The Meeting....Continued
In an attempt to shed light on the meeting held in March in Senator Argenziano’s office between the senator, the mayor, the city manager, the Rainbow River Ranch representative, and representatives of the Florida D.C.A. and D.E.P., I wrote to the Florida Senate Attorney General’s office and the State of Florida Attorney General’s office to inquire about possible violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law. This law was written to insure that decisions made by elected officials be done in an open manner, in full view of the electorate.
Senator Argenziano sought to indemnify herself from any question of impropriety by citing Senate Rules 1.43 and 1.44. In fact, these two senate rules deal only with meetings held to discuss matters of terrorism, sabotage and homeland security. As none of these were discussed at the meeting, this is a ludicrous argument, to say the least. It is our contention that the good senator hosted this meeting to facilitate the approval of the RRR project by the D.C.A. and the D.E.P. Her behavior at the meeting was atrocious, and not befitting an elected state official, but bad behavior, in itself, is not covered under the Sunshine Law. To date, the senator has not provided an acceptable explanation of her involvement in this matter, except to make repeated references to “riparian” rights of the developers and future homeowners.
It is also our contention that the flora and fauna of the Rainbow River also have ‘riparian’ rights, and as stewards of the environment, it is our duty to give them precedence over those of the developer.
As for the meeting, we are in communication with both AG’s offices, and will persue the matter until we get some clarification on whether or not the Sunshine Law was violated in letter, or in spirit.
What follows is an exchange between Mr. Schatt, the City Attorney of Dunnellon, and Dunnellon Online. We leave it up to you to decide who is being duplicitous.
Dear Mr. Burke,
As you may be aware, I have the privilege of serving as Dunnellon City Attorney. In that capacity I have been contacted by the Florida Senate General Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General General Counsel regarding your inquiry as to whether the Sunshine Law is applicable to the meeting held in Senator Argenziano's office. While I believe the answers they provided adequately address your request, I do feel it is necessary to advise you of an error in your description of attendees at the meeting. Specifically to avoid a potential Sunshine Law violation Mayor Taylor was designated as the only elected official to attend the meeting in the Senator's Office. The only other individual associated with City of Dunnellon government to attend the meeting was City Manager Ed Ericson.
Very Truly Yours,
J. Theodore Schatt
Mateer & Harbert, P.A.
7 East Silver Springs Blvd., Suite 204
Post Office Box 3775
Ocala, Florida 34478
Telephone: (352) 351-8003
Facsimile: (352) 351-9002
Dear Mr. Schatt,
Thank you for your clarification on the matter of the RRR meeting. The mayor is well served by your counsel.
I do have a question, though. Per your statement: “Specifically to avoid a potential Sunshine Law violation Mayor Taylor was designated as the only elected official to attend the meeting in the Senator's Office.”; could you give me the time and date of the council meeting at which the mayor received said designation?
The only reference to the meeting I can find in the city council meeting minutes is as follows:
“City of Dunnellon
Regular City Council Meeting
March 27, 2006
Page 3
Mayor Taylor reported that he will be attending a meeting in Tallahassee called by
Senator Argenziano on Tuesday, March 28th at 11:15 a.m. with regard to the proposed
Rainbow River Ranch Development.”
This is clear. Mayor Taylor “reported” that he would be attending the meeting. He was not ‘designated’ by anyone. If this is not so, at what time and date, and by whom was the mayor ‘designated’ to represent the city at the meeting? I can find no record of it in the city council’s meeting minutes.
If the designation was made at the subsequent attorney-client session, how could the mayor announce his plans to attend in advance of that session?
I would also like to request your permission to publish your last reply and all of our correspondence on this matter on Dunnellon Online, so that my readers will be informed of the situation. I believe that in your capacity as City Attorney, such correspondence is a matter of public record, but I would still like to have your consent in writing.
I am grateful for your clarifications of these questions, and look forward to your reply.
Yours Very Truly,
Robert Randall Burke
Publisher
Dunnellon Online
www.dunnellononline.com
Mr. Burke,
As a point of clarification, my choice of the term "designated" should not be interpreted to suggest any official act by the Council. It was intended to convey City Council's efforts, with the assistance of counsel, to ensure that a surprise appearance at the meeting would not result in a potential Sunshine Law issue. I am unable to provide further details on this matter as communications occurring during the attorney-client session are privileged until the litigation is concluded.
Very Truly Yours,
J. Theodore Schatt
Mateer & Harbert, P.A.
Telephone: (352) 351-8003
Facsimile: (352) 351-9002
Dear Mr. Schatt,
With all due respect, I cannot think of any other connotation for the statement that “Specifically to avoid a potential Sunshine Law violation Mayor Taylor was designated as the only elected official to attend the meeting in the Senator's Office.” other than the mayor was designated by decision of the council. If this is not so, who made said “designation’?
In addition, your reply does not answer my question as to the timing of the mayor’s announcement of his plans to attend the meeting. How could he have made that announcement prior to the aforementioned ‘designation’ being made? It would seem that the mayor made his announcement, and then the council met in closed session with the city attorney to determine how to indemnify the mayor from any Sunshine Law violations. Not to put too fine a point on it, this does seem rather confusing. Can you clarify the time line in this?
Another item that I find troubling is the phrase “to ensure that a surprise appearance at the meeting...”. A surprise appearance by whom? Another member of the city council? That is what one would be led to assume, but the verbiage in this matter has been so nebulous that I hesitate to make that assumption.
Clarification of these points would be greatly appreciated.
Cordially,
Robert Randall Burke
Publisher
Dunnellon Online
And the Final Response...............
Mr. Burke,
Any further clarification would compromise confidential communications during the attorney-client session.
Very Truly Yours,
J. Theodore Schatt
Mateer & Harbert, P.A.
Telephone: (352) 351-8003
Facsimile: (352) 351-9002
Update: May 11, 2006
Apparently, this "cone of silence" has descended over the entire City Council. According to a report this morning in the Riverland News, Mr. Patterson wants any mention of Rainbow River Conservation Inc. to be 'stricken from the minutes' of the recent council meeting. This, ostensibly, on the advice of the City Attorney at the March 27th attorney-client meeting. Why did it take a month and a half for this declaration of silence? Was there another attorney-client meeting? Was this decided in private? Was there any violation of Florida's Sunshine Law? Inquiring minds want to know!
It is amazing what a little scrutiny can do.
Dunnellon Online will attend the next City Council meeting, and attempt to ask these questions. We urge you to make an effort to attend. It may prove to be a most entertaining evening.