South Dade Matters

Looking at the World South of Miami: Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, Pinecrest, South Miami and Miami-Dade County.

Tag: Palmer Trinity

May 2, 2013

PB: Ready for Another Lawsuit?

It was such a quiet week until SDM had a chance to rummage through the upcoming May 6th agenda packet. You can find it here. The agenda is blessedly dull until you get to Item 10E and its promise of litigation.

Take a guess what kind of property will cause the next lawsuit? If you answered a private school, go to the fridge and open a beer or pour yourself a glass of wine to celebrate your new title: Monarch of the Obvious! :)

Item 10E is a resolution authorizing a special election so that the Alexander School can increase its enrollment by 59 students. Yes, you read that correctly. The school wants to go from 270 to 329 students and the Village of Litigation requires by charter (meaning some of you reading this blog voted for this dumb procedure) that 75% of the voters living within 2000 feet of the school must approve the change.

SDM understands the root of this foolishness. When the Palmer genie escaped from the bottle, some on the council wanted to make sure that no more children would be educated in our little burgh. So they inserted a poison pill into the charter thinking that even its mere presence would force these little pests outside the village’s borders.

Apparently, the Alexander School missed the message and is testing this new procedure. The interesting (or scary) part is that the school also went out and hired the very same law firm that successfully sued the Village on Palmer’s behalf. (That sound you just heard is your tax bill rising.)

In a carefully worded letter attached to the application, the school’s attorney diplomatically points out that the Village is trampling Alexander School’s constitutionally protected property rights:

Alexander School, Inc., as owner of the School Property, respectfully maintains that Section 10.1 of the Village Charter is unconstitutional in that it inhibits their right to petition the Village Council and be heard by the Council in a public hearing to seek amendment of the development rights on their property as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution and the Citizens’ Bill of Rights of Palmetto Bay. Section 10.1 does not treat uses where public assembly of persons is proposed in an equal, or consistent, manner. In addition, we believe that State Attorney General Opinion 2012-32 and State Attorney General Opinion 83-31, copies of which are attached, hold that a local government may not require the written consent of certain adjoining property owners prior to the commencement of construction. We believe that Section 10.1 results in the illegal delegation by the Village to certain property owners of the Village Council’s legislative power to regulate zoning and land use, and to determine public policy by such regulation. (Emphasis by SDM.)

SDM read the Attorney General Opinions cited (they are included in the item if you want to review them) and thinks the attorney is representing them fairly. (Maybe some of you legal eagles can offer your opinion in the comments? Pretty please?)

SDM Wonders: Will the Village Attorney – already under withering fire from all sides – have the stones (figuratively speaking, of course) to tell the people who pay her bills the truth about this legal question?

Requiring 75% of voters to approve the change strikes SDM as unconstitutional, too. (Wake up Bilzin Sumberg!) Seriously, if the village council doesn’t want the responsibility for administering the zoning code, then why do they limit the input to only those who vote? Surely some of the adjacent property owners are not registered – heck, they may not even be U.S. citizens. (Yes, SDM is aware that this is Miami and everyone votes whether they are “legally” allowed or not. Humor us, okay?)

Even non-citizens and unregistered people pay taxes and their property is just as much “at risk” as the neighboring owners who vote. (SDM is using quotations around “at risk” because we don’t agree that children devalue neighboring property and want proof, damn it!)

Then again, these 59 kids are probably going to clog the streets of the entire village with their soccer parents and their minivans, so why doesn’t every property owner get to vote? (Help, Help! SDM’s being repressed!!!”)

 

Oh yeah! SDM remembers why all of us don’t get to vote on this question: It’s that pesky U.S. constitution and its impertinent protections of the individual against the inconstant majority. Almost forgot that silly provision.

SDM Says: Thank you prior Mayor and Council for failing to even review the charter amendments and for listening to the SOPs and CCOCIers who demanded you place those charter amendments on the ballot despite their flaws. And a pox on all you voters who approved this amendment thinking that your council had vetted them. Silly fools, your chickens are coming home…to roost…again.

7 comments
April 24, 2013

PB: What are you hiding Mayor Stanczyk?

