Bradenton Beach has a problem collecting a $20,563 legal settlement from the estate of Reed Mapes.
On Oct. 14, in a case listing Mapes as the appellant, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the city and upheld a 2019 ruling from the 12th Judicial Circuit Court that determined Mapes and five other defendants violated the Sunshine Law.
The appeals court ruling was the finale to a lawsuit that began in 2017, when the city sued some planning and zoning board and ScenicWAVES committee members over alleged violations of the Sunshine Law.
The law provides access to governmental proceedings at state and local levels, applying to any gathering of two or more members of the same board to discuss a matter that might foreseeably go before that board for action.
The case dates back to July 25, 2017, when Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach members — including people serving on city boards — met outside the city hall and had conversations about possible charter changes, including eliminating parking garages, according to court documents.
Bradenton Beach city attorney Ricinda Perry said at the time she learned of the gathering and listened to an audio tape of the meeting posted on the group’s website.
She then sent an email July 27, 2017, to commissioners relating a potential legal risk to the city due to Sunshine Law violations.
In October 2020, the court ordered Mapes, John Metz and Tjet Martin to jointly pay the city $369,498.
Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent paid the city $500 each as they settled before the 2019 trial.
Metz and Martin also eventually settled with the city, paying $351,500, but Mapes, who had called the trial “political assassination,” continued to fight until his death in April.
Perry said Oct. 20 that the city is facing difficulties obtaining the money from Mapes’ estate and expressed frustration over the inability of attorney Robert Watrous to collect the payment. Watrous represented the city in the case, assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield and Perry.
“I have reached out to Mr. Watrous and his only communication to me or the city has been to bill the city for varied costs. It does not appear there has been a large effort to acquire the remaining funds out of the estate of Mr. Mapes.”
Mayor John Chappie suggested using a collection agency and the commission formed a consensus directing Perry to pursue contracting with a collection agency.
Seems some important information failed to find its way to this article, like the former mayor and Mr. Barfield informing the city of their intent to sue the city for the violation if the city didn’t file suit against their appointed advisory board members. These “advisory board members” it would appear were citizens appointed to talk within the community about issues and report back to the council who actually votes to make decisions on issues, so these employees of the city didn’t have the ability to vote or implement anything? But wait it gets even better, the demand that these “employees be sued by the city” too is strange since government normally punishes “employees” by demotion or dismissal, and usually the “employees” are protected from suit by qualified immunity when doing what the city requires of them; so the city decided they were not “employees” of the city which begs the question how are they officials of the city if not elected or employed? But if not “employees” then do not their individual rights as citizens apply? Amazingly enough our court system decided they have no citizen rights and no governmental entity protection (because the city decided under duress and threat and convenience), boy I sure would not want to be involved with that city government, politics is stupid enough, but this is government attacking their own appointed citizens who essentially were doing what was asked of them.