BRADENTON BEACH – Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ordered Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $19,760.
According to the written ruling Nicholas issued on Friday, May 14, that amount represents $17,998 in attorney fees and $1,762 in interest fees. These are to be paid to the city as remaining reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred in its successful pursuit of a 2019 ruling from Nicholas that Mapes and five other city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
In July 2019, Nicolas ruled that Mapes and fellow planning and zoning board members John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent, and Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, violated the Sunshine Law when discussing matters related to their official public business at a series of non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said when issuing his 2019 ruling.
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
In 2019, Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes was one of six former advisory board members that violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, John Metz, and Tjet Martin to collectively pay the city $369,498. Because of an argument set forth by Shay, Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of that shared financial responsibility for the city’s legal fees. Nicholas reached that conclusion when he learned Shay and the Vincents reached settlement agreements with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those three settlement officers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not also agreed to similar settlement offers that would have alleviated the need for a trial had all six defendants agreed to settle.
Metz and Martin later paid the city $350,000 and agreed to drop their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. Shay and the Vincents then paid the city $500 each, and the Vincents agreed to drop their appeals. Shay was the only defendant who did not appeal the 2019 ruling
In his May 14 ruling regarding the remaining attorney fees sought by the city, Nicholas wrote, “Mapes was an especially active participant in the Sunshine Law violations committed by the members of Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach in the summer of 2017, appeared eager throughout the litigation to force the city to prove its claims despite multiple audio recordings which documented the violations, and appeared to be disinclined to settle on the plaintiff’s terms.”
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city in this legal matter, with significant assistance provided by paralegal Michael Barfield. City Attorney Ricinda Perry also assisted with this case.
Updated Nov. 29, 2020 – BRADENTON BEACH – The city has received a $350,000 settlement agreement payment from former Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants John Metz and Tjet Martin.
The city has also received $500 settlement payments from co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent.
On Thursday, Nov. 19, the city commission unanimously accepted the Metz-Martin settlement agreement previously discussed during a private shade meeting on Nov. 5.
The $350,000 payment serves as partial reimbursement for the more than $572,000 in attorney fees and legal costs the city incurred as a result of the civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether Martin, Metz, Reed Mapes, Shay and the Vincents violated the Sunshine Law when discussing advisory board matters at their Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017. Those meetings included a discussion about the potential pursuit of a citywide prohibition on the construction of parking garages.
In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that pertains to government transparency and conducting official public business only at properly noticed public meetings. Minus Shay, the other five defendants appealed Nicholas’ ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.
On Oct. 28, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498. In his written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements were not reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.
Settlement acceptance
City Attorney Ricinda Perry presented the Martin and Metz settlement offer for commission acceptance during the Nov. 19 meeting. She also presented a new settlement agreement reached with Shay.
The commission accepted the Martin and Metz settlement agreement and received the transferred funds the following day.
Vice Mayor Jake Spooner praised Perry’s efforts.
“Great job. We did what we’re supposed to do with protecting the transparency of the government, and the taxpayers are being reimbursed,” he said.
“I agree totally, and we said that all along about open, fair and transparent government,” Mayor John Chappie said.
Co-defendant agreements
During the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry also presented the settlement agreement with Shay, in which Shay agreed to pay the city $500 despite the judge’s recent order absolving her of financial responsibility.
“It dismisses everything as it relates to her. She is not a party to the appeal,” Perry said.
“Defendant Shay acknowledges she had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case, and further acknowledges that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” Perry said when reading aloud the settlement agreement language.
“That was a very important piece of information the city wanted to make sure was addressed. There was compensation provided for the error, but there was an admission that the Sunshine Law had not been complied with,” Perry said.
The commission unanimously approved Shay’s settlement agreement.
Perry said paralegal Michael Barfield expected a call later from the Vincents later that day regarding individual settlement agreements similar to Shay’s.
“I expect they will execute the same settlement agreement with the same admission that Ms. Shay did. The Vincents are part of the appeal. They would be obligated also to release us and terminate all proceedings in the underlying case,” Perry said.
The commission authorized Chappie to accept and execute the Vincents’ settlement agreements when received.
After the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry was asked about Mapes’ settlement status.
“The city commission has authorized me to make a settlement offer to Mr. Mapes. Communication will be made to Mr. Mapes following the execution of the settlement agreements with John Metz, Tjet Martin, Bill and Rose Vincent and Patty Shay,” Perry said.
When contacted last week, Barfield said the Vincents’ settlement agreements had been finalized.
As of Sunday, Mapes remained the lone defendant still appealing Nicholas’ 2019 ruling.
On Nov. 24, Mapes sent Perry an email saying he would agree to the same settlement terms reached with the Vincents.
“I will dismiss my appeal with prejudice. I will need a response to this by Monday, Nov. 30, so that my attorney has time to file the necessary appellate paperwork,” Mapes wrote in his email.
Mapes’ settlement offer has not yet been presented to the city commission, which meets again on Thursday, Dec. 3.
“It is the commission’s expectation to make the public whole and Reed’s offer fails to do so,” Perry said regarding Mapes’ offer.
“He will remain solely responsible for all future costs to fight the appeal, and for any costs upheld or awarded by the Second DCA,” she noted.
BRADENTON BEACH – 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.
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.
BRADENTON BEACH – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has issued an order calling for Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to potentially pay the city of Bradenton Beach at least $369,498 for attorney’s fees.
In the eight-page written order on the amount of fees and costs that Nicholas issued Wednesday morning, the judge relieved co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife, Rose Vincent, of any financial responsibilities regarding the city’s efforts to recover attorney fees and additional legal costs for the civil lawsuit the city filed in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open meetings and public records.
On July 19, 2019, Nicholas ruled that Mapes, Martin, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent each violated the Florida Sunshine Law in the spring and early summer of 2017 when discussing public business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. At the time the violations occurred, Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.
“It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the attorney’s fee award, as applied to defendants Patricia Shay, William Vincent and Rose Vincent is stricken,” Nicholas stated in his most recent order.
Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of their financial liabilities after learning earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the July 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected the settlement agreements initiated on the city’s behalf because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not expressed interest in entering into similar pre-trial settlement agreements.