An SDM commenter shared the following nugget from a recent Village Update email from Mayor Shelley Stanczyk. The Mayor was recounting some of the actions taken at a recent meeting:

The attempt to remove the confidential status of Attorney-Client meetings has been brought up repeatedly since the election.  These meetings are held in accordance with a Florida Statute to discuss litigation settlement.  While eliminating the confidential status of the sessions has been labeled by some as a transparency issue, it is not.  It is not a wise plan to disclose litigation strategies to the other side during the process of a lawsuit.  This would put the Village at a disadvantage during negotiation.  All transcripts of attorney-client sessions become public after settlement is complete.

SDM has covered this issue repeatedly over the past several months (see PB: Made in the Shade for  full discussion of the legal issues). SDM reminded the council multiple times that the statute says the village council “may” hold shade sessions, which means they are not required to do so.

The Palmetto Bay Village Council has voted to hold shade sessions, which by definition means they have decided to be opaque (i.e., the opposite of transparent) on the many, many questions surrounding the Palmer litigation.

Mayor Stanczyk and others on the council claim that publishing the Palmer transcripts would “put the Village at a disadvantage during negotiation.” Yet, neither she nor any other council member deigns to tell us why. What exactly is at issue in the “negotiation” at this point? The village already granted Palmer’s development order so there do not appear to be any public policy questions remaining to be decided.

SDM suspects the remaining issue to be decided has to be the money: how much, if anything, must the village pay to Palmer to compensate the school for the expenses they incurred in defending their rights?

So, what could be in those transcripts that, if disclosed, would increase the amount the village would pay to Palmer? (SDM would hope that if anything in the transcripts served to reduce any possible payout that our intrepid council would publish the transcript in the Miami Herald tomorrow.)

Since the Mayor and the council prefer to keep us in the dark, SDM will speculate wildly:

Could the transcript show that members of the council were influenced by – or colluded with – outside parties to reject a settlement?

We know that shade sessions cannot be used to take action on settling a case, only tactics can be discussed. Did the council actually come to an agreement at one of these sessions and thereby violate the law?

Did one of the council members attend a session and then disclose the substance of the discussions to some of the other parties to the Palmer suit? Was Palmer prejudiced by a disclosure so that the school had to spend more to its expensive lawyers?

Was any particular member of the council particularly or unusually vehement in a position favoring the continuation of the litigation?

Did the council ignore the advice of their own lawyers and continue the litigation anyway?

SDM is having trouble figuring out how any of these questions really changes the “negotiation.” Palmer has some kind of claim for compensation; it’s either valid or invalid. Palmer has a list of expenses and they are either permissible or not. What exactly do the shade sessions hide that so benefits the village?

SDM Says: All of this secrecy tends to make people wonder what is going on behind those closed doors and whether the council is acting on behalf of residents or in their own political interests. Hmmm….

SDM Message to the Mayor: The transcripts must be released at the conclusion of the litigation, not when you reach a settlement.  So long as you are committed to keeping us in the dark, at least do it correctly.

5 comments
April 9, 2013

Guest Post: David Singer Questions Palmetto Bay Financial Report

Something just doesn’t add up in the Village’s Annual Financial Report.

In my previous life for 7 or 8 years I was an auditor. An auditor is usually a CPA who reviews and verifies accounting records for public, private or governmental agencies.

I’ve had a the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that was presented to the Mayor, City Manager, and Council at the last Council meeting on April 1st . I found what seems to be a glaring and possibly material error in the way litigation is reserved and footnoted.

One would think that pending litigation would be material if the ultimate cost to the Village of Palmetto Bay was, say, a million dollars, but somehow the firm auditing the Village of Palmetto Bay did not find or may not have been given accurate information regarding pending litigation between Palmer and the Village, and pending litigation between Shores of Palmetto Bay and Palmetto Bay.

The direct quote by the auditor in the Report under the heading Litigation is : “The Village is involved in several lawsuits incidental to its operations, the outcome of which, in the opinion of management and legal counsel, should not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Village.”

I’m sure everyone is thinking, we know there is litigation occurring between Palmer Trinity and the Village, and Shores of Palmetto Bay and the Village, so what is the issue?

The issue is that Audits and auditors have guidelines to follow. These guidelines may be foreign to the lay person but are important because they require litigation to be handled in a specific manner on an Audited Financial Statement. (Not to get too technical, but the wonks among you might agree that public and government audits as they relate to litigation contingencies must follow SFAS No. 5, GASB No. 62 and GASB No. 10.)

