Town Commission - Special Meeting

All right, if everyone's ready, we will go back on the record. Uh, Mrs. Brown, um, it is we'll call the meeting to order. It is March 4th, um, 602. If you could please call the role. Mayor Allison Dennington here. Vice Mayor Terry Cronin here. Commissioner Anna Butler here. Commissioner Tim Reed here. Commissioner Sher Corey here. Town Manager A. Marie Smith here. Town Attorney Ryan Knight here. Public works director Tom Davis here. Town clerk Amber Brown is also present.

Um, do you have an agenda for this meeting? I I don't have one. If you could pass that up. We'll stand and say the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Um because we didn't we didn't get one for this. Is that not one right there? I guess. Okay. Um h I don't have an agenda. We did not get an agenda. Um and I guess I'll just read from the other agenda. Can you tell? Yeah. There you go. Pull it up. But the workshop. Okay. All right. But it just um I'll try to because we don't have to like approve the agenda because it's special and it just um do Could you at least Yeah, because I need to be able to read what the item is. Yeah.

Um Okay. Um, okay. We will have a moment of silence and then I'll read the civility pledge. Okay, I will read the I will read the civility pledge. Um the the commission and the town staff of the Melbourne Beach pledge to conduct all public discourse in a civil manner. The mayor and all members of the commission will treat one another with courtesy and respect and ask the public to do the same towards the commission, towards each other and towards staff. We will be respectful of one another even when we disagree. We will direct all comments toward the issues and we will avoid personal attacks. And I'm just going to add a little. I know this is the hot

button issue. And um when I had my prayer, I just requested that the Lord would be with me and give me grace, humility, you know, especially humility, you know, um be able to listen to other people's points even when, you know, we disagree. I think that no matter how big of a hot topic this is, which it is, I know it and has been, but there's pretty big issues also going on in the world too. So, let's remember how lucky we are as well. And and and you know, pray for the ability to come to public comment and and say whatever you want in this country because they don't have that everywhere in every country. And um so I just that was what I was praying for and other things, but let's all remember that. And um with that said, I will read the one new business agenda item.

Public comment. Oh, sorry. Yes. Uh we'll go to public comment, which is you can comment on anything that is on the agenda, but um not on the or sorry, anything that is not on the agenda. Um there will be an opportunity to comment on things on the agenda if and when there is a vote. Um, so but if you want to speak to anything that is related to what's on the agenda, please wait unless the commission wants to allow that now instead of later because if we, you know, I don't know if there's going to be a vote or not. So again, mayor, could I just really quickly say um the town staff has put that civility pledge at the podium so that folks can read that and um

it's it's there. Thank you. Um, [laughter] they are doing so. They're doing so right now. Oh, yeah. Yes. I probably I should get out I should probably get out our um I should get out the our our our ordinance or whatever resolution. I I will say, you know, I I I tend to give people a lot of leeway. There's I think we're in public comment.

I know, but I'm I'm addressing when as public comment comes up. I do tend to give people a lot of leeway. our actual resolution. There's a lot of things that people could get gave down and do get gave down other cities and I don't. You can get up there, you can speak. Um, you know, please don't use profanity. Um, and you know, people are you're allowed to say whatever you want, whatever you think. Doesn't even have to be true for your three minutes. The one thing that really ticks me off though is do not speak when other people are speaking because you rob them of their and so I will give anybody who speaks or makes comments or is laughing I will I will point and I will give you one chance and then you're out. So please, you know, have respect for other people's opportunity when they want to speak. So and that goes for the commission.

And that goes for the commission as well. Exactly. Yes.

Thank you. Um okay, public comment. Seeing none, we will close the general public comment. Okay. The one item of business is discussion and consideration regarding Fenu LLC versus Town of Melbourne Beach case number 05-2025-CA-23102 public records case. Town attorney Ryan Knight. And just so everyone knows, that's just one case, a public records case. So there's it's not discussions of other cases. Um uh and I will say to the extent that there is if there is going to be any kind of vote, I will be recusing because um I am a member manager along with four other members of Fenu LLC. Um who is the plaintiff in this case. Um however, I've spoken to Mr. tonight and in the past long time ago he had said you're not allowed to speak at all but you actually are allowed to speak you're just not allowed to vote. I will attempt however to not speak except to the extent if there's false statements or you know statements directed at me or factual statements I I I will speak to correct those but I'm you know so and I am allowed to speak I'm just not allowed to vote to the extent there would be a vote I would be recusing. Is that sufficient, Mr. Knight, for my be beginning of the the recusal?

Point of order. Point of order. Uh, you've already uh I'm requesting legal point of order. No, you're overruled, Mr. Knight. I'm asking a question. Point of order. I'm point of order. You're overruled. You're not. What's the point? You have to state what the point is. I will I'm happy to I am asking for a point of order as your vice mayor, as an elected representative of this town. You have to say that rule. I I will give you the rule. I have the floor. I said point of order and you have already told us your conflict of interest as a officer of knowled you have to state to Robert's rules or something from our or from our resolution

Robert's rule 4710 says that a presiding offer officer is expected you have an expectation to relinquish the chair if you are in conflict of interest. All right. You have a tremendous conflict of interest and you should hand the gavvel over to the vice chair. There's not unless there's a vote. So, um, Mr. Knight, I am required at the beginning to state any conflict. I have done that. Correct. You can. You've stated your conflict. Okay. All right. We will continue. Who wants the floor? I would like the floor. Yes, you have it. Thank you. I would like to hear a motion to let me be the presiding officer and chair of this meeting. You can't do that.