From left, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin were among the six defendants in the 2017 lawsuit that resulted in Mapes and Martin and John Metz (not shown) being ordered to reimburse the city for attorney’s fees. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city of Bradenton Beach) shall have and recover from the remaining defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin attorney’s fees in the amount of $369,498,” Nicholas stated in his order.
The order also addresses approximately $31,000 in additional non-attorney-related legal costs that include court reporter fees and filing fees also sought by the city.
“The court also reserves jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the city’s costs to determine if they too should be imposed upon defendants Metz, Mapes and Martin,” the order says.
“The court anticipates that one additional hearing will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues of apportionment, joint and several liability and to again determine the amount of the costs and whether they should be awarded in addition to the attorney’s fees awarded herein,” the order says.
Nicholas’ ruling was the result of hearings that took place via Zoom video conferencing on June 10 and Aug. 13.
Pre-trial settlement offers
The fee recovery proceedings took an unanticipated turn during the June 10 hearing when Shay, representing herself as a pro se defendant, presented the argument that she should not be ordered to pay more than the $500 she agreed to pay in the settlement offer that Watrous and Barfield presented to her before the trial began.
Nicholas said he was not aware that Shay had agreed to settle with the city.
“Why should Ms. Shay bear the cost of a trial that she did not want to have?” Nicholas said on more than one occasion that day.
The Vincents then presented similar arguments regarding their rejected settlement agreements. Nicholas said he was not aware of the Vincents’ settlement offers either.
He learned that on June 28, 2019, the city commission rejected the three settlement agreements that acknowledged Sunshine Law compliance failures. He also learned that each of the three defendants provided the city with $500 settlement checks that were returned uncashed.
Representing the city, attorney Robert Watrous told Nicholas the city commission rejected those three settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlement agreements. Watrous said anything less than six settlement agreements would have still subjected the city and its taxpayers to the costs of a trial.
During the August hearing, Mapes, Martin and Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, claimed they never received the same pre-trial settlement offers presented to Shay and the Vincents.
Reactions to order
When contacted Wednesday morning, Shay commented on Nicholas’ order.
“I am grateful and so relieved. I’m just happy that it’s over. It’s been three tough years. As I stated in court, I was willing to settle this from the very beginning and on numerous occasions, when offers were made, I was willing to accept them. But as I said in the hearing on June 10th, I didn’t have the power or ability to convince the other pro se defendants to do that,” Shay said.
When contacted via email Wednesday afternoon and asked if he wished to comment on the ruling, Mapes said, “No.”
As of Wednesday evening, Martin, Metz, Shults and the Vincents had not responded to The Sun’s email requests for comment.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said, “I am pleased with the detailed order from Judge Nicholas that serves to make the taxpayers whole and we look forward to obtaining a judgment to award the costs as well. The order clearly stands behind the transparency required of government so as to prevent the erosion of trust and integrity by those who serve the public. Government is called to serve the people; not the people who form the government.”
What next?
Sarasota-based paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield has been assisting the city with this case since its inception in 2017.
“It’s not over yet, but I think this is a significant victory that will go a long way towards making the city whole and healing its treasury,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon in response to Nicholas’ order.
Barfield is now assisting attorney Mark Caramanica and Perry in the city’s defense of the appeals filed by five of the six defendants regarding Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that they violated the Sunshine Law – an appeal process Shay is not participating in.
From left, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield served as the city’s legal team during the 2019 trial and the attorney’s fees hearings that followed. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to Barfield, “The payment of $369,498 in attorney fees, and any additional legal costs ordered by Nicholas must be paid by the three defendants in full or by posting a bond. Only if the defendants prevail in the appeals process that is currently proceeding through the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland would the monies be returned.”
Regarding Nicholas’ latest order, Barfield said, “The order is not final yet in terms of it being subject to appeal. And there’s still some steps that need to be taken on the costs, as well as apportionment among the three defendants that Judge Nicholas saddled with the fees. When that happens, the city will then take the position that they (Mapes, Martin and Metz) need to obtain a supersedeas bond. If they lose the appeal, then there’s no further fighting. The city gets its money. That’s the position we’ll take and the city will insist that they post a supersedeas bond,” Barfield said.
According to the Colonial Bonds & Insurance website, “A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant’s appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.”
Previous settlement offers
On Sept. 5, 2017 – less than one month after the city filed the civil lawsuit – attorney Jim Dye submitted to Watrous a settlement offer proposed on behalf of the five defendants he represented at the time: Mapes, Martin, Shay and the Vincents.
Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city board positions and were each willing to pay the city $100 toward the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke’s legal fees. That offer stated there would be no admission or denial of liability or fault regarding the alleged Sunshine Law violations. The city commission rejected that offer because it contained no acknowledgment of violating the Sunshine Law.
In March 2019, the defendants collectively rejected a settlement offer proposed by the city that requested each defendant pay the city $500 each, or $3,000 collectively, and the defendants collectively acknowledge errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. The city’s settlement offer was contingent on all six defendants’ acceptance.
The defendants collectively rejected that offer and responded with a counteroffer that proposed they make a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center and contained alternative language that said “errors may have occurred” rather than “errors did occur” regarding Sunshine Law compliance.
In April 2019, the city commission offered to accept a settlement offer that stated “errors may have occurred” if the defendants agreed to pay the city’s attorney’s fees and legal costs to date, which at that time totaled approximately $203,000.The defendants rejected that offer.
In late May of 2019, the defendants presented the city with individual settlement counteroffers that collectively sought a total of $60,902 in attorney fee reimbursements from the city and an additional $24,444 from Clarke.
John Metz is one of three defendants facing a possible shared financial obligation to the city of Bradenton Beach of more than $369,000. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It appears to be lost on the city commission and Mr. Clarke that they are exposed to substantial monetary liability in this case. This liability consists of not just the attorney’s fees and cost the city will expend for the trial and the appeals thereafter, but also the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by all defendants,” said the offer Shults prepared on Metz’s behalf.
“The open meetings law permits the award of attorney’s fees and costs against the city and Clarke if the court finds this suit was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. The city and Clarke can rest assured that Mr. Metz will pursue his right to such award if this matter is not resolved,” Metz’s offer said.
The city commission rejected all of those counteroffers and instructed the city’s legal team to continue preparing for the trial.