So what if guidelines weren’t followed and the financials are misstated – then what? The Mayor and the Council should demand to find out why. First, was it the auditing firm that made the error? Was it the Village Manager or Finance Director? Was it the Village Attorney? The auditing firm, Cherry Berkaert, is only responsible for the information that is presented to them by various sources within the Village during the Audit. That’s why all Auditors require a Representation Letter to be signed by the Auditee, in this case, the Village of Palmetto Bay. Note that the auditor makes the determination that litigation is not material based on the opinion of management and legal counsel.

The Auditors are required to send out what is called an Attorney Confirmation to all law firms who have been paid during the year to find out what type of litigation is occurring in the Village and what effect it may have on the Finances of the Village. In this case, I would hope that our Village Attorney Eve Boutsis received and sent one back. If not the auditing firm has some, as Ricky Ricardo once said to Lucy, some serious “esplaining to do”.

With millions of dollars at stake should this information been handled differently on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement? Once again, did the Village Attorney fill out the Attorney Confirmation completely, honestly and accurately?

A Million Dollar judgment or settlement with either of these Plaintiffs does, in my opinion (and any sensible universe,) have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the Village. Is the Village once again not being open and honest? Did the Village Staff, specifically the Village Manager or Village Attorney, mislead the auditors or is it just incompetence?

Regardless of the reason, the record needs to be set straight and if needed the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report corrected. I call upon the Mayor and Council to investigate as these are their Financial Statements. In the mean time it’s important that the Council set up a Board of Financial Advisors to keep this from happening again. Our Village, without a doubt, could call to service any number of financially seasoned resident-professionals to assist with the Financials and help the Village weave through numbers and guidelines to get the budget and reporting finally in order.

7 comments
April 3, 2013

PB: Steppin’ Out with the Tres Hermanos

Ok, so SDM had some very formative years during the musical 1980s. One SDM favorite came to mind while watching the Palmetto Bay Village Council meeting on Monday, April 1st when her honor Mayor Shelley Stanczyk got up and walked out before adjourning the council meeting:

We’re – so tired of all the darkness in our lives

With no more angry words to say can come alive

Get into a car and drive to the other side.

Steppin’ Out, Joe Jackson (1982)

Now the only question for Ms. Stanczyk is where is the other side? In fact, it looked to SDM like the Marathon Man, Tim Schaffer, got into his red truck and drove from the Three Amigos to join the Tres Hermanos along with Vice Mayor John Dubois and Councilman Patrick Fiore.

SDM couldn’t help but notice that the Tres Hermanos coalition – i.e., the private property owners’ rights coalition – joined together to push for some major changes to the badly named “Neighborhood Protection Ordinance.” (In fact, SDM’s first suggestion is to delete this silly name – mark that one down.)

Then, the Tres Hermanos appeared to unite on creating a financial advisory board – though SDM can’t be sure if that idea passed or not. SDM Wonders: Why would the Mayor support having an education committee over which the village has absolutely no jurisdiction but oppose a finance committee that is looking at village finances? Chalk that up to an SDM head scratcher.

The big move – and the one that shot the Mayor from her chair as if she just noticed a meter maid standing over her car – was when the Tres Hermanos joined together to (gasp) put a village contract out to bid!

SDM Wonders: So this is what upsets you Mme. Mayor? Bidding out public contracts?

SDM reads Schaffer’s move from the Three Amigos to the Tres Hermanos with cautious optimism. Perhaps Palmetto Bay’s newest elected official – after gaining a glimpse behind the curtain – sees that the Mayor (figuratively) wears no clothes.

Then again, perhaps this is merely a tactical move by Mr. Schaffer to maintain his independence. Either way, what a breath of fresh air! Bravo and kudos.

The only real lowlight of the night was when Mr. Dubois caved in and withdrew his item on releasing the Palmer shade session transcripts. The Village Attorney changed her previous stance that all the Palmer litigation was “intertwined” to a new formulation that SDM has a hard time describing.

Her idea – as our tiny little brains understand it – is that because Palmer has amended its pending complaint to include certain acts by council members or others involved in the concluded litigation, then those acts somehow render the now-decided Palmer case as not concluded for purposes of the public records act.

In other words, because someone involved in the concluded litigation is now implicated in the pending legislation, the shade sessions will contain facts or data that will hurt the Village’s ability to defend itself going forward.  (SDM Says: Bunk. There is no such exception to the public records act.)

Nonetheless, based on this legal advice, Mr. Dubois withdrew his item. (Next time Mr. Dubois, when you are confronted with changed facts, defer your item so that you don’t have to reintroduce it. Then you can do some homework and if the attorney is right, then you can withdraw it later.)