Why not? Attorney Knight can you you you basically you you you can we're going to get a professional opinion from our attorney. Okay, I'll make the motion then. I move that I become the vice the as the vice chair I will preside over this meeting. Well, that would be a conflict of interest. Why? Hold on. So, we've had a an initial point of order. It was section what section of Robert

4710. So that provides whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members or that commends or censures him with others. He should turn the chair over to the vice president or appropriate temporary occupant. See below. During the assembly's consideration of that motion just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate. The chief Yes. the but but the he it wasn't a motion. It was a point of order where he cited that rule. I did. So it was a point of order. That rule itself requires a motion on the floor for that rule to apply

to make a determination on the point of order. I said that the point of order is not well taken. Okay? Because it that that rule right applies to when there's a motion on the floor which is our rule. Whenever there's a motion and you're conflicted, you pass the you pass the gavl and you can't make a motion to divest me of being mayor because I am mayor. There's a concern about an ethical violation if you don't turn it over. When when and if there is an actual motion that I mean like if I were going to make a motion or there's a motion to vote, pass the gavl. I made the motion. But the motion you can't make a motion to divest me of being mayor. I'm here. You're still mayor. You're just not being chair of this meeting. You're passing the

G. I second the motion. Our charter says that the mayor is the chair. I second the motion. Okay. Now we can discuss it. You can't amend the charter. Now we can discuss it. We can discuss it because there's been a second to my motion. Now, mayor, what is your what is your concern? Can they amend the charter with a motion? So, hold on. We have a motion. I've read you the rules. It's up to you all to determine if that rule is applicable. It says whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members. And it goes on. Okay. Keep reading.

So if there at this point if there is a motion that is made that would strictly affect the mayor, then at that point she'd be required to turn the gavl over. So right now we do not have a motion that's specifically related to her regarding this issue that we're here on right now. Once there is a motion that is made regarding uh what you all would want to do on this then the gavl would have to be passed. So he said that there's not a motion made specifically related to the mayor. So just a point of interest uh madame mayor uh

45 454 of Robert's rules says that a conflict of interest is direct personal or pecuniary financial interest not common to the other members and you have that interest being an officer of fo so you've already announced that to us be by announcing that to us you have told us that you have this conflict of interest because you have that conflict of interest and you've announced it to the to the residents now 4710 10 applies and 4710 applies and that you should voluntarily hand the the gavl over to your to your vice mayor and and the fact that you're not doing it sets you up for ethical violation.

That is not true. You have a fundamental misconception, misunderstanding of the Roberts rules. First of all, what applies is the state law is superior to all. It is the the town charter is then right below that the town ordinances then resolutions. Then our resolutions refer to Robert's rules. There's a million Roberts rules that state state stuff, but they're just general rules and they don't apply if our resolution alters those. Likewise, the resolution can't alter our ordinances, which also cannot alter our our charter. So, I have recused I have stated the potential conflict of interest and I have recused to the extent there is a vote. Beyond that, that is all that is required. And you cannot use a a robberous rule because there's thousands of them.

It's it's your impartiality that is at question here. If you if you chair this meeting, your impartiality is at at at risk and and you you have power as the chair with the gavl and you have a conflict of interest that you have stated to us. It doesn't it doesn't seem unreasonable at all that you pass off. I am your second. I am your vice chair. I can do the job. I've done it for you and I and I will try to remain as impartial as I as I can. I don't have the conflict of interest you have. Again, we're just wasting time. The conflict of interest would be on an actual vote, procedural matters. No. So,

it it is this this whole subject of this meeting is this case in which you are an officer in which you have uh described your conflict of interest. It is it's it's really not in contention. You you're you're beating a dead horse here and there's not a motion. There's not if you want if you want to change the resolution and the charter in the town then propose it next week because you can't change the charter and you can't change the charter and the ordinances you know there's there's there's lots of things that are at at it's not at leisure this is we're going to continue Mr. Tonight you present. This is your item. Excuse me. We had a motion on this. No, we don't have a motion. We did. I I made a motion and it was seconded

and we had discussion. Mayor, at the very beginning of the meeting, you said that anybody that talks over anybody else, even on the commission, is going to be removed. And you just have been for the last five minutes talking over the vice mayor while we've all been quiet. Well, you cannot make a motion that changes the charter. So, let me go over to You're breaking your own your own announcement. that whomever if I had spoken over you, you would ask for my removal and you're speaking over the vice mayor. So, according to your rule, you should be removed. You can't remove a commissioner from their seat. It's only the audience members if they are out of line. You can't That's not what you said. No, that

Okay. So, let me just go over there's a federal palm bay. Let me just go over the resolution about Palm Bay on this issue right now, too. So, let me just go over the resolution as to how this should proceed. The mayor introduces the item by reading it from the agenda, which you have done. The mayor asks for a brief staff overview explanation of the item, which I'm about to do. After I get through speaking, then you will ask for a motion. At that point, there will be a motion on the table. Then, you can pass the gavvel regarding that. Thank you. After I get through. Thank you. It's they're trying to stop it before that. I mean, yeah. So, go ahead. So, please proceed.