BRADENTON BEACH – On behalf of the city of Bradenton Beach, attorney Robert Watrous has filed a motion seeking to impose sanctions on Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes.
In July, Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law in 2017. The Sunshine violations occurred when the then-city advisory board members repeatedly discussed advisory board business at their non-city-sanctioned Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings.
In November, Nicholas ruled the city was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the defendants, but he did not issue a ruling at that time as to what the recovery amount would be. Nicholas later ordered the parties to participate in a mandatory mediation session and the parties agreed on Bonnie Marmor as their mediator.
The motion Watrous filed on Friday, Feb. 14. pertains to the court-ordered, closed-door mediation session that took place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton on Jan. 13.
The mediation session provided the defendants and the city an opportunity to broker a settlement as to how much the defendants were willing to reimburse the city for the attorney fees and costs the city and its taxpayers incurred in this case.
As of Tuesday, Feb. 18, the city had incurred $477,062 in attorneys’ fees and costs, according to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson.
Watrous’ written motion notes all parties who attended the Jan. 13 mediation session were advised by the mediator to keep the details of that session to themselves. And that any settlement offer proposed would have to be discussed with and either accepted or rejected by the Bradenton Beach City Commission.
Watrous’ motion cites Florida Statute 44.405, which says, “Except as provided in this section, all mediation communications shall be confidential. A mediation participant shall not disclose a mediation communication to a person other than another mediation participant or a participant’s counsel. A violation of this section may be remedied as provided by s. 44.406. If the mediation is court-ordered, a violation of this section may also subject the mediation participant to sanctions by the court, including, but not limited to, costs, attorney’s fees, and mediator’s fees.”
According to the motion, the mediator contacted Watrous on Jan. 14, the day after the mediation session, to facilitate communication of a new settlement offer. Watrous then communicated with Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, who in turn relayed mediation-related information to his client and the co-defendants who no longer retain the services of their own attorneys.
Watrous’ motion notes that on Jan. 28, the Bradenton Beach Commission held a closed-door shade meeting that provided city commissioners an opportunity to consider and respond to a settlement offer tendered by Shults.
“On January 29, a media article appeared in the Islander stating that ‘Reed Mapes, one of the six defendants alongside John Metz, Tjet Martin, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent, told the Islander that John Metz offered $200,000 to settle with the city after a Jan. 13 closed-door mediation session failed to result in an agreement,’” Watrous’ motion states.
Watrous’ motion states that on Feb. 10, he sent Shults the city’s written response to the settlement offer Shults tendered on Jan. 14. Watrous’s motion does not indicate what the city’s response was.
“At present, the defendants have not responded to that offer,” the motion states.
A fee award hearing has been scheduled before Judge Edward Nicholas on Wednesday, April 29. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
If the parties can’t reach a settlement on their own, Nicholas will eventually be asked to determine how much the defendants must reimburse the city and its taxpayers.
Barring a settlement, the parties are scheduled to see each other in court again on Wednesday, April 29, when they appear before Nicholas at 1:35 p.m. for a three-hour hearing pertaining to award/amount of attorney fees.
BRADENTON – Manatee County 12th Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas ruled Friday that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
The Sunshine Law violations occurred at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in June, July and August of 2017.
The potential Sunshine Law violations were first reported by The Sun on Aug. 2, 2017.
The city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke filed the civil lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2017. The lawsuit sought a judge’s determination as to whether the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law by discussing advisory board business at CNOBB meetings.
The non-jury trial took place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton and began on Monday, July 15. When the testimony and legal arguments concluded on Thursday, July 18, Nicholas said he’d issue his ruling Friday morning.
The defendants and defense attorneys awaited the judge’s ruling Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city and Clarke in the case, assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield and City Attorney Ricinda Perry.
Attorneys Thomas Shults and Jodi Ruberg represented Metz – and to a lesser degree the five pro se defendants who previously discontinued the services of their shared attorney.
“I am hoping to some extent the conclusion of this trial may help close the wound that has been so open and so raw out in Bradenton Beach for so long,” Nicholas said before issuing his ruling.
Judge’s ruling
When issuing his detailed ruling, Nicholas first cited the Florida Constitution and the Sunshine Law contained within it.
“We begin with Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution that reads: ‘All meetings of any collegial body of the executive branch of the state government, or of any collegial body of any county, municipality, school district or special district at which official acts are to be taken, or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed shall be open and noticed to the public,’” Nicholas said.
Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six former advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Nicholas noted the defendants were all duly sworn advisory board members who acknowledged participating in Sunshine Law training.
During the trial, Watrous established that each defendant took an oath of office as an advisory board member and swore to protect the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. Watrous said those oaths followed the advisory board members wherever they went, including CNOBB meetings.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting.” – Edward Nicholas, Manatee County 12th Circuit Court Judge
In their testimony and/or pre-trial depositions, Metz, Mapes, Shay and Bill Vincent expressed their beliefs that CNOBB’s parking garage discussions did not violate the Sunshine Law because the city’s comprehensive plan prohibited parking garages and it was not reasonably foreseeable that one could ever be built.
Nicholas noted City Planner Alan Garrett testified the comp plan only prohibited parking garages in two of the city’s 11 zone district designations in 2017.
“A parking garage could theoretically be built in nine designated areas within the city,” Nicholas said of the comp plan as it existed in 2017.
Compliance concerns
Nicholas noted Perry sent an email to the Planning and Zoning board members on July 25, 2017, notifying them of the potential Sunshine Law implications of their CNOBB meetings and email exchanges.
Nicholas noted Perry also emailed then-Mayor Bill Shearon two days later, and Shearon forwarded that email to the planning board members. That email also expressed concerns about advisory board members attending CNOBB meetings in violation of the Sunshine Law.
City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous successfully presented the city’s case.
The trial included extensive discussion about the 2017 correspondence Bill Vincent had with the Florida Commission on Ethics and the Florida Office of the Attorney General regarding advisory board members participating in CNOBB meetings.
The Commission on Ethics response advised Vincent to review the Sunshine Law manual at the Attorney General’s website and possibly consult with private counsel. The Attorney General Office’s response advised Vincent to consult with the city attorney.
“The defendants never got answers to those questions. The defendants continued to meet despite their concerns, despite not getting answers to these very important questions. Had they contacted Ricinda Perry, she would have answered: ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies.’ Had they contacted any attorney in the state of Florida they would have said, ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies,’ ” Nicholas said.
Constitutional rights
During the trial, Shults, Metz, Mapes and Vincent expressed their opinions that state law allowed the advisory board members to discuss city issues that pertained to the possible pursuit of citizens’ initiatives.
Attorney Thomas Shults, left, was unsuccessful in his defense of John Metz and the five pro se defendants. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The defendants attempt to characterize these violative meetings as ballot initiative meetings pursuant to Section 166.031 (Florida Statute) is simply not persuasive. This ballot initiative defense strikes this court as an after-the-fact attempt to justify or otherwise rationalize what were otherwise clear and unequivocal violations of the Sunshine Law. It is a clever explanation for such violations, but it is not a compelling or persuasive one,” Nicholas said.
“The efforts to characterize their violative meetings as the right to assemble and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment also is not persuasive. Every citizen has the right to assemble and has the right to free speech. However, when an individual joins a government advisory board the Sunshine Law still applies. If that were not the case, every county commission, every city council, every advisory board could hold secret meetings and simply say I have a First Amendment right to do so. That would largely make the Sunshine Law meaningless and void,” Nicholas said.
Meeting recordings
During the trial, Nicholas heard audio recordings of entire CNOBB meetings and audio excerpts from CNOBB meetings.
“It’s certainly unusual that we have tapes of at least some of the meetings that took place outside of the Sunshine,” Nicholas said.
He then recited some of the statements made at CNOBB meetings:
“I have concerns about how the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is functioning;”
“We need to prohibit the construction of a parking garage in the city of Bradenton Beach;”
“It is on the CRA list;”
“Parking garage could easily come before Planning and Zoning;”
“That whole strip over there would be a parking garage;”
“We need to specify a municipal parking garage;”
“It would be a huge building;”
“We need to prohibit construction of a parking garage in Bradenton Beach, it doesn’t matter if it’s by a municipality or a huge corporation;”
“Horrendous traffic problems with a parking garage.”
Nicholas then said, “Those were all quotes. That is the very definition of a discussion about public business. And it wasn’t just parking garage discussions: CNOBB discussed ropes and bollards, sidewalks, parking issues, the Bridge Tender (Inn) land swap, Bridge Street planters – all issues that had come before Planning and Zoning or Scenic WAVES.”
The judge ruled that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes and Bill Vincent violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said.
“Also, there were at least four CNOBB meetings that were not recorded early on as the group was becoming organized. What was discussed at those meetings? Who attended those meetings? These questions point to the obvious need for Sunshine Law compliance,” Nicholas said.
Nicholas said the defendants’ passionate and firmly held beliefs regarding city issues caused them to abdicate their obligation to follow the law.
“My finding that all the defendants clearly and unequivocally violated the Sunshine Law does not in any way suggest that they are bad people. I do not agree with the suggestion that the defendants attempted to form a secret government or a shadow government, or that their meetings were surreptitious or clandestine in any way,” Nicholas said.
The judge ruled that former advisory board members Rose Vincent, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
“Judgment is in favor of the city. The court finds that all the defendants, as members of Planning and Zoning and members of the Scenic WAVES Partnership Committee were subject to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Section 286.011 of Florida Statute,” Nicholas ruled.
Additional comments
Nicholas said a post-trial hearing will be scheduled to address potential sanctions. These include the city’s request to be reimbursed for a portion of its legal fees that now exceed $250,000.
“We agree with everything the judge said,” Watrous said after he left the courtroom.
“The Sunshine Law has been vindicated,” Barfield said.
“We agree with the judgment and look forward to the city moving forward and healing. The city does not wish to sue any of its board members, and it’s unfortunate this wasn’t settled earlier, but the Sunshine Law is important. It provides the city and its citizens with an open government,” Perry said,
“Obviously, I’m pleased with the verdict,” Clarke said.
“Government in the sunshine is why we are here. It’s as simple as that, it’s as important as that. It’s the foundation of what good government is built on; openness, transparency and accountability. Anything less is just not acceptable and now’s the time to heal,” Mayor John Chappie said.
“I’m very pleased with the judge’s ruling and I would like to thank everyone involved for presenting a clear case to the court. This was an unfortunate circumstance the city commission was put in to uphold our oaths to protect the laws of the state and to protect the city from litigation. I wish this would’ve been resolved through our previous settlement offers for a less expensive and earlier conclusion,” Vice Mayor Jake Spooner said.
Co-plaintiff Jack Clarke, Vice Mayor Jake Spooner (second row), Mayor John Chappie, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous await the judge’s arrival Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In March, all six defendants rejected a settlement offer from the city that proposed a collective admission that mistakes were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance and a $500 payment from each defendant. The defendants rejected the settlement offer that required them to acknowledge non-compliance with the Sunshine Law.
In May, Metz and the other defendants submitted counter proposals that sought significant financial reimbursement from the city. Metz’s offer also expressed a willingness to subject the city to a future appeals process.
BRADENTON – The Sunshine Law lawsuit involving the city of Bradenton Beach and six former city advisory board members is underway.
The civil trial began today. The suit was filed in 2017 on behalf of the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke. It alleges that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past, present and potential board business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in July and August of 2017. The lawsuit alleges similar Sunshine Law violations were committed by Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent.
The trial is expected to last all week and possibly conclude on Friday.
Attorney Robert Watrous is representing the city and Clarke in this case, assisted by City Attorney Ricinda Perry and paralegal Michael Barfield. Attorney Thomas Shults is representing Metz, assisted by attorney Jodi Ruberg. The other five defendants are representing themselves.
Defendants Reed Mapes, Bill Vincent, Rose Vincent (obscured), Patty Shay, Tjet Martin, attorney Jodi Ruberg (obscured), attorney Thomas Shults and defendant John Metz sat side by side as the trial began. – Media Pool Photo | Submitted
Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas is presiding over the bench trial and he alone will determine the innocence or guilt of the six defendants. The trial is taking place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton.
The trial began with Watrous and Shults seeking rulings on pretrial motions and other legal housekeeping matters.