Of course, the Mayor couldn’t resist putting in her warped two cents again. Both the Mayor and Councilwoman Lindsay analogized the village’s withholding of public records to an individual not disclosing her communications with her attorney.

Newsflash: The Village of Palmetto Bay is not a person. It is a municipal corporation governed by distinct laws. Other sections of state law applies to for profit and non profit corporations  and individuals. (SDM has discussed the public records act ad nauseum so we won’t do so again here.)

SDM Says: The Village Attorney may very well be putting the council members at risk of violating the law, which could cause them to be removed from office….maybe they should get a second opinion.

11 comments
April 1, 2013

PB: Test the Market for Village Attorney Services & Release the Transcripts

Time to Test the Market for Legal Services

SDM has been generally supportive of Village Attorney Eve Boutsis, though March, 2013 was an exception.

The Village Council will take up an item by Vice Mayor John Dubois that will put the village attorney’s contract out for public bid and SDM urges all the members of the council to support it.

Ms. Boutsis’ firm has been the only village attorney for Palmetto Bay since its founding 10 years ago. Stability is a good thing and certainly Ms. Boutsis knows the village from a legal perspective better than almost anyone.

But should the position of village attorney be a lifetime appointment without any competitive selection? SDM says absolutely not.

One can make several arguments favoring Ms. Boutsis, though her performance regarding the vote on the parks master plan was perhaps the lowest point in her Palmetto Bay career. She misstated Robert’s Rules of Order so badly that SDM argues the matter is permanently screwed up. She compounded her mistake just a couple of weeks later when she stated that Councilman Fiore could place the matter on the next village council agenda for reconsideration when he clearly could not under the rules of procedure.

SDM would understand if the council terminated her contract just based on last month’s performance, but doing so does not serve the village’s interest. Mr. Dubois’ approach is the correct one. Put the contract out to public bid and measure Ms. Boutsis against the other firms who may wish to offer their services to us.

And, don’t listen to those who say that changing lawyers at this point will somehow permanently damage the village with regard to ongoing litigation. The fact is that lawyers are changed all the time in the real world and the village will do just fine if new counsel is brought on board.

Mr. Dubois’ Other Good Idea: Release the Transcripts

At the  last COW meeting, a majority of the council seemed content to hide behind a misreading of state law with respect to releasing transcripts of the village’s Palmer Trinity shade sessions. Mr. Dubois writes in his memo to the council:

MAJOR POINTS TO BE COVERED: The Florida Sunshine Laws provide for open meetings of governmental bodies when two or more members of the governing board are to be present at a meeting. There is an exemption in the law that provides procedures for conducting private meetings (commonly known as “shade sessions”) between a governmental entity and its attorney to discuss pending litigation. The law is clear that when the litigation is concluded, the transcripts of all shade sessions relating to such litigation shall become part of the public record.

REASON: The transcripts of all shade sessions relating to the litigation related to Palmer Trinity that was heard by the 3rd District Court of Appeals must be disclosed in accordance with State law, as that litigation is concluded.

SDM discussed this issue in detail in PB: Shady Village Council Fights Transparency and could not agree more with the Vice Mayor on this obvious requirement of the law.

SDM Says: Ms. Boutsis should come down clearly and strongly on the side of transparency and strict adherence to Florida law. She must opine that the Village of Palmetto Bay is under a clear legal obligation to release the transcripts as soon as practicable or risk being in violation of the law. Any other recommendation will only reinforce the opinion – of a growing number of village people – that Ms. Boutsis is doing Mayor Stanczyk’s bidding and not upholding her responsibilities to the rest of us.

SDM Wonders: Will the council continue to hide the ball from the public by hiding behind their village attorney’s questionable reading of Florida law?

7 comments
March 7, 2013

PB: Shady Village Council Fights Transparency

Shade Session Transcripts Should Be Released to the Public Now

Florida law is very clear on when the transcripts of village shade session must be released:

The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. § 286.011, Fla. Stat.

But in Palmetto Bay, the land of transparency when convenient, there are many ways to interpret the law to avoid disclosure to the public:

1.     The six different lawsuits are “intertwined” according to Village Attorney Eve Boutsis.

This despite the fact that the legislature did not provide for withholding public records based on such an undefined concept. Nor has Palmetto Bay adopted a policy stating that it will withhold from the public certain records of lawsuits when the actions are hypothetically “intertwined.”