You have in front of you a memorandum concerning an update on the pending litigation and Feno um LLC versus town of Melbourne Beach, case number 2025-CA-23102 in Brevard County. Um I wanted to provide this to you because last week I did ask for a shade meeting and the commission did vote to uh have this meeting here in the open. Um, at this point, um, I provided you with a timeline of events that are outlined in the memorandum that has led to, uh, this current litigation. I also wanted to give you an update because we are currently scheduled for trial on April 8th, uh, for a one-day trial. So between now and then, I would anticipate a lot of court filings, a lot of deposition requests, which means a lot of increased legal fees between now and then to prepare for trial. So I wanted to give you an update as to what those litigation expenditures are, what I expect them to be uh by the end of the trial if it does go to uh trial on April 8th, as well as just an overview of the case. Um, so in March of last year, the town received various public records requests from Feno LLC andor Nathan Maloon, who is Feno LLC's attorney in this matter. There were a total of five public records request. In the memorandum that I provided you, uh there is a timeline of each request and when the town um determined that these requests were completed. Uh the completed date I anticipate would be in dispute um at any trial with Feno arguing that these [clears throat] records requests actually aren't complete that there were documents withheld or that there are other documents um that either the town should

have had that they didn't produce or that the town uh redacted. So you have a table on page three which outlines each public record, the request date and the date completed as determined by the town. These range from six from 5 days up to 48 days. Um the requests range from March 6th to March 12th. There were two requests that were made on March 12th. The next day on March 13th, the town received correspondence from Nathan Maloon advising that his firm represents Feno and advising that that correspondent shall serve as 5-day notice as provided in Florida statute 119.12. That is a requirement um under the statute prior to filing suit in order to be awarded attorney's fees and costs. On March 19th, I sent an email correspondence to Nathan Baloon confirming receipt of the various public records requests and advising uh him that the town was currently compiling the documents uh responsive to each request and that the town anticipated the responses will be completed within 7 days. In other words, by March 26th, which I believe was on a weekend um if I'm not mistaken. On March 28th, 2025, Feno filed a petition of Rit of Mandamus alleging the town only produced an Excel spreadsheet from public request PD 2025-2 and otherwise failed to provide the requested documents pursuant to request 33-30 or through 36. Um if you'll note at the date completed um in the chart there, there was an additional request that the town uh did provide before suit was filed. Um and that was public records request 2025-34.

Aside from the rid of mandamus um in a subsequent filing in response to the town's uh response to the rid of mandamus uh Feno has also alleged that the town uh failed to produce otherwise responsive documents. Uh the document specifically the key fob spreadsheet that was prepared by Chief Xander uh was either altered um or fraudulently created in some way. um and that the town uh should have had documents that it did not produce. Uh, namely Feno alleges uh that the town did not produce emails of Mayor Dennington requesting key fob access and key fob usage records, an employee handbook and prior versions of the employee handbook uh and standard operating procedures 33 and 34 and a redacted document pertaining to key fobs. The redacted document pertaining to key fobs is um essentially a spreadsheet with handwritten names on there. It had the check-in and checkout of various key fobs and there is a black marker a redacted portion of that document. The town did not produce that document pursuant to any of these requests. However, we do know that Feno was in possession of that document well before these public uh requests were made.

Mr. Knight, can I stop you on that? If you look at the town's public records request portal, you can see that there was previous public records requests made for and that document is on the town's website. But um and that is the document that the town I believe in its discovery responses which are public record did admit had been redacted by someone and that redaction should not have happened and that's the original only copy and it was believed to be former um police chief Griswald. Correct. Is is

I think the document speaks for itself. It's literally blacked out with marker. So, yes. So, there was a reaction to that. That document is a public record. Um, I actually just got a motion for sanctions against the town about an hour before this meeting from Fenos's council alleging that the town purposely destroyed that document um for this litigation. That's something that I will be discussing with her attorney because as of two years ago, that document was in the same um same condition as it was now. the town did not redact that document because of this pending litigation. I have provided um a summary of Florida case law regarding public records. Um, essentially what it boils down to, um, is that if there is any type of delay at issue, which it could be argued that some of these requests were delayed, the court looks um, as to whether is an unjustifiable delay. Unfortunately, there's no case law that specifically says after 10 days or after 20 days or after 30 days that would constitute an unjustifiable delay. um that would subject the town to attorney's fees. Essentially, what the court is going to have to do is look at each public records request and determine whether there was uh an unjustifiable delay and two whether the complete responsive records were produced uh from the town. As I mentioned before, we know we do have one issue with the redacted document. However, we do know that Feno uh was in possession of that document at least before these public records requests were made.

Mr. Knight, but is that is that the legal st is that the legal standard? Um, no. So, the standard will say will provide that the court will look at whether the requested documents were provided. It also looks at it also looks at whether it was for an improper purpose, which could be a defense that the town could make, especially if somebody is already in possession of that document. But I'll get to that in a second. But you're not going according to your I'll be happy to answer your questions as soon as I get through this. I said you weren't. Okay.

Um, essentially this statute uh is a strict liability statute. There is no exception for good faith. So even if the town mistakenly did not produce a document or did not provide a document that it should have provided um the statute does not provide a safe harbor pres uh provision for that. So there's been cases where um there's only been one or two documents that were not produced pursuant to a public records request and the court has determined that that's a violation of public records law. The court takes these cases very seriously. If there is anything that is missing from a record, if there's any unjustifiable delay, the statute specifically says that the court shall award attorney's fees. It doesn't say may. So, as soon as a court finds a violation, no matter how minor the violation, it automatically allows the court or automatically tells the court that they shall award attorney's fees and cost. Now, it does say reasonable attorney's fees and costs, but um in my research on this, there was a case where three records were produced in a public records request case, and then subsequently um 60 days later, there was another handful of documents that were produced. The attorney's fees in that case ended up being $75,000. So, if these cases do go on, the attorney's fees can be quite large. Um, as I mentioned, there is no leeway for the court. Um, if if they do find a violation, the statute specifically says there shall be attorney's fees and cost. I provided um what my estimate, it's probably a conservative estimate given that we do have a trial in the next month um regarding what attorney's fees could be. Um, in addition to the fees that my office would incur in defending