When seeking a motion regarding the alleged spoliation of evidence, Watrous accused the defendants of intentionally withholding information during the pre-trial discovery process – included a recording of the July 14 CNOBB meeting that Shults did not provide Watrous until the day after Metz’s July 2 deposition. During that CNOBB meeting, Mapes initiated discussion on a quasi-judicial land use issue that was currently before the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the Bridge Tender Inn’s Dockside Bar seating capacity.
Nicholas denied the preliminary motions and said he would take them under advisement individually as the trial moves along.
Opening statements
During his opening statements, Watrous said the city’s legal team has compiled a large amount of information that he believes supports the allegations. The evidence includes email exchanges, audio recordings of CNOBB meetings, city meeting minutes, newspaper articles and more.
City resident Jack Clarke, Mayor John Chappie, City 0Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and Attorney Robert Watrous sat together at the plaintiffs’ table. – Media Pool Photo | Submitted
Watrous said the evidence would show that CNOBB consisted of extremely zealous individuals that formed their own shadow government because they did not feel their voices were being heard by the city commission.
Watrous said the defendants have claimed they are the victims in this case, portraying themselves as innocent retirees who volunteered their time to serve on city advisory boards.
Watrous said that all six defendants received Sunshine Law training while serving as city advisory board members but chose to “turn a blind eye” when moving forward with their CNOBB activities.
He also noted the defendants never sought the advice of the Manatee County attorney’s office or outside counsel regarding whether their participation in CNOBB meeting discussions were Sunshine Law-compliant.
“This an intentional act on their parts. I’m not saying they’re bad people, but they exercised bad judgment,” Watrous said.
During his opening statements, Shults said this case is really the story of six citizens who volunteered to serve on city boards without compensation. He also said this is the story of six citizens and their constitutional rights to petition their city government for changes to the city charter.
Shults said the defendants should be commended for their service to the city and halting their July 25, 2017 discussion about prohibiting parking garages after only six minutes of discussion.
Shults said no Sunshine Law violations occurred, but if they had they would have been cured by the resignations of all six defendants before or after the lawsuit was filed in August 2017.
“That should have been the end of this matter,” Shults said. “They should have been saluted instead of being sued. Here we are two years later.”
After the lunch break, Watrous and Barfield read aloud excerpts from the printed transcript of Bill Vincent’s December 2018 deposition. Barfield read Vincent’s responses to questions Watrous posed late last year about his city-mandated Sunshine Law training, the April 2017 Planning and Zoning Board discussions he participated in regarding parking garages and his role in creating and chairing CNOBB.
BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach voters re-elected incumbent Bradenton Beach City Commissioners Ralph Cole and Marilyn Maro, choosing them over challengers Tjet Martin and John Metz.
Bradenton Beach voters supported a return to geographically-based City Commission wards as one of seven proposed charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Committee and supported by city voters.
Running unopposed, Anna Maria Mayor Dan Murphy and commissioners Amy Tripp and Brian Seymour retain their seats and will serve additional two-year terms in office.
Bradenton Beach commission races
In the Bradenton Beach race for the two seats currently held by Cole and Maro, Cole received 282 votes (32.12 percent), Maro received 242 votes (27.56 percent), Metz received 189 votes (21.53 percent) and Martin received 165 votes (18.79 percent).
Maro and Cole will serve additional two-year terms on the City Commission and be sworn in on Monday, Dec. 19. Their victories will maintain for another year a commission that also includes Mayor John Chappie and commissioners Jake Spooner and Randy White.
Charter amendments
Bradenton Beach voters also decided the fate of seven proposed amendments to the city charter and one park rezoning request.
Voters adopted Amendment 1. This means geographically-based City Commission wards will be reinstated beginning with next year’s elections: 295 voters (58.65 percent) supported the amendment and 208 voters (41.35 percent) opposed it.
Despite this sign of opposition, Bradenton Beach voters adopted several charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Voters adopted Amendment 2. This means City Commission candidates will now have to be registered city voters and will have to provide addition proof of residency when seeking office: 413 voters (79.73 percent) supported the amendment and 105 voters (20.27 percent) opposed it.
Voters adopted Amendment 3. This means the city charter will expressly state Bradenton Beach has a balanced form of city government in which all five members, including the mayor, have the same legislative and executive powers: 308 voters (61.48 percent) supported the amendment and 193 voters (38.52 percent) opposed it.
Voters adopted Amendment 4. This means the City Commission will retain the sole authority to hire and fire charter officials and departments heads, even if a city manager was to be hired in the future: 290 voters (58.23 percent) supported the amendment and 208 voters (41.77 percent) opposed it.
Voters adopted rejected Amendment 5. This means Article II and Article III of the city charter will be renumbered and reorganized (merely an administrative housekeeping matter): 306 voters (62.58 percent) supported the amendment and 183 voters (37.42 percent) opposed it.
Voters adopted Amendment 6. This means the commission will retain the ability to fill vacant City Commission seats by commission appointment: 328 voters (64.57 percent) supported the amendment and 180 voters (35.43 percent) opposed it.
Voters adopted Amendment 7. This means the charter requirements and processes that already apply to citizen-led, petition-initiated city ordinances and resolutions will also apply to citizen-led, petition-initiated efforts to amend the city charter: 320 voters (65.04 percent) supported the amendment and 172 voters (34.96 percent) opposed it.
City voters also supported the city’s request to rezone Katie Pierola Park from its current R-3 Multi-Family Dwelling District zoning designation to a Parks/Recreation/Open Space zoning designation. The vote was 460 votes (89.15 percent) in favor of the rezoning and 56 votes (10.85 percent) opposed to the rezoning request.
BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach City Commission candidate Tjet Martin recently mailed a campaign letter to 246 city voters that does not include a political disclaimer required by state law.
Martin self-reported the potential campaign violation and is now trying to rectify the matter.
According to Florida Statute 106.143: “Any political advertisement that is paid for by a candidate, except a write-in candidate, and that is published, displayed, or circulated before or on the day of any election must prominently state ‘Political advertisement paid for and approved by (name of candidate), (party affiliation), for (office sought)’ or ‘Paid by (name of candidate), (party affiliation), for (office sought).’”
State law also says, “Any person who willfully violates any provision of this section is subject to the civil penalties prescribed in statute 106.265.”
These state laws apply to campaign signs and print advertisements as well.