Boutsis stated clearly that the Attorney General “punted” on whether “intertwined” lawsuits is an exception to the law that states shades session transcripts for concluded litigation “shall be made part of the public record.” (In fact, the letter from the A.G., to which SDM linked in yesterday’s post PB: Roberts Rules Guest Post by Vice Mayor John Dubois, does not address intertwined lawsuits.)

SDM Says: Given that the statute is mandatory – note the use of the word “shall” – the conservative reading of the statute is that the transcripts must be released. Any attorneys out there want to opine on this question?

2.     Mayor Stanczyk argued that the village “can’t extract one thing,” presumably meaning that the council debated settling all the lawsuits together so there is no way to separate the discussions on the concluded and pending lawsuits.

The village would have to argue in court that the legislature’s use of the word “shall” permits an exception when the council is entertaining a global settlement of multiple lawsuits with the same party on the same facts. Of the arguments made at the Monday meeting, this one is most technically intriguing.

SDM Says: The problem with the Mayor’s argument is that courts have already solved this problem; they regularly require redaction. Therefore, under The Stanczyk Exception, the clerk should make a good faith effort to release the transcripts with any comments related to pending litigation redacted from the document. To argue that every comment or statement made during the shade sessions is privileged under the statute strains credulity.

3.      Mayor Stanczyk proffered another rationale for withholding public records when she articulated what SDM calls the “Little Village Exception” to the Public Records Act.

Though both the county and Palmetto Bay are governed by the same statutory provisions, Stanczyk argues that the village should hide records from taxpayers because the county is a “mighty beast” and Palmetto Bay is just a little (backward and mismanaged) municipality. [Okay, SDM added something there. :) ]

SDM Says: This is just more nonsense and the Village Attorney has a duty to advise the Mayor that there is no exception to the Public Records Act based on a municipality’s size or wealth.

The bottom line is really a question of public policy: should the taxpayers be granted access to their government’s official deliberations once the litigation is concluded? Three of Palmetto Bay’s elected officials – Mayor Shelley Stanczyk, Councilwoman Joan Lindsay and Councilman Tim Schaeffer (The Three Amigos live!) – voted to keep the facts from the people who elected them.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Palmetto Bay Officials also Withhold Their Laws from the Public

SDM went on municode.com while researching this post. The village directs the public to Municode to review the village’s code of ordinances, including the charter. Would you be surprised if SDM told you that the village has not updated Municode since June 4, 2012?

SDM Says: The Village of Palmetto Bay and its leaders pay lip service to transparency and anyone who continues to believe their assertions to the contrary is ignoring the plain facts and some serious incompetence.

4 comments
February 14, 2013

PB: What’s Up With The Noise Ordinance?

Just a few short months have passed since Palmetto Bay modified its land development code and already one of its major provisions is being revisited by the village council. The council COW agenda for February 20th contains the following orphaned item: “Discussion regarding revising Division 30-60 “General Regulations”; revising 30-60.29, relating to noise standards.”

SDM calls it an orphan because no sponsor is named as having put the item on the agenda. Customarily, some poor soul identifies himself or herself as the cogitator behind the great ideas to be considered by the august body, but in this instance nobody stepped up to the plate. This fact got SDM to wondering…is

  •  there is a ghost at village hall who accesses the Clerk’s computer late at night and randomly inserts controversial items into normally placid agendas?

Spirit 1: The council meetings have been entirely too subdued lately. We haven’t seen a fistfight in more than a week!

Spirit 2: Yes, but the noise ordinance just passed in November and the council wouldn’t even second an item on the same subject at the last meeting.

Spirit 1: It matters not [spirits like to speak like this]. The new law keeps those pesky children quiet at the parks and we want not them to make restless our sleep. [See? SDM told you they like to talk funny.]

Spirit 2: Then why are you putting the item on the agenda if it no one is talking about changing it? Why not let sleeping dogs and spirits lie?

Spirit 1: Because I am HAUNTING this unhappy place! Strife and controversy are what we seek! Plus, it will be amusing to see the Mayor try to explain how this item got on the agenda in the first place. Ha ha ha haaaaaa!

SDM doesn’t need any spirit to tell us why the item is an orphan on the agenda. The reason is clear and obvious: the rule is not working so it must be changed, but no living soul on the council has the courage to propose a fix. And, if the council were to allow screaming and laughing children to break the sound barrier at village parks, why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so at private venues, like…for instance, at Palmer Trinity School or at a church function?