this litigation, it'd be expected that uh, Feno's fees could range from $50,000 to $100,000. Um, that would be based on pre-trial motions, depositions, um, and attendance at trial. If uh the trial were continued on April 8th, then those fees would probably jump dramatically because we'd be looking at a lot more depositions in this case. I've also included some cases in there where the courts have determined that an unjustifiable delay um was found. uh that was a 63day delay and a more than 90day delay. In our case, the highest delay that we have is 48 days. But like I said, there is no bright line test. Um additionally, Feno is going to argue that the town is saying that these record requests were completed within 48 days. However, they're still ongoing because they are going to allege that there's documents that the town should have produced that the town has not produced at this point. Um, that will be a matter for the court to decide based upon the language of the public records request and the documents that were produced. Um, I can say if you look at especially public records request 2025-36, it's a very broad records request. Um that will probably be one of the issues that the court will have that will be litigating quite a bit in trial as to whether documents that we produced or did not produced would fall under that public records request. Um the concern that I have is like I said even if there is one document um a court could find that we complied with every single public records request except for one by

not producing one document and the court would have to assess the town attorney's fees. There is um an a improper purpose um provision in uh the Florida statute 119 uh.12 subsection 3. It provides that an improper purpose means a request to inspect or copy a public record or to participate in the civil action primarily to cause a violation of this chapter or for a frivolous purpose. Generally, this is a very threshold. So, the court would have to determine that the main purpose, the primary purpose for this request was just to either litigate this case um or for a frivolous purpose. Um, in my experience, and my research on this, that's a very hard threshold to meet. I could not find very many cases uh that even dealt with the court finding an improper purpose. Um, my opinion on this is that it would be something that would be difficult uh to prove um in a court. It would take um it would take discovery that we would uh need to have um in order to get that on the record in order to show the court that yes, this was the primary purpose. But other than that, a court will look at all the factors and all the reasons for the request and have to make that determination as well. That would be the only way the town um would be entitled to attorney's fees. the court would specifically have to find that these requests were made for an improper purpose. Other than that, even if we do proceed to trial and the court finds that the town did comply with these requests, um if the court does not make a finding that they were for an improper purpose, if the court finds these were for a proper purpose, the town did comply, then under the statute, the town's not

entitled to attorney's fees and costs. We may have another avenue, but for the public records request statute, we would not be entitled to attorney's fees. So even if we got to the end in some cases and the town still won, under the statute, attorney's fees are not awarded. So what I'm asking for the commission to uh consider at this point with trial over a month away, um I would like direction from the commission as to essentially two options. one is to continue defending this case um through trial. If trial is on April 8th, 2026, then we will go through that process. There is a chance also that the trial could be continued. Any party could continue it based upon reasons for they want to take more depositions. Uh they need more time to prepare. So the April 8th date is not a hard date. It could be moved. Um, up until that date, um, it's expected that there will be numerous depositions, probably at least eight to 10 depositions at least before trial. Um, as I mentioned, in addition to my fees, uh, my estimate would be that Fino will incur $50 to $100,000 in attorney's fees to for which the town, if there is an adverse ruling, would be responsible for paying. That's the first option. Um the second option is to consider a stipulation with the court. Um a stipulation would essentially say um you know we don't know how the court is going to rule on the issue of delay at this point. were willing to stipulate that the town uh may have had an unjustifiable delay in some of these requests and essentially asked the court to um have a hearing on the reasonable amount of attorneys fees. Uh the

advantage to this would be uh it would be an attempt to cut off the attorney's fees and costs that would be incurred by the town. As I mentioned before, if we were to do that uh sooner rather than later, um our argument to the court would be that we've already stipulated to this, uh there is no reason for the parties to prepare uh for litigation and incur these additional attorneys fees. Um it it it's essentially a consideration that the benefits of going to trial uh do not outweigh the risk uh that the town could have regarding the imposition of attorney's fees should an adverse ruling uh be found against it. So, those are the two options that I'm asking you to consider and asking you to give me direction on so I know whether I need to start preparing for trial or if there's another route that I need to go before these attorneys fees start to get astronomical.

Two questions because I waited. You you talked about the days, but how many days is it from from the be like what's what the day count right now? Point of order. You're supposed to hand the devil over to him. presentation. No, there's not a motion. And you don't want to you don't want to cross-examine him as since you are the you are the in the plaintiff's camp. Point of order. When he read it earlier, it's when there's a motion, there's not a motion. He said that the our our resolution says that they present, then there's discussion and questions, then there's a motion.

Your impartiality is in question. Say the mayor asked for a brief overview explanation of the item. Then the mayor asked for a motion to be introduced on the item. But then the next provision says that everyone's has an opportunity to ask questions. You'll have an opportunity to ask questions after my only question. After a motion, you can't presside. What could I read? No, it does say later on. It says that everyone has a chance before motion. You can't have a Okay, fine. I will I will get it out and read it because I have it right. No, the motion is for me to presside, not the motion for what our judge You're dying to presside. Um the question

