Action is being taken in a lawsuit alleging violations of Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.
At a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment June 20, 12th Judicial Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs — the city of Bradenton Beach and ex-Mayor Jack Clarke.
Through the motion, the plaintiffs sought a determination that the matters of parking and a parking garage were issues that were “reasonably foreseeable” to come before the city planning and zoning board.
The suit, filed in August 2017 by Clarke and joined by the city, alleges Sunshine Law violations by former P&Z board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay, and Bill Vincent, and Scenic Waves Partnership Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, all of whom were members of the now-defunct grass-roots group Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach.
The motion and the suit hinge on a July 25, 2017, CNOBB steering committee meeting, where discussion was allegedly held on a citizen-initiated referendum to prohibit parking garages in the city charter.
Multilevel parking facilities previously were proposed at several locations in the city, but permits were not applied for and no projects came to fruition before the city amended its comprehensive plan in 2018 to prohibit parking garages citywide.
During the June 20 hearing, Robert Watrous, attorney for the plaintiffs, said transcripts of P&Z meetings held April 12, 2017, and April 19, 2017, prior to the inception of CNOBB, when Mapes, Metz, Shay and Vincent were on the P&Z board, contained more than 40 references to parking and 24 references to parking garages.
“So as far as the reasonableness standard, we are able to provide the court, not just that it was reasonably foreseeable, but the fact that it actually occurred,” Watrous said.
Tom Shults, attorney for Metz, argued against the motion.
Shults said the plaintiffs “cherry-picked” the issue of a parking garage as something reasonably foreseeable to come before the P&Z.
He said Watrous did not argue on the matter of what happened at the July 25, 2017, CNOBB meeting, which was the basis of the complaint.
Shults said the purpose of that CNOBB meeting was to develop a citizen-initiated petition to amend the charter, and the mention of an initiative to prohibit parking garages was a “brief discussion” that was dropped from a list of proposed amendments.
“We are arguing that it is legally inappropriate to cherry-pick an issue, without filing a motion for summary judgment on an entire claim,” Shults said.
Before the judge ruled, pro se defendant Bill Vincent, CNOBB founder, responded to a statement made by Watrous at the start of his argument, that CNOBB was formed by “frustrated individuals who could not get appointed to the city commission and wanted to voice their frustrations about how city government was performing.”
Vincent said CNOBB was “formed out of a proactive, very positive approach to be a benefit to the city of Bradenton Beach, with broad-based support by residents, business and snowbird membership.”
Additionally, Vincent said that discussion in the transcripts of the two April 2017 P&Z meetings referenced by Watrous “consistently identify (parking garages) as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.”
Nicholas granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and said, “The safe and easy thing to do would be to deny the motion for partial summary judgment and let the chips fall where they may. However, there is no universe wherein the issue of whether a parking garage would be permitted or approved in a small community would not come before the planning and zoning board. If that’s the issue before the court today — and I think it is — that is not a close call.”
He added, “Whether or not there is a Sunshine Law violation here, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove such a violation — obviously that remains to be seen.”
Following the hearing, Michael Barfield, a paralegal for Watrous, told The Islander, “We encourage the defendants to reconsider the city’s reasonable settlement offers.”
In March, the city made an offer that would have required the defendants each pay fines of $500 and admit they violated the Sunshine Law.
The defendants responded with an “offer to compromise,” a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center with no admission of guilt and not pay the $500 per-person fine, which was denied by the city.
Then, in April, the city offered to close the case without an admission of guilt from the defendants — if they pay court costs incurred by taxpayers, totaling $232,853.62 as of June 20.
Another pretrial hearing for multiple motions is planned for June 26.
The trial is set to begin July 15.