SDM Says: Just because one or two curmudgeons on the council demanded that the rest of us shut up doesn’t mean we should do so. Maybe some decibels need to be exceeded in the village chambers on this issue.

4 comments
February 4, 2013

PB Agenda Quick Bites: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

EDC Getting Some Love

SDM was glad to see that the village will be sponsoring the Economic Development Council’s golf tournament, which is a major component of the annual EDC’s funding. For those not familiar with the EDC, it is the only economic development organization dedicated to our area and it is where local businesses go to learn about opening their doors here.

Palmetto Bay is right to participate in the fundraiser and should consider doing more.

Karyn Cunningham Staying Involve

Former Vice Mayor Candidate Karyn Cunningham looks to be appointed to the village’s educational compact committee, which is good for all of us. Ms. Cunningham deserves the opportunity to remain involved in village politics so that we may see her run again. SDM was favorably impressed by her campaign and is glad to see that she is willing to donate her time to village causes.

Tying Auto Insurance to Property Insurance is a Bad Idea

Councilman Fiore has included on the agenda an item urging the legislature to require any company writing auto insurance to also write property insurance. What Mr. Fiore may not know is that this experiment in exercising regulatory muscle was tried and failed in New Jersey.

New Jersey residents faced increasing auto insurance rates because many companies chose to exit the market rather than expose their businesses to the complexities and risks associated with the property insurance market.

Before the village council assents to Mr. Fiore’s idea, they should spend some time researching the issue to see if it will serve the purpose intended.

Other Bad Ideas in the Legislative Package

Supporting the school district’s legislative package in toto.  This is not a bad idea in the sense that assisting the school district is a bad idea; rather, this is a bad idea because SDM would bet a campaign contribution that none of the council has read the district’s legislative package. Our school district is a political body just like all the others and they deserve scrutiny and not blind assent.

Supporting expansion of early voting sites and hours. SDM has only one question: Who will pay for this? It’s as if our elected officials have no interest in digging into these questions when they push for new ways to spend our money. Do we even know if this will actually work?

Opposing legislation that restricts or eliminates municipal revenues generated through communications services taxes and by local business taxes. SDM’s readers are a wise and intellectual bunch. Do you understand what this item means?

SDM Codebreaker: We will be sending our village lobbyist to Tallahassee to support these taxes being imposed upon our businesses! We are paying our taxes so that the Mayor can go and keep us paying other taxes. Doesn’t this make you feel good about your government?

The First Fix to the Broken NPO: Give the Village Special Treatment

Item 12C is an ordinance that grants village parks – including Wedding Central at Thalatta Estate – special dispensation. If the ordinance passes, village parks will be permitted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct maximum decibels as written into the NPO.

You see, the village just figured out that children playing in the parks may be occasionally loud enough to violate the village’s noise pollution standards so – of course – Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsay have decided to exempt themselves.

But what about children playing at churches and private schools? Well, their joyous laughter will continue to be squashed by the village because Councilwoman Lindsay wants her peculiar version of peace and quiet.

SDM Wonders: Do Councilwoman Lindsay and Mayor Stanczyk believe that the folks living near Palmetto Bay’s parks have rights inferior to those living near Palmer Trinity School?

SDM Says: In a hyper-regulatory environment like we have in our little village, residents face a choice: silence all the children or silence none. SDM supports the latter.

 

2 comments
February 1, 2013

PB: The Education of John Dubois

The village council will meet in full regalia on Monday night, Feb. 4th.

On the council’s agenda – after a number of noteworthy and typical items upon which SDM hopes to comment later this weekend – sits an interesting item authored by Vice Mayor John Dubois asking the council to join him and terminate the village attorney!

Thankfully, the Vice Mayor isn’t asking to terminate her with prejudice, but the act is surely intended to do harm, nonetheless.

SDM’s reaction to this item is decidedly mixed, so in an act of public-spiritedness worthy of a candidate for Mayor, we will attempt to contextualize Mr. Dubois’s plan so that he may learn the correct method of reaching the end he seeks.

To begin, it is important to understand that SDM sees the village attorney without any rose colored glasses interfering with our 20/20 hindsight. Ms. Boutsis – that is the village attorney’s name – has been serving the community faithfully for many years. She has had moments of both desperate failure and of shining courage.