Yeah, I'm dying. All was was you mentioned the stipulation, but I don't think you can force a stipulation on somebody. You'd have to you'd have to prove that everything was complied with. If that was contested, how does that go? You didn't answer that. But I can. And how and how many days are we right now? You can if I get a question. It's fine. Make your motion. I'll pass the gavvel. You could just do it voluntarily, Madam. That would be the best. I want I want procedurally to follow the rules. So if you followed Robert's rules, you would just hand it to me. What is the Good Lord, you're interrupting repeatedly. I am. I am. I am. That's in violation. So, he's presented. Nobody's allowed to ask questions. Who wants to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that the vice mayor now presides over this meeting. Second. Any discussion? Yes. Okay. I I don't believe it's a proper motion. I don't believe that under our charter and our code, you can dispossess the mayor. So, we would need a motion on one of these items in order to um open the item up for discussion with the commission. Yeah. So, it's that's the motion. I'm sorry. We There is a motion on the floor. No, the town attorney just told you that that's basically not a proper motion. It's supposed to motion. Is that right, Ryan? Is that right, Ryan? We can't make this motion. We're discussing a case in which

the proper procedure would be to make a motion on an issue before you. All right. After that, after there is a motion and a second, then discussion would commence amongst the commissioners, then the mayor would turn the gavvel over. Okay. So, I don't need to turn the gavl over because I don't vote is the thing. So, there's no All we need is a motion in a second. Make a motion on the item. Okay. I understand. I understand. So, I'll make a motion that we uh we move to uh to fight this uh fight this in court. I second.

Okay. There [snorts] is a motion and a second and I am recusing from the vote. And since I am recusing, there is no conflict. So no. So I'm not passing the gavl. There's no conflict. I'm recusing from the vote. But there is there any discussion? I'm not participating. I'm not You're you're not really following the rules, mayor. So

there's a federal court case where another they tried to somebody at their seat and they they earlier that hasn't happened here. Earlier there was a provision discussed about Robert's rules that said whenever a motion is made, we have a motion that was made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with the other members, which is what this is. Explain then. Well, because it's against a company that you're a manager of that you have a conflict of interest in. But I am recusing and you don't share that in common with other members. There is no exception. There is no exception that says you have that you have to announce your recusal.

So it says that he should turn the chair over to the vice president or appropriate temporary occupant during the assembly's consideration of that motion. Okay. Look, I disagree completely with this because I think that this because it's against our charter. It's But you know what? I'm not gonna fight it because it's it's ridiculous. So, I I I'm I'm under under duress and protest. I disagree, but here you go. You get what you want. That way, you can let the people that get up there violate the rules and attack me and nobody will do anything about it. And, you know, it'll it'll just wind up looking even worse. So,

thank you, Madam Mayor. So, there's a uh motion on the floor. Now, we're going to have discussion. I'd like to call on each commissioner. Uh if if you don't mind. Uh Commissioner Reid, I'd like you to go first.

So, um I had a question on on the the second option there, the um was that in that the stipulation is is then so bas I'm going to try to boil it down to layman's terms. So basic so the the town was is admitting some level of fault in that and then they're asking the court to do this determination of reasonable reasonable fees for that. So they then is that close the case then if that if if there's an agreement on reasonable fees then the case is done and there's just this then it's just the matter of the settlement of what that uh determined reasonable amount was.

Yeah. So for this case, even if we have a stipulation, the court uh would actually I assume FO would say that we have not um we have not complied with the public records law. We haven't produced the documents that were required to. So the court would have to make a determination that the town did produce all responsive records. Um so there could be a hearing on that. what that would entail. The town would um make 100% sure all of the documents have been produced. All the documents that could have been produced in fact have uh it would require an affidavit from uh most likely the custodian of records saying that we have searched all of the records. We have produced everything that we have. If that is the case and we have that then and we can show that to the court then yes that would cut off the case at that point and our argument would be that at this point moving forward we've produced everything we've admitted that there may be a violation. Um any fees moving forward uh incurred on the plaintiff's behalf are not reasonable because they're unnecessary at this point. We could also come to an agreement on attorney's fees with pliff. However, I don't see that happening in this case, no matter what it is.

Commissioner Corey, I'd rather let Commissioner Butler go first. Okay. Commissioner Butler,

thank you. Um, I I want to start by just saying I'm just disheartened that the commission is even being put in this position. um the decision we make on this matter has incredibly significant implications to the town and to the people and and it's it's really hard for us to be in this position and I am just sad. So, I want to say that um one thing that I didn't I don't think I know you wrote it in your um in your uh update on the litigation to us, but I don't think you said it, Mr. Knight, about um you know, unlawful refusal. Was there unlawful refusal to you know, there are there are categories within this, you know, was there delay? Well, there are that that's not just a statement of delay. Why was there possibly a delay? Was there a magnitude of uh records requested in a short period of time that were completely outrageously um difficult for a very short staffed staff to accomplish? But were they were they purposefully refusing in a malicious with malicious intent? Absolutely not. And I know there's legal legal ease, you know, there's the volume of records, need for review redaction, staffing realities, the nature of the requests, and those are all things that, you know, was it an unjustified delay? I don't think so. and and aren't those things that the the judge would potentially look at, you know?

So, Florida law, like I mentioned earlier, is very strict on this. It really does not matter the size of the staff, what requests were made, how many requests were made. The court is likely to give very legal or very little legal consideration to that. the overarching factor that they're going to look at is when these documents were produced um and whether all of the documents were produced, but 119 does cover that, right? I mean, you put it put that in it. It really does. So, it it covers what?

Well, it I mean, you wrote it in here, so I mean 119 is Now I'm all wound up about this. Sorry. Are you talking about for for an improper Yeah. purpose? Yes. So that would require the court to find that these were made primarily to cause that, right? Yes. But so so you're telling me that the court doesn't care if there whether or not there was unlawful refusal to produce the records. So yeah. So, under the case law, an unjustifiable delay essentially amounts to an unlawful refusal. Um, that's

that's how the courts construe it. Um, as I mentioned before, they take a very hard stance on public records and and I respect that we need transparency with records. I I respect that. That's that's why that's in place. I get that. I do. It's just this, in my opinion, is frivolous. So it falls in that. Not that I'm an attorney obviously, but um yes. So it's a it's a little not belittling the the need for the law is what I'm getting at. Yeah. So it's a little misleading with the unlawful refusal because courts have construed a um delay as essentially being an refusal for the documents.

That's disappointing. Thank you, Mr. Corey. the um the trial are are you as far as um the trial would go, are you going to be the sole attorney involved? Could you um No. Tell us your firm is going to be involved. Yes. So,

and so and and the firm's expertise. I know you've got when we brought your firm aboard, you've got your firm has a long laundry list of of litigation and so you would have access to everyone in your in your firm and they would you would not be sitting there alone with all of this.

Yeah. If I get direction to move forward right now, there's going to be a second chair. There's going to be somebody else on this case looking at every document um which will increase the attorney's fees, but that's what we typically do for trial. We don't want one set of eyes on the trial and on trial strategy. So, we would have two attorneys there. It' be myself and um another partner at the firm. And would that partner of the firm be a trial lawyer by category or just a partner of the firm? Uh so, it's a partner of the firm, but we've all been through trials before. It's not something that's new for us. Okay.

This is not in the grand scheme of things, this is not a particularly difficult trial. Um it's, you know, one statutory provision um and a handful of witnesses is what it would boil down to. Um, I have to agree with with my fellow commissioner that um it's it's not a good position to be sitting up here and having to look at this and look at these numbers because basically what is happening is that that is your tax dollars. That's your money. And so it's um it's it's hard to fathom that someone would want to use your tax dollars that way, especially since the tax dollars that we get are just so precious to be able to pay for our community. So it's it's a very difficult position to be put in. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Edis. Uh I'm going to call on the mayor in just a moment. Um, but I did want to ask uh Ry uh Mr. Knight a couple questions. You mentioned improper purpose. Um, it's hard it's hard for me and of course I'm I'm not that knowledgeable about this whole thing, but it's hard to see what the purpose was. What is the purpose? If it isn't improper, is there a proper purpose here? Um, you know, I I I understand, you know, because when when I was running for this office, I knocked on doors and I met people across our community, people who supported uh the mayor, people who didn't support the mayor. The people who supported the mayor felt that she was she was a problem solver, that she was rooting out problems in the town and that maybe, you know, this is part of that process. But but since that time um the disagreement she had with the town manager, we have a new town manager. The disagreements she had with the chief of police, we have a new chief of police. It's a whole new world. And I mentioned this at the last meeting. It's a whole new commission going forward with this seems to be only hurting our community. It's going to cost us a lot of money. But is does it have a purpose? Is what is the purpose? And and and I can't really I can't really get a hold of it. I can't really get my my my mind around it. Uh it seems like we're we're uh jockeying around for something that's ludicrous. But with with that, I I'll let the mayor. Do you have any comments you'd like to say?

Um may procedural questions, but um you mentioned the stipulation thing, but um so you you said that they you said FU would likely contest that. So like if the court So you're going to you spend the money doing that stipulation or trying to get a stipulation is what both parties agree, right? No. So oh you a stipulation you're basically stipulating like to certain facts that are sort of not great but then you're cutting it off. Yeah. You could ask a question but I'm not going to provide any litigation especially with your

but that require but but I'm I'm going I'm taking notes from what you said. If the judge if the judge were to say, "But you still haven't provided all the records to one or more or a couple of the like then basically that would just continue and you wouldn't and that's essentially what you said, right?" Okay. Um and you did say in your memo that a couple things that were problematic, I guess. One of which was the redacted document that that wasn't provided. Uh, yep. That's what I put in the memo.

Okay. Um, how many days are we right? Suppose there [clears throat] suppose there is a record like you know or more than one record and that's not provided. And then the judge says okay well those haven't been provided. There's information in say the town's own discovery that looks like they admit actual records existing that haven't been provided. What if the judge looks at that and says well you still haven't provided everything. Provide everything now. then we can talk about cutting it off. But how many days would we be at now? So it would be a little over around a year. Yeah.

Um but going back um I I don't agree with what you said about the town admitting that in an interrogatory. You could look at the specific language of the request. Um I don't think that will be an issue. I think I mean do you have did you give people the interrogatory responses? No, but I included the timeline from the interrogatories in there. I mean, do didn't one of them say that police chief created a report, didn't provide that report, and then took that report? No, it's not. Exported it.

No, it said the police chief took their report and put it into a spreadsheet. you allege that he fraudulently have man has manipulated the data or some something to that effect. Just the actual town the town's actual language that's what I was it mentions a report. It mentions a report and then it mentions exporting a report into an Excel and an Excel spreadsheet was provided but not a report. But from the town's own responses, that's But could that be potentially something that a court might say, "Well, you you can't stipulate because provide that report." Just theoretically, they don't I mean, theoretically, the court can say anything. It's fine.

So, um I I did have some other questions. Um Ryan. Yes, sir. Um, I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between statute 1190 711D and 28611. Um, one is for Sunshine Law and one is for records requests. And it seems like with the records request there is good faith in there that there is some stipulations for good faith particularly if there's an improper purpose. And if there were an improper purpose, who would who would pay would would our legal fees be paid for by Finel?

