PB: On Settlements & Double-Crosses
The Palmetto Bay Village Council will finally take up a potential settlement in a secret meeting scheduled for August 7, 2013:
The Village Attorney advises the Mayor and Village Council that counsel representing the Village in defense of those certain legal actions styled: Palmer Trinity Private School v. Village of Palmetto Bay; Circuit Court Case No.: 08-28977 CA 30, and Palmer Trinity v. Village of Palmetto Bay under Circuit Court case no. 10-34016 CA 20,; and desires advice from the Village Council regarding litigation strategy and/or settlement.
Once burned, twice shy
A potential settlement of the lingering dispute between Palmetto Bay and Palmer Trinity threatens a replay of the settlement of Shores at Palmetto Bay, LLC v. Palmetto Bay. For those of you who were paying attention to real life instead of Palmetto Bay’s “middle finger” government, the village council held a shade session and decided to settle the Shores litigation.
Apparently during the discussions in the shade, some members of the council – including new member Tim Schaffer – were surprised when Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsay opposed the settlement on the dais. The Marathon Man was surprised because, as he said during his comments, both Stanczyk and Lindsay supported settlement during the private session.
What Schaffer learned about his council colleagues is that they are duplicitous. In private, they supported settling the Shores lawsuit, but in public, under the withering criticism from all ten of their supporters (puppeteers?), Lindsay and Stanczyk voted against settling.
SDM Wonders: Will Schaffer, Fiore and Dubois allow Lindsay and Stanczyk to indicate support for settlement in private but vote no when they appear in public?
That’s exactly what Lindsay and her pet mayor Stanczyk want to do with Palmer because then they can run for re-election on the platform that they were the only ones supporting Palmer’s neighbors and the CCOCI provocateurs. For the rest of the village, Lindsay and Stanczyk will just hope that time will pass and voters’ memories will fade.
SDM Says: The council majority – however constituted in regards to resolving Palmer – should demand a unanimous vote from their colleagues.
But how would they enforce such a vote, SDM?
Here’s how: Make clear that unless everyone votes for the settlement, the majority will move to reconsider and then lay the item on table until the next meeting.
Sure it’s hardball, fellas, but time is on your side.