For example, SDM would argue that Ms. Boutsis failed to vigorously argue against Mayor Stanczyk’s fateful motion to limit Palmer’s enrollment. A serious and competent attorney would have made clear on that record that the motion is likely to expose the village to significant litigation and financial harm.

Unfortunately, speaking the truth forcefully to power is dangerous for a village attorney, especially for one who serves at the pleasure of some unstable people. Ms. Boutsis didn’t do it.

On the other hand, Ms. Boutsis seems to have learned from Palmer and has provided the council written warnings when they attempted to go too far on the nonsensical and farcical “neighborhood protection” ordinance. SDM Says: Absent Ms. Boutsis, the NPO would have been much worse.

Mr. Dubois is right in one sense, which is that Ms. Boutsis is a contractor at-will and being a village attorney should not be a permanent sinecure. He raised at the last council meeting a serious point on her billing practices. He was doing his fiduciary duty when he questioned her decision to bill the village for speaking to Mr. Dubois about her billing practices.

Imagine if you called your lawyer to complain about her billing practices and she had the temerity to bill you for taking the phone call. SDM would not be pleased with our now former attorney, that’s for sure.

But is all of this grounds to fire the village attorney, just like that? SDM doubts it and unless we are reading the mood of the council incorrectly (heaven forbid), they just may rally to her side, even if they do so only out of antipathy toward Mr. Dubois.

SDM would have handled the matter differently (and, if elected will handle such matters differently…harrumph). SDM would place an item on the agenda putting the legal services contract out for bid.

The fact is that Ms. Boutsis and her late partner – SDM believes this to be correct – have been under contract to Palmetto Bay since its inception. Certainly, one should put virtually any contract out to bid at least once every ten years!

Had Mr. Dubois followed SDM’s plan, he would only be swatting away nit picky objections as if they were flies at the picnic. Instead, he may be facing a pity party.

SDM Says: The village council should transform the Vice Mayor’s idea into motion to put the legal services contract out to bid. No harm – and much good – can come from doing so.

 

8 comments
November 25, 2012

PB: SDM’s Quick Bites

The Tendrich Syllogism

A simple logical formation is often stated using this example:

All men are mortal.

Socrates was a man.

Socrates was mortal.

In a man bites dog story, Howard Tendrich writes a scathing letter in today’s Herald where he points out a couple instances where Mayor Stanczyk is alleged to have lied to the public. Say it ain’t so Howard!

SDM suggests the syllogism be modified this way:

All politicians are liars.

Mayor Stanczyk is a politician.

Mayor Stanczyk is a liar.

Of course, Howard Tendrich is still a politician, technically…

Rex World: Where a Loss is a Win

Another Soapbox letter writer attempts to claim once again that, because Palmer Trinity was not awarded its legal fees and costs incurred in its SUCCESSFUL suit against the village, somehow this is a victory for Palmetto Bay.

Let SDM reiterate, this blog is glad that village tax dollars will not go to Palmer. But that ruling does not replace the $600,000 the village wasted in having to defend the council’s punitive and harsh decision in the first place. This was no victory for the village.

One more thing on the pending damages suit: SDM has heard a little about the theory that Palmer will be arguing to the court and it appears novel. The contention that no municipality has been forced to pay legal fees and costs before does not mean that it will never happen – just that no lawyer has broken the code on how to do it yet. Novel does not mean impossible.

More interesting, and what continues to fascinate SDM, is how a small group of village insiders have been made privy to the details of the Palmer travesty while the rest of us are left in the dark. Who is leaking all this information?

If you are looking for a place to start your inquiry Mr. Dubois, you might want to ask the village staff why Soapbox letter writers have such uncanny and timely access to the facts of the case.

The Fiore Obsession

One regular commenter to this blog enjoys repeatedly saying that Patrick Fiore should be elected Mayor in 2014. SDM is not going to publish that comment anymore unless you spice it up.

The election in 2014 will be pivotal for this village and, candidly, Mr. Fiore has not shown SDM that he is up to the task. Mr. Fiore votes the right way – at least from SDM’s point of view – but he must evolve from just a minority vote into a leader if he has any chance of being elected Mayor.

SDM has suggested to Mr. Fiore that he needs to pick up his game. Perhaps he will do so in 2013.

SDM’s Hiatus

Note to readers: SDM has been taking it easy over the holidays. Writing this blog is a pleasure, but it is a demanding master. So, if posts are sometimes slow in coming, it is because the author’s well occasionally runs dry.

9 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers