Skip to main content

Tag: Sunshine law

Sunshine Law trial delayed until July

Sunshine Law trial delayed until July

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

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

A pretrial conference has been scheduled for July 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit

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

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

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

CNOBB webmaster deposition raises more Sunshine questions

CNOBB webmaster deposition raises more Sunshine questions

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

BRADENTON – The deposition of former webmaster Michael Harrington has uncovered emails that raise additional questions about possible Sunshine law violations by members of the Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) group.

The City of Bradenton Beach and resident Jack Clarke are co-plaintiffs in a 2017 lawsuit seeking a judge’s ruling as to whether the city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past and potentially foreseeable board and committee business during CNOBB meetings.

During the deposition, Harrington said under oath that he thought he deleted all CNOBB-related emails from his Gmail account, only to discover they were never fully deleted.

The suit names former Bradenton Beach Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent as defendants. All six defendants were members of the now-disbanded CNOBB group when the alleged violations occurred.

A July 25, 2017 CNOBB meeting included a recorded discussion about a proposed citywide ban on parking garages. CNOBB members have also discussed the revised Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan and other city matters.

With his wife, Carol, sitting next to him on Jan. 23, the 81-year-old former Bradenton Beach resident – who is not a defendant in the suit – was deposed under oath by attorney Robert Watrous for nearly six hours. Paralegal Michael Barfield assisted Watrous.

The deposition was part of the discovery phase of the suit, scheduled for a mid-March trial. A court-ordered mediation is scheduled for Feb. 25 and two more depositions are scheduled for February.

Email trail

In response to a subpoena, Harrington recently provided Barfield with a flash drive containing approximately 10,000 emails and documents obtained from his computer. Harrington said he meant to turn over 325 emails pertaining to CNOBB and the lawsuit, but the additional emails and documents were inadvertently included.

“We didn’t get all of the emails. Some of them you might have been successful in deleting.” – attorney Robert Watrous

During the deposition, Harrington said under oath that he thought he deleted all CNOBB-related emails from his Gmail account, only to discover they were never fully deleted.

Toward the end of the deposition, Watrous referenced an October 2017 email from Mapes to Harrington suggesting they communicate by phone instead of email. Watrous and Barfield presented 24 of those documents as exhibits during the deposition.

Watrous said that email also included a request from Mapes to delete two previous emails he sent Harrington. Those emails were not among those provided to Barfield.

This flash drive provided by Michael Harrington contained hundreds of emails and documents pertaining to the CNOBB group and its members. – Submitted

“We didn’t get all of the emails. Some of them you might have been successful in deleting,” Watrous said.

Harrington said his old Gateway computer died approximately two months ago and when he took it to the technicians at Best Buy, he was told it would cost $250 to repair. Harrington said he told the technicians to dispose of the computer and destroy the hard drive.

Harrington said he bought a new laptop computer about four months before the Gateway died. Watrous found it interesting that Harrington had the foresight to buy a new computer before the computer he’d been using died.

Because of this, Watrous said he was not terminating the deposition and he would consider seeking a judge’s order for a forensic investigation of Harrington’s computer and email records.

During one of the breaks, Watrous said, “Every time we ask for discovery, we get things we haven’t seen before. A lot of this we’ve never seen before.”

He also noted that those subpoenaed are required by law to produce all documents requested.

Additional exhibits

Watrous produced a June 2017 email exchange among Harrington, Bill Vincent and Mapes in which Mapes questioned whether the CNOBB website forum page should be public or private.

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

Watrous produced a July 24, 2017 email Mapes sent to Harrington and others requesting to be allowed to respond to a CNOBB forum post called “Nix the Parking Garage.”

He also produced two emails and the attached documents that Martin sent CNOBB members regarding the CNOBB mission statement and proposed charter amendment initiatives.

Martin’s July 23, 2017 document listed five charter initiatives that included a citywide parking garage prohibition. Harrington said he was asked to post that document at the CNOBB website.

“I think you are agreeing to the fact that there was a sunshine violation. I would hate for the four of us to have you say that.” – defendant Reed Mapes

On July 25, Martin distributed a revised document that no longer referenced the parking garage prohibition.

On July 26, Mapes sent Harrington an email that said, “Please delete the item about the parking garage. Since we decided it might one day be a P n Z issue we decided to drop it for now.”

Watrous produced a letter to the editor addressed to Bradenton Beach residents which Harrington had drafted and sent to several CNOBB members on Aug. 12 seeking their feedback.

“The very brief mention of a ‘parking garage’ was in front of four of the Planning and Zoning Board (members) in attendance. That mistake was quickly realized and the subject was dropped,” Harrington’s letter said.

Harrington said he was asked not to publish the letter, but he could not recall who made that request.

Obtained previously by Barfield, Harrington distributed another email that same day containing Mapes’ response.

“I don’t want you to say we made a mistake. I think you are agreeing to the fact that there was a sunshine violation. I would hate for the four of us to have you say that,” Mapes wrote.

Related coverage

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Trial date set for Sunshine lawsuit

Commissioner deposed regarding Sunshine lawsuit

Sunshine Depositions

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Former Planning and Zoning Board member Patty Shay is now the third Sunshine lawsuit defendant deposed by attorney Robert Watrous.

Shay was deposed Tuesday, June 5, at a court reporting office in Bradenton.

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019
Shay Deposition
Lawsuit defendant Patty Shay was deposed by attorney Robert Watrous on June 5. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield, Watrous represents the city of Bradenton Beach and resident Jack Clarke as co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last August. The lawsuit alleges four planning board members and two Scenic WAVES Committee members violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past and potential board and committee business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings and in private emails.

Watrous referenced the Sunshine Law training required of all Bradenton Beach commission, committee and board members. He asked Shay if she referred to that training regarding CNOBB discussion topics. She said she did not.

Watrous reviewed in detail the April 12 and April 19 Planning and Zoning Board meetings that included the board’s review of an updated Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan that referenced the possibility of a CRA-funded parking garage.

Watrous used meeting transcripts, agendas and other documents to establish that Shay participated in discussions about a parking garage in her official capacity as a board member.

“If a parking garage was to be built, the proposal would have to come before the P&Z, correct?” Watrous said.

“That is correct, but remember we were an advisory board. We did not make decisions,” Shay said of her planning board duties.

As part of the Sunshine Law, Florida Statute 286.011 says, “Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction.”

The definition of a public officer in Florida Statute 112.313 includes “any person serving on an advisory body.”

“I don’t need people seeking to coach the witness.”
Robert Watrous, Attorney

At one point, Watrous said it was brought to his attention that some in the room, including at least one co-defendant, were nodding their heads yes or no in response to his questions. Watrous and Barfield said they heard some in the room saying yes or no in response to Watrous’ questions. Watrous said he would bring these concerns to the judge if the behavior continued.

“I don’t need people seeking to coach the witness,” he said.

“I am under oath and no one has done anything to suggest that I answer in a certain way,” Shay said.

Vincent email

Watrous produced a copy of a June 14 email co-defendant Bill Vincent sent Shay, Reed Mapes and John Metz when they were all planning board members. The email pertained to CNOBB’s upcoming inaugural meeting. It was obtained from Shay in response to a records request Barfield made.

Watrous noted Vincent, Metz and Mapes did not include that email in their records request responses.

“I would not know why they would not have done that,” Shay said.

Vincent’s email said, “There is no intent whatsoever to violate Sunshine Laws. In my opening comments it will be made clear that no discussion or conversation on the comp plan, LDC (land development code) or charter or pending issues will be permitted.”

During a July 25 CNOBB meeting that was recorded and posted at the group’s website, then-planning board member Mapes proposed a citywide prohibition on parking garages. The recording is referenced in the lawsuit complaint that seeks a judge’s ruling on whether Sunshine violations occurred.

“When issues discussed in the April 12 and April 19 P&Z meetings did start being discussed at a CNOBB meeting, didn’t that alert you to the fact that you should say something or do something because this was a Sunshine Law violation?” he said.

“I did not consider it a violation of Sunshine Law,” Shay said.

“No budget, no date and the fact that it was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. I didn’t see it as something that would be in the foreseeable future,” Shay said regarding the potential construction of a parking garage.

Shay’s statement about parking garages not being in agreement with the comp plan is contrasted by current comp plan language that allows parking garages in some land use categories.

Last month, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed two City Commission-requested ordinances that would amend the comp plan and the LDC and prohibit parking garages citywide.

Deposition Reed Mapes

Mapes and Martin deposed in Sunshine lawsuit

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

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

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

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mapes deposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Not at all,” Mapes responded.

Martin deposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunshine reaction

Sunshine press conference reactions differ

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

Updated May 26, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejected settlement offer

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

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

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

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

Clarke’s take

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

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

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

Related coverage

Press conference sheds light on Sunshine lawsuit

Judge denies witness sequestration in Sunshine suit

Metz defense challenges Sunshine Law

Sunshine lawsuit filed

John Metz

Metz defense challenges Sunshine Law

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Lawsuit defendant John Metz and his attorney, Thomas Shults, claim the Florida Sunshine Law is unconstitutional.

“Mr. Metz feels the entire Sunshine Law is unconstitutional. He wants to say the Florida Legislature has gotten it wrong,” City Attorney Ricinda Perry told city commissioners on Nov. 2.

Enacted in 1995, Florida Statutes Section 286.011 is a series of laws enacted to ensure government meetings are conducted in a public setting and that the public has access to public records.

The claims of unconstitutionality are contained in the answer and affirmative defense of John Metz that Shults filed with the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Bradenton on Oct. 30.

“F.S. 286.011 impermissibly infringes upon speech, assembly, association and petition rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the defense claims.

The defense claims the Sunshine Law violates the rights to peaceably assemble, associate, instruct representatives and petition for redress of grievances under the Florida Constitution: “Chapter 286 targets speech based upon its communicative content and imposes civil and criminal sanctions as a result of speaking and listening to words. The statute is therefore presumptively unconstitutional.”

Metz is one of six defendants accused of violating the Sunshine Law by discussing a parking garage prohibition and other land use issues outside of a city meeting. Metz was a member of the city’s planning and zoning board when a recorded discussion took place at the July 25 Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting. At the time, four of the future defendants served on the planning board and two served on the Scenic Waves Committee. All six have since resigned. Attorney Jim Dye is representing the other defendants.

On Aug. 11, attorney Robert Watrous, with assistance from paralegal Michael Barfield, filed a civil lawsuit on the city’s behalf seeking a ruling on the alleged violations.

“The Sunshine Law requires advance notice to the public and opportunity for public comment at any meeting or discussion on issues that are reasonably foreseeable to come before any board or collegial body. 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,” the lawsuit complaint states.

F.S. 286.011 states: “Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500. Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s website says telephone conversations and e-mails between board and committee members may also qualify as “meetings” under the Sunshine Law. The investigation conducted by Watrous and Barfield produced e-mail exchanges between board and committee members pertaining to parking garages, the Community Redevelopment Agency and the city’s comprehensive plan and future land use map.

“Because Chapter 286 sanctions those who attend ‘meetings,’ it impermissibly infringes not only upon the speech and petition rights of the people and the defendant under the United States and Florida constitutions, but also their right to peaceably assemble and associate under both constitutions,” Shults claimed on Metz’s behalf. “The language of the statute is so vague that it fails to provide persons of common intelligence and understanding adequate notice of the proscribed conduct. In the addition, the statute is impermissibly overbroad and penalizes or, at a minimum, chills the exercise of the fundamental rights of the people and the defendant.”

The defense also claims the attempt to recoup legal fees from the defendants was filed in bad faith and/or is frivolous; that Metz is entitled to recoup his legal fees from the city; and that Metz cannot be sued by the city because he no longer serves on the planning board.

Perry told commissioners the city has thus far incurred approximately $16,500 in legal fees and those costs were increased by the defendants’ initial reluctance to comply with public record requests. She also said the proceedings are being delayed.

“Mr. Shults has put a damper on progress by stating that on behalf of Mr. Metz he’s unavailable until January,” Perry said.

Bill Shearon calls

Mayor in frequent contact with Sunshine defendants

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Mayor Bill Shearon has had several private phone calls over the past two months with defendants named in a Sunshine Law lawsuit initiated by the city and resident Jack Clarke.

The lawsuit alleges six city-appointed board and committee members committed Sunshine Law violations when they discussed potential board and committee business during a Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting in July.

CNOBB Sunshine Complaint

Billing records for Shearon’s city-issued cell phone indicate the mayor has had several conversations with defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes, Bill Vincent and Patty Shay since the Sunshine concerns first surfaced in late July.

Sarasota attorney Robert Watrous is representing the city and Clarke in the lawsuit filed on their behalf on Aug. 11.

When asked if Shearon’s frequent phone conversations with some of the defendants concerned him, Watrous said, “Yes, but I think it would be prudent for me to allow the mayor an opportunity to explain.”

On Sept. 6, the mayor and city commissioners participated in an attorney-client shade meeting that allowed them to privately discuss legal strategies pertaining to the lawsuit. Before the shade meeting started, Watrous and City Attorney Ricinda Perry suggested Shearon recuse himself because his life partner, Tjet Martin, is one of the six defendants. And at the time, Martin had direct access to lawsuit-related e-mails sent to Shearon’s city account because she assists the legally blind mayor with his e-mail.

Shearon said he was bound to the same confidentiality stipulations as the other commissioners and he refused to recuse himself. It was later agreed that future lawsuit-related communications to Shearon would be made by phone in order to remove Martin from the loop.

Constant contact

Between the shade meeting and the billing cycle’s end on Sept. 23, Shearon made or received 28 calls from lawsuit defendants: five involving Metz, 10 involving Mapes, 10 involving Vincent and three involving Shay, according to the billing records.

Two days after the shade meeting, Shearon called Metz, Mapes and Vincent within a 10-minute period. On Sept. 14, Shay returned a call from Shearon and they spoke for 13 minutes.

“Sometimes I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast yesterday and you’re asking me what a phone call was about two months ago.”
Bill Shearon, Bradenton Beach Mayor

When city commissioners first discussed the potential Sunshine violations on Aug. 3, there was unanimous consensus to conduct an investigation. On Aug. 7, the commission, minus Marilyn Maro, voted 3-1 to hire Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield to initiate a non-criminal lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks a judge’s ruling on whether Sunshine violations occurred. Shearon opposed the lawsuit.

Between the lawsuit filing and the shade meeting, Shearon had six phone conversations with Metz, eight with Mapes and six with Vincent. On Aug. 13, he initiated a 13-minute call to Metz. On Aug. 14, he had two calls with Vincent totaling 14 minutes. On Aug. 24, he initiated a 24-minute conversation with Metz. On Aug. 26, he initiated a 17-minute conversation with Mapes.

Mayor’s explanation

Last week, The Sun asked Shearon if any of these calls pertained to the lawsuit.

“No. I do not talk about the lawsuit. That’s against the law. Do you think I’d be that damn dumb?” he said. “They’re personal friends. I’m allowed to use my city cell phone for personal use. There’s times, for example, when we’ve been out for dinner.”

When asked if the calls might have pertained to other CNOBB matters, Shearon said, “I’m 70 years old. Sometimes I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast yesterday and you’re asking me what a phone call was about two months ago.”

The Sun asked Watrous if Shearon’s communications could jeopardize the city’s case.

“Not necessarily. It would depend upon the content of the conversations. I think it would be prudent for the mayor and I to have a discussion on this. In a larger municipality, it would probably be unusual, but in a small, close-knit community and city government such as Bradenton Beach I’d like to afford the mayor an opportunity to explain. This puts me on notice and I’m going to make some inquiries,” Watrous said.

Sunshine lawsuit filed

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

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.