On Oct. 2, commission candidate Tjet Martin mailed this campaign letter to 246 Bradenton Beach voters, but she failed to include a political disclaimer required by state law. – Submitted
Martin is familiar with state election laws, having previously run for a commission seat in 2014. She also assisted her significant other, former mayor Bill Shearon, with his past campaigns.
In her campaign letter, she wrote: “I have the desire to make sure things are done correctly and promptly.”
When The Sun contacted her about the potential campaign violation on Friday, Martin said, “Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will be contacting the Supervisor of Elections to see if I can correct this.”
On Saturday, Martin emailed Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett and Deputy Chief Sharon Stief.
“I was advised October 5th that the campaign letter I sent did not contain the required disclosure ‘paid political advertisement paid by.’ The campaign letter was mailed October 2nd to 246 absentee voters. I request your assistance and direction to correct this unintended oversight,” she wrote.
Martin sent the same email to Florida Division of Elections Director Maria Matthews.
To the best of The Sun’s knowledge, no complaint has been filed with the Florida Elections Commission regarding the omitted political disclaimer.
BRADENTON BEACH – Incumbent Bradenton Beach City Commissioner Ralph Cole is the leading campaign fundraiser in the four-person race for the two commission seats to be decided in the upcoming city elections.
According to his campaign treasurer’s reports, Cole raised $3,100 and spent $1,122 on his campaign as of Sept. 14. In addition to loaning his own campaign $1,100, Cole received $500 from Bridgewalk Partners LLC and $500 from the Silver Surf resort, which are both owned by Angela Rodocker. He also received $1,000 from the Local 2546 Suncoast Professional Firefighters and Paramedics labor union.
Former Scenic WAVES chair Tjet Martin seeks a City Commission seat. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Cole paid Speed King in Palmetto $674 for yard signs and flyers and Steam Design Services in Holmes Beach $400 for campaign marketing services. He also paid the $48 qualifying fee.
As of Sept. 14, former Scenic WAVES Committee chair Tjet Martin raised $1,800, including $1,100 in loans to her own campaign.
Martin received $300 from former Bradenton Beach resident Mary Mapes, $100 each from Bradenton Beach residents Bill and Rose Vincent, $100 from James Srackangast, who lists a North Carolina address, $50 from Roger Fultz, who lists a Michigan address and $50 from former deputy clerk Tammy Johnson.
Commissioner Marilyn Maro seeks a second term in office. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Martin paid Signs on the Cheap in Texas $200 and paid the $48 qualifying fee.
As of Sept. 14, Marilyn Maro, also an incumbent, raised $1,175, including $150 she loaned to her own campaign. Like Cole, Maro received $1,000 from the Suncoast Professional Firefighters and Paramedics. She also received $25 from Bradenton Beach resident Lynne Budzinski.
Maro’s only listed campaign expenditures were a $17 service fee for her campaign account, $16.50 for data obtained from the Manatee County Board of Commissioners and the $48 qualifying fee.
Former Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz now seeks a commission seat. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Former Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz loaned his own campaign $140, received $100 from Rose Vincent and made a $377 in-kind contribution to himself for lawn signs.
As of Sept. 14, Metz spent $6 on bank statements and paid the $48 qualifying fee.
Vote by mail ballots will be mailed out the first week of October and the elections will conclude on Tuesday, Nov. 6.
BRADENTON BEACH – Former Planning and Zoning Board member Bill Vincent says he’s withdrawing from the Bradenton Beach City Commission race.
On Thursday, June 28, Vincent distributed an email that said in its entirety: “Greetings. I have withdrawn my candidacy for commissioner of Bradenton Beach without advance announcement or public comment.”
Vincent announced his withdrawal a week after he and four other candidates qualified to run for the two at-large commission seats currently held by Marilyn Maro and Ralph Cole. Maro and Cole are seeking reelection and being challenged by former Scenic WAVES chair Tjet Martin and former Planning and Zoning Board member John Metz.
In 2016, John Chappie defeated Vincent in the Ward 4 commission race by a 378-234 vote margin. In 2014, Commissioner Jan Vosburgh defeated Martin in the Ward 4 race by a 347-143 vote margin. This is Metz’s first pursuit of a Bradenton Beach commission seat.
Vincent, Martin and Metz are among six former city advisory board members who resigned from their volunteer city positions last summer amidst allegations of Sunshine Law violations that are now the subject of a pending civil lawsuit initiated by the city and a city resident.
Metz is also the plaintiff in the stalled, but still pending, lawsuit he filed against the city and Building Official Steve Gilbert in 2016 in an attempt to have a neighbor’s property declared ineligible for continued use as a vacation rental.
In 2012, Martin, Bill Shearon and Jo Ann Meilner filed a lawsuit against the city in objection to a beachfront parking allowance given to Ed Chiles’ BeachHouse restaurant. The lawsuit was later settled in a manner that preserved Chiles’ parking rights but also allowed for the creation of a small beachfront park.
According to City Attorney Ricinda Perry, there’s nothing in the city charter that prevents someone involved in an active lawsuit with the city from running for a commission seat or serving as a commissioner if elected.
BRADENTON BEACH – Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin have been deposed by attorney Robert Watrous.
Defendant Patty Shay is scheduled for deposition this week. Defendants Bill and Rose Vincent were scheduled for depositions on Monday, June 4, but they were postponed in part due to Bill Vincent being legally blind and requiring special equipment and computer software to assist him when reading evidentiary exhibits presented to him. Defendant John Metz’s May 23 deposition was previously postponed.
First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019
Watrous deposed Mapes on Wednesday, May 30, and Martin on Friday, June 1. They were given under oath with a court reporter transcribing what was said. The depositions took place at the Vincent M. Lucente & Associates office in Bradenton.
Watrous represents the city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke in the civil lawsuit filed against the defendants in August. Paralegal Michael Barfield is assisting Watrous.
Mapes was represented by attorney Jim Dye and Metz brought attorney Tom Shults, even though he wasn’t being deposed. Martin represented herself, but Dye and another Metz attorney, Jodi Ruberg, provided occasional assistance.
All six defendants attended Mapes’s deposition and all but Shay attended Martin’s deposition. Martin’s significant other, Bill Shearon, attended both depositions. Clarke attended the morning sessions of both depositions.
The defendants are accused of violating the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing city matters that could have foreseeably come before them in their official capacities as city advisory board members. The alleged violations pertain to Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings and email exchanges between members who at the time served together on the Planning and Zoning Board or the Scenic WAVES Committee.
Some of those discussions and email exchanges referenced parking garage prohibitions, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan, the comprehensive plan and future land use maps.
The six defendants helped form CNOBB while serving as appointed city board members. They resigned from their city positions last summer and CNOBB was disbanded last fall.
Mapes deposition
When Mapes’ deposition began, Shults and Dye objected to the presence of two newspaper reporters but didn’t demand their removal.
Mapes served on the Planning Board for about a year and he acknowledged receiving mandatory Sunshine Law training that included attendance at a seminar conducted by County Attorney Mickey Palmer.
Watrous posed several questions regarding communications between planning board members and the overlap between CRA and planning board matters.
He also asked several questions about CNOBB’s formation and intent. Mapes said the intent was to educate citizens on city issues. CNOBB pursued three charter amendment initiatives and later registered as a political action committee.
During a July 25 CNOBB meeting, Mapes suggested a charter amendment that prohibited parking garages citywide. A recording of that meeting was played during his deposition.
Watrous referenced a June 12 email Mapes sent to Bill Vincent regarding Metz’s concerns about Sunshine Law compliance and a June 13 email Mapes sent to Vincent about the creation of a CNOBB website that could be public, semi-public or private.
“Here again is the issue of Sunshine violations,” Mapes wrote in that email.
When asked if he discussed Sunshine Law concerns with Metz in person, Mapes said he presumed he did, but couldn’t recall.
Watrous noted that Vincent received an opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics that advised CNOBB to consult an attorney if they had concerns about their meetings being Sunshine Law compliant.
Watrous cited email exchanges Mapes had with his attorney Bob Hendrickson about CNOBB matters and asked if he ever sought Hendrickson’s advice on Sunshine compliance. Mapes said he did not.
“I pushed for the parking garage. It might have been on my street and I didn’t want a parking garage,” Mapes said, noting the parking garage prohibition was not pursued by CNOBB.
“Our first meeting, which was back in June, we discussed dropping it. I kept bringing it up,” Mapes said regarding parking garages.
He said he did not feel the parking garage discussions violated the Sunshine Law.
“Why not make the effort and be more certain?” Watrous asked.
“Sometimes we decide what we want, the way we want it,” Mapes said.
“Did it occur to you what CNOBB was doing was negotiating in back room deals?” Watrous said at one point.
“Not at all,” Mapes responded.
Martin deposition
Martin formerly chaired the Scenic WAVES Committee that advises the City Commission and CRA on landscaping and beautification projects. Several questions pertained to projects discussed and/or pursued by the CRA, the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Committee or the City Commission.
These included the Bridge Street planters and plants, benches, park signs, trolley stops, Chickee huts and more. Watrous noted all these items had been or could foreseeably need to be reviewed by Scenic WAVES.
Martin said she did not feel the CNOBB discussions violated the Sunshine Law and she acknowledged participation in several Sunshine Law training sessions.
Near the end of her deposition, Martin was asked if she discussed the Sunshine lawsuit with Metz, a former attorney. Martin claimed she didn’t have to answer that question and Watrous told her she did.
She said she would “rant” to Metz, but he didn’t say much in response that she could recall.
“Normally, he sat and listened to me,” she said.
Martin said her lawsuit conversations with Bill Vincent were of a more technical nature pertaining to emails requested from her as part of the lawsuit.
When Watrous asked Martin if she discussed the lawsuit with anybody, Martin said, “Mr. Shearon.”
“And what have you two discussed?” Watrous asked.
Martin tried to hold back her tears as she said, “Just my disappointment with the city. My disappointment in how they treated us.”
Through her tears she said she dedicated a lot of her time to the city and then she got up and left the conference room. She returned a short time later and answered the few remaining questions Watrous had.
BRADENTON – 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Lon Arend has rejected defendant John Metz’s request to sequester non-party witnesses in a Sunshine Law lawsuit.
“I don’t find that I have the authority to sequester the witnesses, so I deny the motion,” Arend said, as the 40-minute hearing concluded on Wednesday, May 9. Arend also denied the defense’s last-minute, verbal request to sequester the transcripts of depositions given by non-party witnesses.
During depositions, defendants, plaintiffs and witnesses give individual testimony under oath in a non-courtroom setting with a court reporter transcribing what’s said. The written transcripts can then be used in court to support or contradict additional testimony given, or used if a witness can’t be present.
In some cases, witnesses are sequestered from hearing the testimony of others to prevent them from being influenced by that testimony or trying to match it.
“We want this to be open to the public, why don’t they? Who are they trying to keep out? They don’t want the press to attend these depositions,” attorney Robert Watrous successfully argued for the co-plaintiffs, the City of Bradenton Beach and Jack Clarke.
“It’s not the general public, it’s not the citizens, it’s not even the media that we’re concerned about. It truly is non-party witnesses, somebody who would potentially be a witness,” said attorney Jodi Ruberg, representing defendant Metz.
The co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Metz and five other members of two Bradenton Beach boards last August, alleging they violated the Florida Sunshine Law. Metz and three other defendants – Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent – are former Bradenton Beach Planning and Zoning Board members. Defendants Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent are former members of the city’s Scenic WAVES Committee. All six defendants resigned after the lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit alleges the defendants discussed past and potential future board and committee business outside of a city meeting publicly noticed by the city clerk’s office. The alleged Sunshine violations stem from a Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meeting in July and additional email exchanges discovered later.
On April 13, Metz’s attorneys filed a motion asking the court to sequester the depositions of non-party witnesses. Non-party witnesses are those not directly named as defendants or plaintiffs.
Judge Lon Arend rejected the defense’s request to sequester witnesses. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Arend said he has some concerns about how the deposition proceedings would be handled and he noted he has the authority to limit who’s in attendance. It is not yet known if the press or public can attend the defendant depositions scheduled to begin with Metz on May 23. Arend said that question may require another ruling from him if the parties can’t agree.
Attorney’s arguments
Metz and Martin attended Wednesday’s hearing accompanied by former mayor Bill Shearon and former City Commissioner Janie Robertson. Clarke also attended the hearing.
Attorney Jim Dye represented Mapes, with Ruberg representing Metz. The other four defendants have withdrawn their legal counsel and will represent themselves.
Paralegal Michael Barfield was on hand to assist Watrous, with City Attorney Ricinda Perry serving as co-counsel.
Watrous successfully argued the defense didn’t meet the burden of proof needed to support the request to sequester, and he noted that neither he nor the defense has yet named any non-party witnesses.
Perry suggested the non-party witnesses might include herself, the city clerk and the city planner. She said as co-counsel, sequestering her from the testimony of others would prevent her from protecting her client, the city.
“The can of worms we’re opening here is daunting.”
– Robert Watrous, Attorney
Citing past cases, Arend expressed concerns about hundreds of people wanting to attend depositions and showing up in T-shirts that express support or opposition for the parties involved.
In response, Perry pointed out the four non-party attendees present: Shearon, Robertson and two newspaper reporters.
Watrous said the limited space inside the court reporters’ offices would automatically limit attendance.
Attorney Robert Watrous, paralegal Michael Barfield and City Attorney Ricinda Perry are serving as the city’s legal team. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Arend said that even if sequestered, witnesses could still be given written transcripts of others’ depositions, which are also later made public at the Manatee County Clerk of Circuit Court website.
“Are you asking that as part of my order as well?” Arend asked.
“We actually are,” Ruberg said.
Arend said he’s never had anyone come before him expressing concerns about non-party witnesses attending depositions. He asked if there was anything particular that made the defense think this was going to happen.
Ruberg said Watrous had already filed affidavits for non-party witnesses. Watrous filed affidavits on Aug. 11, the day the lawsuit was filed; the parties mentioned were the clerk, the planner and the city attorney who has since joined as co-counsel.
Watrous said he did not know who he planned to call as non-party witnesses and he’s never heard of a request like this.
“Are they going to move to exclude witnesses when nobody knows if they are or aren’t going to be witnesses? The can of worms we’re opening here is daunting,” he said.
Due to time constraints, a second hearing pertaining to the defense’s motion to compel Clarke to provide additional documents was postponed to a later date.
BRADENTON BEACH – The statement of organization and campaign treasurer’s report recently filed by the Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) both contain insufficiencies, according to the city clerk and city attorney.
CNOBB filed a statement of organization with the clerk’s office designating the neighborhood group as a political committee on Oct. 24, and filed its first campaign treasurer’s report on Oct. 30.
Both filings prompted City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and City Attorney Ricinda Perry to send letters to CNOBB addressing procedural or statutory insufficiencies.
“I sent them a certified letter sharing what I found to be potential deficiencies they may want to address. If a complaint is filed, it’s up to another governmental body to determine if the filing is compliant with state election law,” according to Sanclemente.
Sanclemente’s letter noted that CNOBB filed its statement of organization and appointment of a registered agent and treasurer more than 10 days after the group was organized, possibly a violation of state law.
“Each political committee that receives contributions or makes expenditures during a calendar year in an aggregate amount exceeding $500, or that seeks the signatures of registered electors in support of an initiative, shall file a statement of organization within 10 days after its organization,” according to Chapter 106.03 of the Florida Statutes.
CNOBB adopted its bylaws on June 27. In early August, CNOBB initiated a petition drive to get three charter amendment questions placed on this year’s city ballot. In mid-October, CNOBB mailed out postcards seeking support for its charter amendments.
The statement of organization declares the group’s special interests to be “charter initiatives and educating the public.” Bill Vincent is designated as the political committee’s registered agent and chairperson and John Metz is the treasurer.
Perry said CNOBB’s statement of organization fell short of requirements by failing to provide the names, addresses and positions of any other principal officers; failing to declare if the group intends to continue as a political committee after the city elections; and failing to provide a statement as to when CNOBB was formed as an electioneering communications organization that distributes campaign-related materials.
CNOBB’s initial campaign treasurer’s report covers a self-created reporting period from Aug. 15 to Oct. 27. Bradenton Beach City Commission candidates filed six date-certain campaign treasurer’s reports during that same time frame.
Chapter 106.07 of the Florida Statutes states: “Any candidate or political committee failing to file a report on the designated due date is subject to a fine for each late day.”
On Nov. 2, Sanclemente sent Metz a letter pertaining to his treasurer’s report.
CNOBB member Tjet Martin signed a financial report the city clerk said should have been signed by the CNOBB chairperson. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“I have received your campaign treasurer’s report summary and I have found two insufficiencies.
1. Tjet Martin has signed as chairperson on the treasurer’s report you submitted, however Mr. Vincent is listed as the chairperson on the DS-DE 41 (form) submitted on 10/24.
2. The spending of funds before registering as a committee,” the letter said.
When asked about the letter, Sanclemente said the financial report needed to be amended to address the insufficiencies she cited.
Former Mayor Jack Clarke had already filed complaints with the Florida Elections Commission against CNOBB and its steering committee members by the time the overdue statement of organization and campaign treasurer’s report were filed with the city.
CNOBB finances
The campaign treasurer’s report lists $4,430 in loans and contributions and $3,812 in expenditures.
The report lists 24 $10 or $20 membership fees received between Aug. 15 and Aug. 23; and four more received on Oct. 10. On that same day, CNOBB member and Bradenton Beach Marina President Mike Bazzy contributed $1,070 and Martin loaned CNOBB $1,000. Martin is Mayor Bill Shearon’s life partner and personal caregiver.
On Oct. 23, Metz and CNOBB member Reed Mapes each loaned the political committee $1,000. If the political committee disbands after the elections, any money remaining from the three loans could be reimbursed to those who made them.
The only contribution or loan received after CNOBB filed its statement of organization on Oct. 24 was the $50 former City Commissioner Janie Robertson donated on Oct. 26.
The reports states the Kirkland and Harrison law firm was paid $3,000 on Oct. 23 for legal services associated with CNOBB’s efforts to get their charter amendments placed on the ballot. The $396 expenditure for campaign postcards and $154 expenditure for postage are dated Oct. 10. The $80 reimbursement to CNOBB member Carol Harrington for a post office box is dated Aug. 22.
The only expenditure dated after the statement of organization was filed is the $179 reimbursement made to CNOBB member Joanne Keir (misspelled Kerr on the report) for newsletters.
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.
