The first two depositions were taken in the case of Jack Clarke and Bradenton Beach versus six former city board members.
Former planning and zoning board member Reed Mapes was deposed May 30 and former Scenic Waves Partnership Committee chair Tjet Martin was deposed June 1.
The other defendants, former P&Z members John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and Waves member Rose Vincent were not deposed as of press time for The Islander.
Attorney Robert Watrous, counsel for Clarke and the city, performed both depositions at Vincent M. Lucentes & Associates Court Reporters, 526 12th St. W., Bradenton.
The depositions were heard for a suit initiated in August 2017 by ex-Mayor Clarke and joined by the city against the six now-former board members. It alleges the defendants violated Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Laws by discussing city matters — including the community redevelopment agency plan — at meetings of the now-defunct grass-roots group Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach.
CNOBB discussions allegedly violated Sunshine Laws regarding open meetings.
Additionally, the city is alleging several of the defendants exchanged emails regarding city and CRA matters that might have been brought before them as board members.
Mapes’ attorney Jim Dye, along with Metz and his attorney Tom Shults, Shay, Rose and Bill Vincent, Martin and Martin’s companion former Mayor Bill Shearon, attended Mapes’ deposition.
Plaintiff Jack Clarke and Michael Barfield, paralegal for Watrous, also were in attendance.
Attorney Jodi Ruberg sat in for Shults at Martin’s deposition and Shay was not present.
During the hourslong deposition, Watrous asked Mapes why CNOBB was formed, to which Mapes responded, “To help educate the citizens of Bradenton Beach on city matters.”
Watrous asked Mapes why he felt there was a need to educate the citizens of Bradenton Beach. Mapes said, “At the time CNOBB was formed, there was a lot of discourse between city council and the citizens regarding what our city was supposed to be and that was what most of our discussion was about.”
Mapes said the city is not following its 2002 Vision Plan, a cause for concern among some citizens.
During Martin’s deposition, Watrous asked Martin if, as Waves chair, she ever reviewed projects included in the CRA plan. Martin said she had, but just as small projects before the plan was approved by the city commission.
“I was waiting for it,” Martin said. “I never saw it while I was there.”
City engineer Lynn Burnett presented the CRA plan to Waves at its March meeting, seven months after Martin resigned as chair. However, the city does not require approval from Waves — a recommending body — to move forward with the plan. Burnett closed the March presentation asking members to, “Send any ideas (her) way.”
Near the end of Martin’s deposition, Watrous asked her if she had discussed the lawsuit with Shearon. She said they discussed her “disappointment with the city.”
“I put a lot of hard work into this city, a lot of my time and a lot of my life. And this is what they do to us? Really?” Martin said with emotion.
The depositions will continue throughout the summer, with a trial date anticipated for early fall.
As of May 11, the lawsuit has cost the city $56,318, based on invoices through January. The city commission is yet to see invoices from Watrous and Barfield for February, March, April and May.
‘Depositions are only a piece’ says Sunshine defendant
John Metz, a former Bradenton Beach Planning and Zoning Board member who is now a defendant in a lawsuit led by the city alleging he and five other now-former board members violated the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, said May 30 that people must remember the depositions are “a piece of the puzzle,” and the final order will come from the judge.
Following a denied motion by Metz to deny attendance at depositions to other witnesses and interested parties — including the press — the process remained open to the public.
Metz, a retired attorney, said he is concerned people will take statements made during the depositions “out of context.”
“This is not the trial,” Metz said. “This is just a small sliver of the case. It is up to the judge to determine if anything actually happened.”