CMPA lawsuit primer
Byron H. Keesler and Leroy Boyd, Plaintiffs, vs.
Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc., Defendant
Case No. 2008 CA 3593 B
Activists Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd, together with their attorney Sharon Barnett, have filed a lawsuit against the Community Maritime Park Associates (CMPA), alleging that the CMPA has operated in violation of Florida Sunshine Laws by not offering a public input forum at its meetings for most of its existence. Keesler, Boyd, and Barnett are asking that all decisions made by the CMPA be voided.
This issue first blew up in September 2008 when several people, including Ms. Barnett, raised the issue before Council. Thereafter the City directed the CMPA to include an open forum at all meetings, and they have since that time. However, for much of its existence, the CMPA did not provide such a forum for public input, and indeed may have stifled some members of the public who did try to speak at its meetings.
Subsequent to a vote of the City Council, City Manager Al Coby sent a letter to CMPA chair Lacey Collier on September 12, 2008, directing the CMPA to allow an open forum for public input at its meetings (Attached below as Item#3).
While I certainly agree that the CMPA should have provided a public forum all along, by my reading of the relevant statute (s. 286.011 F.S.) I can’t find a specific statutory obligation to do so. So also finds Mr. Wells, the City Attorney. However, there appears to be a wealth of case law indicating that the phrase “open to the public” gives citizens a right to participate and be heard.
Included below are copies of the suit filed by Keesler, Boyd, and Barnett, with an attached commentary memorandum from City Attorney Rusty Wells (Item #1), and the memorandum Wells is providing members of Council with today to update them on the situation (Item #2).
Attachments
- Item #1: CMPA Lawsuit (PDF)
- Item #2: Rusty Wells’ memo on the suit (PDF)
- Item #3: Coby’s letter to CMPA (PDF)
- Item #4: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF)
- Item #5: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DOC)
- Item #6: Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (DOC)
- Item #7: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DOC)
- Item #8: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DOC)
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
The very definition of a tempest in a teapot. The whole “their back is to the audience” complaint is especially ridiculous. Dudes need to get a better hobby.
There is a reason Collier was picked to put his back to the public.
This sort of intimidation keeps folks from going to the meeting and asking questions.
One of the questions folks wanted an answer to was assurance that the beautiful public amenities would make the cut.
And now we know the rest of the story.
Joe: Like I said, I don’t think they have much of a case, but they should. Public input periods should be codified into law. As far as the back to the audience, well, that’s just common decency.
Keep in mind this is in a conference room, where there is a definite “front” of the room where speakers stand and present, often with slideshow presentations. The board’s seating arrangement is set up like a U, facing the front, so everyone can see. The “audience” seating faces the same direction, with a side-effect that they see the backs of the middle board members, and the chairman typically sits in the middle. This isn’t a sign of disrespect; it’s logistics.
Same conference room used for city boards and council ?
mmm
I don’t recall looking at their backs .
I do recall on hot issues a room full of staff seated in the chairs while citizens stood up and there were not enough chairs.
probably more logistics
No, it’s not the ground-level council chambers. If that’s what you were envisioning, I can see how it would seem disrespectful. CMPA meetings are on the second floor conference room, a much smaller space about the size of, well, a conference room. You can see some videos of the meetings on the city’s website.
Boyd needs to read his articles of incorporation for Movement for Change and his organization’s By-Laws. None of this crap he is doing under the business name has ANYTHING to do with the mission of his not-for-profit corporation. His 501c3 needs to be revoked and his books audited.
‘
I wish them luck with their law suit, but I do not believe this is going to be what ultimately brings Studerville down.
The stronger cases are as follows.
1. The drastic change in scope that has occurred since this project was first sold to the public and what it has now morphed into. This has been the classic “bait and switch” scheme. All the lawyers have to do is bring out the famous “Fantasy Rendering” that was flashed in the New Journal e every other day.
2. The drastic change in the manner in which this project will be financed (if it ever is financed). No longer will the project cost $40 million. No longer will it be funded by taxes from the CRA. Instead, the city’s general funds will be put at risk and used to secure a bond.
Look for these suits to be filed next. Trust me, they are the real “show stoppers.”
.
XO is right. This is the same bait and switch the CRA pulled on taxpayers on the Palfox Pier development.
It wasn’t a coincidence that the PNJ and CRA director orchestrated that there would be a major building spree of 6 or more condo developments in the CRA downtown area prior to the vote. They sold the CRA residents that there would be plenty of money once these condos were built. Not one has broken ground!
Pretty renderings were presented to the public for Palafox Pier development which showed restaurants and shops. Shortly therafter, the PNJ ran an article that the developer had only room for his business,until the other buildings in the parking lot were completed. Then supposedly he couldn’t get retail tenants and the restaurant was closed due to Ivan. That lease required a restaurant but there hasn’t been one since Ivan. Has the city attorney or council addressed that lease requirement?
The CRA is adding a concession stand- which was not in the pretty pictures of what would be developed.
With all the changes in this taxpayer funded ballpark, are we to believe this will be different? Studer can simply say he has no retail interest and must use the property for more offices.
That should help the owners of the vacant office buildings in the area which will be competing with government funded development.