More settlement offers were taken into consideration in a Bradenton Beach lawsuit.
But as quickly as they were presented, they were shot down.
At a June 28 shade meeting for a lawsuit against six former board members initiated by ex-Mayor Jack Clarke and joined by the city, a motion was made by Commissioner Jake Spooner and approved 4-0 by the mayor and commissioners to reject settlement offers proposed by several defendants.
Additionally, Spooner motioned for the city’s attorney in the lawsuit, Robert Watrous, to draft a cover letter stating the rejection and that the city only would entertain an offer that included all six defendants, an admission of fault for violating the Sunshine Law and “significant repayment to the taxpayers for attorneys’ fees.”
Clarke, who was absolved by the city from paying any legal fees, did not attend the meeting and Commissioner Randy White was absent with excuse.
The lawsuit alleges the defendants, as board members, violated Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law by discussing city matters at meetings and through emails, texts and phone calls.
A shade meeting allows a government body to privately meet with council to discuss litigation strategy, settlement negotiations or expenditures. The meeting is publicly noticed and is opened and closed in an open meeting, with motions made during the closing session.
The private portion of the meeting is transcribed by a court reporter and made public after the case is closed.
Michael Barfield, Watrous’s paralegal for the lawsuit, said June 28, upon direction from city attorney Ricinda Perry and Watrous, he recently “re-engaged the defendants about settlements, no longer making it global that all had to sign and offering that they each pay $500.”
He said the settlements stipulated that the two defendants that also were Scenic Waves Partnership Committee members, Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, could state that they “may have” made mistakes, while the defendants who were on the P&Z board, Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, had to admit they violated the Sunshine Law.
“Some folks have decided to accept and some have not,” Barfield said. “The individuals who have expressed an interest in doing so know and understand it is contingent upon the city commission accepting the proposal.”
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 no fine, which was declined by the city.
Then, in April, the city offered to close the case without an admission of guilt from the defendants — if they paid court costs — more than $232,000 as of June 28 — incurred by taxpayers.
In May, the defendants offered a compromise, stating they would “settle with the city and Clarke only if they dismiss this lawsuit against all defendants with prejudice,” and pay 40% of each defendant’s costs for the lawsuit to date.
The city rejected that offer.
A trial is set to begin July 15.