation is to ensure that all records responsive to the initial request have been produced. I have many questions about the production of records and whether it was a full and complete production. That is why I scheduled Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s deposition,” Barfield stated after the motion was denied.

When being deposed, the subject is questioned under oath, usually in a non-courtroom setting, with a court reporter present. The court reporter then produces a verbatim transcript that serves as sworn preliminary testimony to be provided to the judge and others before a case goes to trial.

As the county’s District 3 commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach, Cortez, the northern portion of Longboat Key and portions of Bradenton.

Commissioner Van Ostenbridge produces call log

Commissioner Van Ostenbridge produces call log

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a call log that details calls made and received on his personal phone.

As the District 3 county commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria Island, Cortez, the Manatee County portion of Longboat Key and west Bradenton.

Van Ostenbridge provided Barfield his phone records last week in response to the public records request Barfield made on Nov. 20.

As of Monday afternoon, Barfield said he had identified most of the calls listed in Van Ostenbridge’s call log, but he was still reviewing those records.

Van Ostenbridge’s phone log reveals who he talked to, when he talked to them and for how long, but it does not provide any details on the content of those phone conversations.

The Florida Sunshine Law prohibits members of the same county or city commission from discussing official or foreseeably official county business in any setting other than a properly noticed public meeting. The Sunshine Law does not prohibit members of the same elected body from discussing matters unrelated to their official government business.

Van Ostenbridge and Baugh calls

Van Ostenbridge was elected on Nov 3.

According to the call log he provided to Barfield, Van Ostenbridge and Baugh communicated by phone 15 times between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1. Their calls totaled 129 minutes and ranged in length from one minute to 23 minutes.

Van Ostenbridge and Baugh spoke for 17 minutes on Nov. 5, 23 minutes on Nov. 12, 14 minutes on Nov. 13, 10 minutes on Nov. 16 and for six minutes and 11 minutes on Nov. 18.

One day later, during the special county commission meeting Van Ostenbridge requested, Van Ostenbridge made a motion to put County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed on Jan. 6.

Baugh, Satcher and Commissioner George Kruse supported the motion made by Van Ostenbridge with no advance notice given to the public. But on Dec. 10, Kruse withdrew his support for further discussion on Coryea’s termination and those efforts have now ceased.

During the Nov. 19 meeting, Baugh also introduced a county resolution pertaining to commission meeting procedures, which was adopted by the same 4-3 vote with no advance notice given to the public.

When contacted Monday, Van Ostenbridge provided the following response via text message: “Vanessa Baugh is a very good friend and we speak regularly. I turned over all my calls with the other commissioners in the spirit of transparency. I did not discuss county business on any of those calls.”

Commissioner Van Ostenbridge produces call log
County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a copy of her personal call log. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

When contacted Monday, Baugh provided a similar response: “Just personal conversations between two people who became friends on the campaign trail. We campaigned very closely together and forged a friendship.”

Calls with other commissioners

According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he engaged in five phone conversations with Satcher between Nov. 7 and Nov. Nov. 24. Those calls totaled 39 minutes and included a 21-minute call on Nov. 7 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 24.

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated two phone conversations with Commissioner Misty Servia: a nine-minute call on Nov. 8 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 17 – the same day Van Ostenbridge, Satcher and Kruse were sworn in as commissioners.

Regarding her phone conversations with Van Ostenbridge, Servia said, “I endorsed Kevin and we had a friendly relationship, with messages of ‘Congratulations on being sworn in,’ and, ‘Are you getting settled into your new office?’ I wanted to see him grow and succeed. It goes without saying that I was extremely disappointed when he suggested firing our county administrator, and I had no idea that he planned to do that just hours after being sworn in.”

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge engaged in three phone conversations with Kruse between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1, for a total of 15 minutes.

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated a one-minute call to Commissioner Carol Whitmore on Nov. 16 and Whitmore initiated consecutive one-minute and five-minute calls to Van Ostenbridge on Nov. 18.

Additional calls

Private citizens who do not hold public office or work for a local governmental agency are not subject to the Sunshine Law, but Van Ostenbridge’s call log provides additional insight into those he’s in frequent contact with.

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and developer Carlos Beruff had nine phone communications for a total of 67 minutes between Nov. 11 and Nov. 21.

The pair spoke for 15 minutes on Nov. 11, for 17 minutes at 7:25 p.m. on Nov. 17, for seven minutes at 1:24 p.m. on Nov. 19 and for a total of 14 minutes on Nov. 20 during three consecutive calls that occurred between 6:39 a.m. and 7:17 a.m.

According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he spoke to developer Michael Neal six times for a total of 91 minutes between Nov. 12 and Nov. 20; and to developer Pat Neal three times for a total of 21 minutes.

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown engaged in 10 phone conversations for a total of 80 minutes between Nov. 16 and Nov. 20.

According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and campaign supporter Bob Spencer, from West Coast Tomato, spoke nine times for a total of 55 minutes.

Barfield comments

When contacted Monday, Barfield commented on the calls made between commissioners.

“They would have you believe that all these calls were completely about friendship, but it appears they were taking steps behind the scenes to terminate Cheri Coryea, and to bring forth Commissioner Baugh’s resolution,” Barfield said.

“There’s still pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that are missing. Unfortunately, the picture coming into focus raises very troubling concerns about commissioners routinely chatting with each other on key dates surrounding the efforts to terminate the county administrator,” Barfield said.

Commissioner Van Ostenbridge produces call log
Paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield continues to investigate the private communications of four Manatee County commissioners. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Barfield also commented on some of the other phone calls that took place.

“When you start piecing everything together, it tells me there are some key people acting as conduits between the commission, as well as the commissioners talking among themselves,” Barfield said.

Barfield said he was still reviewing the call log he received from Baugh on Christmas Eve. His partial review of Baugh’s calls between Nov. 3 and Nov. 11 indicate Baugh engaged in four calls with Van Ostenbridge and 12 calls with Kruse during that period.

According to Barfield, attorney George Levesque, from the GrayRobinson law firm in Tallahassee, is representing Baugh, and attorney Morgan Bentley is representing Van Ostenbridge.

Related coverage

 

Notes and texts shed light on Coryea termination efforts

 

Commission abandons Coryea termination efforts

Kruse call log reveals private conversations between commissioners

Call log reveals private conversations among county commissioners

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner George Kruse’s personal call log indicates he has had numerous private phone conversations with commissioners Vanessa Baugh, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge since being elected.

It is not illegal for members of the same elected body to communicate by phone, text message or email, but it is a violation of Florida Sunshine Law if they discuss anything that has, will or could foreseeably come before them as official county business.

On Tuesday, Dec. 8, Kruse provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a call log and a copy of a text message exchange he had with Satcher. Kruse produced those records in response to the public records request he received from Barfield on Friday, Nov. 20.

Baugh, Satcher, Van Ostenbridge and former commissioner Steve Jonsson received similar records requests and were originally given until Friday, Dec. 4 to respond. Barfield made his records request according to Florida’s Public Records Act.

According to Kruse’s call log, he had, or attempted to have, 16 telephone communications with Baugh during the Nov. 3 to Nov. 20 timeframe specified in Barfield’s records request.

Kruse had three phone communications with Satcher and two with Van Ostenbridge during that same period. He also made one call and received one call from developer Carlos Beruff, and on Nov. 20, Kruse called 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas.

Nicholas swore Kruse in as a county commissioner on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Satcher and Van Ostenbridge were also sworn in that day as new commissioners, joined by Baugh, an incumbent who was elected to another term.

Later that day, the newly-reconfigured commission participated in a commission work meeting. Kruse left Satcher a voice mail at 6:39 p.m. and called him again at 10:18 p.m., according to his call log. At 10:22 p.m., Kruse called Baugh, and then called her again at 9 a.m. the following morning.

At 6:45 a.m. on Thursday, Nov. 19, Kruse sent Satcher a text message that said, “Ignore our call the other night. Stick to original.”

Kruse call log reveals private conversations between commissioners
George Kruse provided Michael Barfield a copy of this text message exchange he had with Commissioner James Satcher. – Submitted | Michael Barfield

During the work meeting that took place later that morning, the commission adopted by 4-3 vote a county resolution presented by Baugh with no public notice. The adopted resolution now allows the commission to change its meeting procedures while a meeting is in progress, with no advance notice to the public.

“Any of the foregoing rules may be waived at any board meeting then in session by a majority vote of the board, unless such waiver is in conflict with state or local law,” according to Resolution 20-191.

Van Ostenbridge then initiated a discussion, with no advance public notice, that resulted in a 4-3 vote to put County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed and determined on Wednesday, Jan. 6.

Commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore opposed the Nov. 19 actions initiated by Baugh and Van Ostenbridge.

Bellamy said the efforts to terminate Coryea seemed “premeditated” and Whitmore said they seemed “orchestrated.”

Barfield began submitting his records requests the following day.

Barfield’s reaction

“It’s a bombshell,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon when discussing these initial discoveries.

According to Barfield, the three new commissioners became subject to the Public Records Act and the Florida Sunshine Law once the election results were known on Nov. 3. As an incumbent, Baugh has long been required to comply with the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Law.

“There’s 16 calls between Vanessa Baugh and George Kruse at various times,” Barfield said.

Kruse call log reveals private conversations between commissioners
Commissioner Vanessa Baugh had 16 phone communications with Commissioner George Kruse. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“That message about ‘ignore the other night’ is so telling, coming hours before the Nov. 19 meeting began,” Barfield said about the Kruse-Satcher text message exchange.

“It seems to me this is strong evidence of coordination in advance of a meeting,” Barfield said regarding the various communications between commissioners.

Barfield said Baugh had not provided him with an original draft copy of the resolution she presented with no public notice.

He said Baugh’s official county emails indicate she had a conversation with the county attorney’s office on Nov. 18 about her requested resolution, but did not provide the county attorney’s office with a digital copy of the document.

“To date, she has not produced that record. Vanessa did provide a photograph of the draft language of the resolution,” Barfield said.

Barfield questions whether Baugh or someone else wrote the original draft of that resolution.

Still awaiting records

Barfield said he received some preliminary records from Van Ostenbridge Wednesday afternoon and was told he’d receive copies of Van Ostenbridge’s text messages and personal call log on Thursday.

Regarding Baugh, he said, “I received a couple emails from her official county account and a phone log from her official county phone that has virtually nothing on it. I’ve received nothing from her private email accounts or her private cell phone, including her text messages and call log.”

Barfield said Satcher produced some records Tuesday night that he was still reviewing.

When asked where all of this might be headed, Barfield said, “I’m still collecting evidence.”

Kruse call log reveals private conversations between commissioners
Commissioner James Satcher received a summons when he arrived for Thursday morning’s work meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Just before the start of Thursday morning’s county commission work meeting at the Bradenton Area Convention Center in Palmetto, Satcher was served with a summons from the Manatee County Clerk of Court.

According to Barfield, the summons formally started the five-day window for Satcher to show cause to the court as to why the records request should not be granted.

As he walked into the meeting area, Satcher said, “I just got served. I love this job.”

Kruse call log reveals private conversations between commissioners

Paralegal Michael Barfield attended the county commission work meeting Thursday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Related coverage:

 

Satcher named as defendant in public records action

 

Sunshine Law expert seeks records from county commissioners

BB seal

Bradenton Beach Commission accepts Sunshine Law settlements

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

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.

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants John Metz and Tjet Martin have agreed to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $350,000 as partial reimbursement for the attorney’s fees the city has incurred.

According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city has spent $572,321 to date on the civil lawsuit the city filed against Metz, Martin and four other former city advisory board members in 2017.

The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether the six defendants violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open government meetings and requires the discussion of official public business to be conducted in properly noticed public meetings.

When the Sunshine Law violations occurred, Reed Mapes, Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.

In July of 2019, the city prevailed in the four-day trial which resulted in 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruling that all six defendants repeatedly violated the Sunshine Law during their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.

Metz, Mapes, Martin, Rose Vincent and Bill Vincent then appealed that ruling, with Metz and his attorneys leading that process. As of Monday, those appeals remained pending in the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland. Shay did not appeal Nicholas’ 2019 ruling.

On Oct. 28, Nicholas issued a written order regarding the amount of attorney’s fees to be recovered by the city and which defendants shared responsibility for that payment.

“It is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city) 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.

“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 order.

Nicholas struck Shay and the Vincents’ financial liabilities after he learned earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected those signed settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz did not express a similar willingness to settle.

Settlement offer accepted

The settlement agreement proposed by Metz and Martin was presented to the city commission during a shade meeting that took place Thursday evening, Nov. 5, inside the commission chambers.

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000
John and Alice Metz attended the Nov. 5 shade meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Metz and his wife, Alice, attended the public portions of the shade meeting that preceded and followed the private discussion that included only City Attorney Ricinda Perry, the five city commission members and the court reporter/stenographer who will later produce a verbatim transcript of the private discussion that is protected by attorney-client privilege until the case is over. Martin did not attend the shade meeting.

During the public opening of the shade meeting, Perry said, “There has been some development in the case and I would like an opportunity to discuss those developments and seek the advice of the city commission.”

The public and Deputy Clerk Christine Watson were then asked to leave the room. Perry and the commission spent approximately 50 minutes engaged in private discussion before the public was allowed back inside city hall, now joined by lawsuit co-plaintiff Jack Clarke and his wife, Karen.

“I would like a motion to accept the settlement offer from John Metz and Tjet Martin in the amount of $350,000, and to direct the city attorney to prepare the necessary settlement document discussions with the appropriate counsel, and to prepare them for execution by the city,” Perry told the commission.

Commissioner Ralph Cole made the requested motion that passed by a 5-0 vote.

Perry then sought a second motion directing her to prepare a settlement offer to present to Mapes and to finalize settlement offers with Shay and the Vincents.

Perry did not disclose any additional details on the settlement offer made by Metz and Martin or the settlement offers pertaining to Mapes, Shay and the Vincents.

During public comment, Perry was asked what impact the settlement agreements would have on the appeals.

“It will have an impact on an appeal, but I cannot disclose what the impact will be,” Perry said.

As he left the commission chambers, Metz declined comment on the settlement offer.

When contacted Sunday, Perry said she was still unable to disclose any additional information regarding the settlement offers and the appeals process.

Related coverage

 

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city

Sunshine defendant accused of violating mediation confidentiality

Sunshine defendant accused of violating mediation confidentiality

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

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.

Sunshine defendant accused of violating mediation confidentiality
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.

Related coverage

Sunshine lawsuit judge rules in favor of city recovering attorney fees

City seeks reimbursement for Sunshine lawsuit expenses

City seeks reimbursement for Sunshine lawsuit expenses

City seeks reimbursement for Sunshine lawsuit expenses

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The city will try to recover some or all of the estimated $450,000 in attorney fees and legal costs city taxpayers incurred in the Sunshine Law lawsuit filed two years ago by the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke.

On July 19, Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled former city advisory board members Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law when they discussed their advisory board business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.

These matters were discussed at two city meetings on Friday, July 26.

At 1 p.m., city commissioners participated in a special meeting that provided for public discussion on the judge’s ruling and the recovery of attorney fees and legal costs.

At approximately 2 p.m., the commission and City Attorney Ricinda Perry convened a non-public shade meeting that allowed for a private discussion on the city’s legal strategies regarding attorney fees, legal costs and a possible appeal filed by some or all of the defendants.

After emerging from their private discussion, the commission voted 4-0 to pursue any and all available remedies to recover the city’s fees and costs

Mayor John Chappie and commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner supported this course of action. Commission Randy White did not attend Friday’s meetings.

Earlier that day, attorney Robert Watrous filed a motion notifying Metz and his attorney, Thomas Shults, of the city’s intent to recover its attorney fees according to Florida Statute 57.105.

Judge Nicholas will preside over a post-trial hearing in the next few months and decide what, if any, reimbursements the defendants must make to the city.

Legal insight

During Friday’s first meeting, Perry addressed the pursuit of attorney fees according to state statute.

“It has not been a secret that attorney fees are something that would be considered at the conclusion of the judge issuing his order. You have an obligation and a responsibility to your constituency to fully discharge all of the rights they own in that statute, and those rights include healing the city treasury,” Perry told the commission.

Perry noted the defendants rejected a settlement offer in March that sought $500 from each defendant and a collective acknowledgment that errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance.

In May, the defendants proposed individual settlement offers that collectively sought $60,902 from the city and $24,444 from Clarke. Some of those settlement offers stated the defendants’ financial demands would increase if the case went to trial and the city lost.

“It was not lost on these defendants that there was a lot at stake financially. It was not lost on this commission, because repeatedly you attempted to settle with them. They took the gamble, they lost,” Perry said.

Paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield assisted Watrous and Perry with this case. He also addressed the commission.

“Thank you for doing your job and making sure the Government in the Sunshine Law was upheld. While I thought all along that it was an easy case, the bills that you see before you don’t reflect that. They reflect work that was done unnecessarily because of the defenses that were mounted in the case. They were tenacious,” Barfield said.

Barfield noted Nicholas used the words “contrived, after the fact, not credible,” when addressing the defenses unsuccessfully presented to him.

“Those, we believe, are the magic words for sanctions that will be imposed by the court when the court is fully aware of the efforts of the city to try and resolve this case pre-trial,” Barfield said. “We think we are well-positioned to recover, if not all, a significant portion of the city’s fees.”

Between meetings, Barfield said he thinks the judge will likely award the city approximately $30,000 to cover the legal costs that included a court reporter’s transcription services, copying fees and other non-attorney expenses.

Barfield said the defendants have 30 days to file an appeal.

Commission comments

“We’re not giving high-fives here. This is pretty simple stuff: it’s about the Sunshine Law. What price do you put on defending people’s constitutional right to open and fair and transparent government? This commission made a tough decision, and we stuck with it. And it was the right decision,” Chappie said.

Cole said the judge’s ruling can serve as a learning tool for others who serve on city boards. “If you’re ever in doubt, the first thing you should do is ask the city attorney.”

Maro said, “I know we’ve taken a lot of flack for this. It was hard, but nobody gave up.”

Spooner said, “I’m a little surprised that we’re here a week later, and there’s still no apology from the defendants to our taxpayers.”

After the meetings, Spooner said, “I understand some people’s concerns about the city seeking reimbursement from our former advisory board members, but whatever money we don’t recover from the defendants is money our citizens and taxpayers are going to be responsible for.”

Related coverage

Judge rules CNOBB members violated Sunshine Law

Sunshine trial gets underway

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Sunshine trial gets underway

Sunshine trial gets underway

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

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.

Sunshine trial gets underway
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.

Sunshine trial gets underway
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.

Metz deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

Metz deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Document production

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNOBB discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitutional challenge

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

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

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

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

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

Past disputes

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

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

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

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

Related coverage

Commission considers, rejects three Sunshine lawsuit settlements

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements

Commission considers, rejects three Sunshine lawsuit settlements

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach commissioners have rejected three proposed Sunshine Law lawsuit settlement offers.

Earlier that day, Friday, June 28, lawsuit defendants Bill Vincent, Rose Vincent and Patty Shay agreed to the proposed settlement terms brokered on the city’s behalf by attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield.

Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members when the alleged Sunshine Law violations occurred in 2017. Rose Vincent served on the city’s Scenic WAVES Committee.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Lawsuit defendants Bill and Rose Vincent (second and third from left) proposed settlements city commissioners later rejected. Also shown at this recent court hearing are ex-mayor Bill Shearon and co-defendants Tjet Martin and Reed Mapes. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mayor John Chappie and Commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner discussed and unanimously rejected all three proposed settlements during a shade meeting that occurred late Friday afternoon. Commissioner Randy White did not attend the shade meeting.

The attorney-client shade meeting allowed the commission to privately discuss the proposed settlements and the city’s legal strategies with Watrous and City Attorney Ricinda Perry.

The shade meeting took place in the downstairs conference room at the Bradenton Beach police station. The meeting opened in a public manner before the media and Barfield were asked to leave. After approximately 90 minutes of private discussion, the meeting was reconvened in public and the commission’s decisionmaking occurred.

Spooner made a motion to deny all three settlement offers. The motion passed by a 4-0 vote with no additional discussion.

Spooner and Chappie then crafted a second motion directing Watrous to draft a cover letter to send to the defendants. The letter will state the denials of the settlement offers and that the commission will not entertain any settlement offers that do not include all six defendants acknowledging they violated the Sunshine Law.

The letter will also state that the commission and the city’s taxpayers want reasonable and significant payment from the defendants for the attorney fees the city has incurred.

“I would like that cover letter to reiterate our strengths in the case,” Chappie added.

The commission unanimously adopted the second motion and adjourned the meeting.

On June 20, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled in favor of the city’s preliminary argument that it was reasonably foreseeable that a parking garage is an issue that would come before the Planning and Zoning Board if proposed.

“I can say with 100 percent certainty – not reasonably foreseeability, but absolute certainty – that this is a very issue that should and would come before a planning and zoning board,” Nicholas said that day.

The bench trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, July 15 and is expected to take at least five days to complete.

Proposed settlements

The Vincents expressed interest in their proposed settlement agreements on Friday morning after Rose Vincent’s scheduled deposition was canceled. Bradenton Beach Marina president Mike Bazzy’s deposition was also canceled, but he will testify at the trial regarding his conversations with city officials about a parking facility.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Former Planning and Zoning Board member Bill Vincent was willing to admit that errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. – Media Pool | Submitted

The deposition cancellations occurred after the parties had already arrived at the court reporters’ office in Bradenton. Shay’s proposed settlement terms were finalized later that day after being discussed with her earlier in the week.

Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members when the alleged Sunshine Law violations occurred in 2017. Their proposed settlement agreements acknowledged errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. Those errors occurred during Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting discussions and/or email exchanges in 2017.

Shay and Bill Vincent’s proposed settlement terms were essentially the same terms the city proposed and all six defendants rejected in March.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Former Planning and Zoning Board member Patty Shay was willing to acknowledge that errors occurred regarding Sunshine Law compliance. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“All defendants shall acknowledge they had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case and further acknowledge that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” the March settlement offer said.

Friday marked the first time any of the defendants agreed to settlement terms that included an admission of Sunshine Law violations. It was also the first time the commission considered settlement offers that did not pertain to all six defendants.

Rose Vincent’s proposed settlement differed slightly and acknowledged only that Sunshine Law errors may have occurred. This resembled a settlement counteroffer the defendants made in March, which the commission rejected.

Shay and the Vincents also offered to pay the city $500 each.

Co-defendants and former planning and zoning board members Reed Mapes and John Metz did not propose new settlement offers, nor did co-defendant and former Scenic WAVES Committee member Tjet Martin.

All six defendants served on city advisory boards when the alleged Sunshine violations occurred in May, June and July of 2017. The lawsuit alleges the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law by discussing parking garage prohibitions and Community Redevelopment Agency projects that had and could again come before them in their official capacities as city board members.

At CNOBB’s July 25, 2017, steering committee meeting, Mapes twice initiated a discussion about CNOBB potentially pursuing a citizen-initiated charter amendment that would have prohibited parking garages citywide. Metz and Bill Vincent then expressed their opposition to parking garages and Shay and Martin provided additional comments. That meeting was recorded and posted at the CNOBB website.

Related coverage

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine hearing

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine hearing

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine hearing

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

BRADENTON – Twelfth Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ruled in favor of the city of Bradenton Beach, denying three legal actions sought by Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant John Metz.

Nicholas denied Metz’s request to disqualify City Attorney Ricinda Perry as the city’s co-counsel in this case. Nicholas also denied Metz’s request to make public the transcript and audio recording of the city’s private attorney-client shade meeting in September 2017.

In addition, the judge denied Metz’s request to be told what he said and heard during a Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting discussion about parking garages.

Nicholas also denied Metz’s requests to be awarded attorney fees for the individual legal actions he sought during the Friday, May 3 hearing at the Manatee County Judicial Center in Bradenton.

The judge ruled in favor of the city’s proposed compromise regarding Metz’s request to continue and complete Perry’s pre-trial deposition.

Attorney Jodi Ruberg represented Metz at the hearing. His primary attorney, Thomas Shults, was on vacation. Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city and Perry was assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield.

The civil lawsuit filed in 2017 by the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke seeks a judge’s ruling as to whether Metz, Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law when discussing parking garage prohibitions and other city business during CNOBB meetings while serving as members of the city’s Planning and Zoning Board or Scenic WAVES Committee.

The case is scheduled for a non-jury trial before Nicholas beginning July 15.

Perry deposition

A deposition is testimony given under oath in the presence of a court reporter who provides a verbatim written transcript for the judge and others to review.

On March 20, Shults deposed Perry for more than five hours. He spent much of that asking Perry about her education, legal qualifications and another lawsuit filed against the city by the Keep Our Residential Neighbors (KORN) political action committee formed by Mapes and Metz.

When deposing Clarke in January, Shults alleged Clarke, Perry and the city acted in bad faith and filed the lawsuit because of Metz’s contentious history with the city and its officials. When deposing Perry, Shults did not pursue that line of questioning.

“Ms. Perry’s testimony will also be utilized for a bad faith component of this suit,” Ruberg said during Friday’s hearing.

Watrous said he originally objected to the deposition being continued but later offered to limit it to three additional hours.

“The entire morning of deposition was spent on items not relevant to this case. Why didn’t Mr. Shults ask the appropriate questions at the first deposition?” Watrous said.

“Mr. Shults is simply going to have to do the best that he can and focus his questions a bit more pointedly,” Nicholas said when issuing his ruling.

Perry disqualification

When seeking Perry’s disqualification as co-counsel, Ruberg cited case law and said, “Ms. Perry cannot be both an advocate and a witness.”

Watrous said Perry will not act as a trial attorney and will simply assist him during the trial. As a witness for the city, Perry will provide fact-based testimony regarding the type of issues presented to the Planning and Zoning Board – and whether parking and parking garages are something that could foreseeably come before that board.

“Reasonable foreseeability is the crux of the case,” Ruberg said.

When issuing his ruling, Nicholas agreed it’s highly unusual for an attorney also to be called as a witness. He said if this was going to be a jury trial he would be inclined to agree with the defense that jurors might have difficulty determining whether Perry was stating facts or her legal opinion.

Shade meeting request

Ruberg alleged compliance technicalities when arguing that the shade meeting transcript and recording be made public.

Watrous said the opening and closing portions of the shade meeting were conducted in public, the private session was conducted in compliance with state requirements and Metz and his attorneys already have the transcript for the public portions of that meeting.

“This is an attempt by Mr. Metz to invade attorney-client privilege,” Watrous said.

“The request for the transcript is not well-taken and is denied,” Nicholas said when issuing his ruling, noting this was not a close call for him to make.

CNOBB discussion

When contesting Metz’s request to be told exactly what he said and heard during the July 25 CNOBB meeting, Watrous said Metz has a copy of the meeting recording posted at the CNOBB website and the court reporter’s transcript.

“We’re going to play the actual tapes at the trial,” Watrous said.

During that July 25 meeting, Mapes proposed a charter amendment initiative seeking a prohibition on parking garages. Mapes asked CNOBB members if they shared his desire and whether such a prohibition would apply only to a city-owned paid parking garage and still allow a privately-owned parking garage.

In response to Mapes’ suggestion, Metz said, “I say that we do and that we put it more that no parking garage built for public paid parking or something like that. It doesn’t matter whether if it’s by the municipality or some huge corporation.”

Regarding Friday’s hearing, Barfield said, “Mr. Metz’s actions wasted approximately $15,000 of attorney time and taxpayer funds and three hours of court time. The city continues to urge the defendants to give due consideration to the favorable settlement offers made.”

Commission rejects Sunshine lawsuit counteroffer

Commission rejects Sunshine lawsuit counteroffer

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach commissioners have rejected the settlement counteroffer proposed by the six defendants in the 2017 Sunshine Law lawsuit.

The defendants had until midnight Monday night to accept the city commission’s March 1 settlement offer and did not do so.

On March 12, the commission voted 4-1 to reject the defendants’ counteroffer prepared by attorney Thomas Shults. Shults represents John Metz; the counteroffer was also approved by co-defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent, and included a March 15 deadline.

The commission majority opted instead to stick with the settlement offer the commission unanimously authorized on Feb. 28.

The city’s offer required the defendants to acknowledge that “errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law.”

The defendants’ counteroffer said, “errors may have been made,” which was deemed unacceptable by Mayor John Chappie and commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner.

The city’s offer proposed that the defendants pay the city $500 each or $3,000 collectively. City Attorney Ricinda Perry said that amount was in accordance with Florida Statutes.

Regarding public meeting meetings and public records, F.S. §286.011 says, “Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500.”

The defendants’ counteroffer proposed that they collectively donate $10,000 to the Annie Silver Community Center and encouraged the city to do likewise.

The civil lawsuit filed by the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke seeks a judge’s ruling as to whether the six defendants – all of whom were commission-appointed city advisory board members at the time –  violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing their official city business outside of properly noticed public meetings.

Those 2017 discussions occurred during Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings at the Annie Silver Community Center, the Pines Trailer Park and through private email exchanges. Those email exchanges and recordings of the CNOBB meetings were later obtained by the city’s legal team.

Commission discussion

During the work meeting, Perry said Shults and Mapes’ attorney, Jim Dye, asked her to ask the commission if the “acknowledgment of errors” language was negotiable.

“I think we’ve been very consistent with our settlement offer with regards to acknowledging errors were made. Nothing’s changed,” Chappie said.

Participating from afar by cell phone, Commissioner Randy White expressed support for the counteroffer.

“Let’s just break bread. I think we should just close this out,” White said.

“We’ve been consistent from the very beginning,” Chappie said, adding that the commission is concerned about openness and transparency in government. “I just can’t back away from that.”

“We didn’t ask them to have meetings outside of city hall. We didn’t ask them to do any of the stuff they allegedly did,” Cole said.

“I do think they do need to acknowledge they made mistakes. ‘May’ is not there, it’s a way to put a spin on it,” Cole added.

“It’s just the stubbornness of a couple of the defendants,” Spooner said. “It’s all about that word ‘may’ even though every deposition that goes by more comes out and makes it more apparent that it’s obvious that mistakes were made. That’s why we’re still here today.”

Maro said she thought the city’s offer and the request for an admission of errors was fair.

“This is our best offer. It’s not going to get any better,” Spooner said before the votes were cast.

“I think it’s pretty clear, our motion stands as is,” Chappie added.

After the meeting, Perry emailed Shults and Dye and informed them the commission was unwilling to negotiate further.

“The offer given to your clients was the ‘best and final’ and the ‘may’ provision is not up for debate,” Perry wrote. “Absent some concession by the defendants as to the mistakes made, my client is absolutely committed to seeing this out to the end.”