Uh, yes. If the court specifically found the requests are made for an improper purpose, but there is no good faith exception. There is no good faith. Okay. And if if an LLC is charged uh with uh paying the the uh legal fees, what if they don't have enough money in the LLC to cover those fees? Do they have to pay? Do they have to pay personally or is it just stop? Is this a way to shield yourself from personal liability? Uh that would be a whole another round of litigation. We'd look at what assets the LLC has. um if we could somehow pierce the corporate veil or the LLC veil. So

I mean is that I mean that's why people make LLC's, right? So that they protect themselves against personal liability, right? It's one of the reasons. Yeah. Um how do you happen to know when this Hang on one second, Madame Mayor. Hang on. Hang on. You haven't been recognized. You haven't been recognized. Point of order. Okay. Point of order. It does seem to it seems like that you're trying to be uncivil and make unsubstantiated sort of allegations and I guess I would just you know well that that's not a point of order. That's not a point of order but I'll recognize you would say overruled. Okay. Overruled. Go. Would you like to Would you like to make No, I got my point. Okay. All right. You Okay.

Point of order on the audience members, too, though. Can you gave down the talking from the audience? How are you?

Well, I did I did want to mention some other uh issue because because this is so aggravating and costly to the town. Let me see. There's a there's there is um some stipulations about malfeasants and misfeasence, neglect of duty, and incompetence. When our leaders do these things, sometimes the governor, if asked, will come in and remove someone from office, particularly if they're hurting the town, costing the town money. Uh, and and if there is no if there's no uh purpose to it. I mean, I I keep going back to this purpose. You know, there there was disagreements. You've had some issues and and I I would give you grace on having these issues, but those

kind of order. You don't address the issues, not not the people. That's in our civility. Leave this. Okay. You're right. I'm sorry. And you're right. Speak about the Feno Feno Feno has actually uh had disagreements with the prior town manager, had disagreements with the prior town police officer, but they are gone. This is a new place. It's a new town. So, in many ways, you could you could save grace and say, you know, I I prevailed. Feno, I think you

feno. Feno could save grace could could actually be graceful and and the and the two managers could, you know, say they they accomplished something and maybe a lot of people might believe that they they did something good maybe, but at this point it's just going on to being something negative, some something bad that's harming the town. And I and I I do think that this is something that that could be addressed as it gets a little uh gets a little ky, it gets a little weird that perhaps, you know, we as a commission should should address the governor about this because it's it's not really the positive thing that Melbourne Beach needs. It's not what we need at this time. It's it's really it's really uh just a bad scene. So, we're uh we're at the point if anybody else has any comments, then we we would take public comment.

I think I'm ready for public comment if you would like. I am as well. All right. Is there any public comment? I remind everybody about the civil civility pledge. And if you want to uh address something on a personal level, remember we're talking about Feno, which is an LLC. Seeing no public comment. Oh, there are some com public coms.

Carrie Ross, 206 Flamingo Lane. Um, I've addressed the commission a couple times before on public records that are outstanding with the town. I actually wrote an email this week to our new town manager. And I think, um, most of you are probably aware that the public records request that is in question is actually for the social media and emails and such of this plaintiff in this case. Um, she has refused to provide those, ask for assistance. The plaintiff is not a female order. Oh, she's right. It's the person and you address the issue.

The person that I have asked for the public records from is a female and she's sitting in front of me and she's refused to give them. She also happens to be an officer of Funo or whatever you call it that is a litigant in this cage. You've never asked me for public records you've asked. Oh, no. No. I did it on camera at this meeting I don't know six months ago. Are you telling me that you were not aware of that? You know,

I mean we went back and forth. You don't have to comment now and I'd appreciate that you don't. The point is I have asked for this public public records and she's refused to give it. She also wants um assistance even though nobody else needed assistance when she retaliated and requested everybody else's social media. The point of the matter is it seems very interesting that we are sitting here talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars possibly that we will pay as towns people in our taxes when she has purposefully opened us up to further litigation because my only recourse as a as as a resident of the town. She's making personal attacks. What? How did I How did I attack you? How did I attack you?

Just I'll just give you a warning to be careful. I'm not certain I saw an attack, but thank you very much. But but there is there is a um a movement to be to be able to disagree, not be disagreeable. That's what we strive for. I appreciate Thank you very much, Commissioner Cronin. I'd appreciate not being interrupted again, Mayor.

I'd appreciate not being interrupted. I know you seems like people on this commission have a hard time not one person not interrupting. Anyway, my point is my only recourse in my pursuit of that public record is to litigate against the town. So, we now have a position where our litigant, our adverse litigant, happens to be sitting on the commission right now as mayor. She has refused to step away from any shade meeting as she probably should, any moral person would. And now she has additionally put us into a situation where my only recourse is to sue the town when she is the one that refuses to provide that public record. I don't need any comment from anybody on the commission. I just want to make it abundantly clear that there is a problem here. We elected this problem two years ago, two and a half years ago now. And I hope that this problem is over in November. Thank you guys. Just a point uh that that was brought up in that discussion. Uh uh Mr. Knight, I just want to ask this question. Um is there a danger, you know, when when towns

wrong public comment? Yeah. I just have a question for the for the for the Is that overruled? You Oh, overruled. All right. This is a question. It's it's related to what was said. Is there a problem for towns who settle cases or get a reputation for settling cases that people start to become overly latigious knowing that they're they have a soft underbelly per se? In my opinion, no. I think everyone is already over latigious. Yeah. The whole world is on every little issue. There's always people that are looking to sue no matter what. So, so it can't it can't get any worse, [laughter]

but but to answer your question, uh, no, it doesn't create some kind of precedent or anything like that, right? Okay. Especially for a public records request case. Thank you. Was there anybody else? Okay.

Barbara Gunther, 1903 Atlantic Street. Um, I probably am going to be shut down, but I just wanted to say that uh I attended quite a few meetings before the person in charge was mayor. And uh she tended to tell the commission they were liars and harped on the records. And I never did hear what was the purpose of getting those records. And now I realized with her being a lawyer, she knew that was a a soft spot and because she's gone all the way her her firm has gone all the way to uh suing us. So I I think she should have to say at some point uh what was the purpose? Why were those records so important? Why did she have to have them post haste? And what was she going to do with them? Thank you. Thank you.

Bruce Picket, 1501 Oak. Um, have a question. I'm not really sure who to address it to. Um, since I'm not really supposed to address the town lawyer straight up, um, is there a standard for the completion of a record request? And is that standard um based on one record, 50 records, 100 records? Also, if those record requests come in and there is a queue of 50, I'm assuming we would answer the first ones first and work our way through them. And if there is a standard, what does that do to the standard? Thank you. So, as a commission, um, can we ask Ryan, uh, give him permission to answer that?

Absolutely. Anybody opposed? No. But I I have some relevant experience. I could mention town workers employees. I'll recognize you after after Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight.

Yes. So, there is no standard. So, a court is not going to look at to see how many records requests the town had. Um, it really doesn't matter um, through the court's lens. Doesn't matter if there's 50 requests that are waiting. It doesn't matter if there's one. Um, if there's a request that takes 90 days, 120 days, a year, um, they're going to find it's an unjustifiable delay in most instances, no matter what the situation is, even if the town doesn't even have a town clerk. Um, like I mentioned, the public records law is essentially a strict strict liability statute where they're going to look and see when were these requested, when were they produced, what did they produce, and that's it.

Okay. Madame Mayor,

um, you asked about the the standard. There's not a standard, although I will say there's a pending bill in the legislature right now that would create such a standard. It is what that bill would do is dramatically reduce and set a time. It would require a town to respond within three days. If they do not respond, there's some pretty severe consequences. They would then have to provide the records within 10 days. If they do not provide the records within 10 days, there's there's consequences. There is some wiggle room with that, but you have to undertake certain things. You also within that period of time that that you have to assert any and all exemptions that you might want to and if you don't you cannot ever later assert them. So the legislature itself is quite frustrated with cities who over time tend to use all of these kinds of excuses sort of we're understaffed all of these other things to delay um because by the way it's in the Florida Constitution. It is a right in the constitution. So, you know, people think um they think gun rights are important. Well, you know, and privacy rights are important. Well, public records access is in the constitution, too. Also, town of Orchid. In the past, I had made two exact same before before I was mayor, two of the exact same records request of the town of Orchid, and the town of Melbourne Beach. The town of Orchid has two employees there. Okay. Um the at the time, I think the town had 40. Um they prov it it was three years of invoices and some contracts and emails. They provided the records in six days with a with an electronic link because mo most of them are electronic free. The town took two years to provide those records. Still didn't provide the contract. Um and then even those records were missing incomplete. And that was one again before I was mayor that I never sued on. There were plenty that weren't sued on. Lastly, there's no requirement that you

state a purpose and the town cannot require anyone to state a purpose either. And you know, a lot of a lot of fraud, waste to be, all kinds of things are uncovered from public records. So, uh, there is no standard, but this it does vary across cities, but the number one excuse in all in cases it is always, well, we're underst staffed or this, those don't fly because one of the obligations of cities is to manage your records properly so that when you get a public records request, you're able to respond. That's why cities have a deputy clerk all along. That's why they get all of their records um uploaded and scanned so that so that they never get into a jammed up position, but if you're jammed up, it doesn't matter because So that's I don't know if that answers your question or not. It helps.

But thank you. Thank you. Hey, um it it does bring up an interesting point. Again, I would implore Feno to think about this as a win and withdraw the case because we have uh done a lot in the town to make sure that our records have been uh digitized and and and getting records requests fulfilled is a lot easier. Maybe uh um Miss Smith, you could comment on the the improvements that have been made.

Yes, we are in the process of scanning and uh putting the records onto the website. Um right now we have two people who are working on that project and we have put together um a project schedule um of x amount of time per week that they're able to do it based on what their um what their weekly schedules are looking like. Is that the same bucket of records that have been scanned and we've been paying on the project since literally two and a half years? I mean is that is or is this an additional set of records? As far as I know, this is the same set of records that when I November 2023 that was we were supposed to be and actually they contracted May before.

Is that or is there or are those all done and available and there's another set? I don't know. I'd have to check because I've only been here about three weeks. M Miss Browns, is that the same original bucket from forever? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. So So you're getting there. you it's your point I think is not well taken though that the town has has not actually I mean the town is always trying to get this one set of records scanned and it's been I mean it's been since before I was mayor so I've been mayor two and a half years they this is not pertinent to the discussion we're having here

are there any public other public comments Robert Baldwin, 446 Riverview Lane. I think it was November was the last time I was in this room. So, it's been a few months. I've recovered nicely, but I will but I will say some things have changed, but many things have remained the same. Um, and um I mean I think it's it's great to have the civility pledge. I mean, this is obviously a contentious issue. One of the last things I did um before my last meeting was to talk to our appellet attorney um who's handling some of the other cases, right? Um this hasn't reached that level yet. And if you guys haven't had a chance to talk to her, you know, you probably should. Um I hope each of you have. Um in my opinion, um this case is probably the weakest one from the town standpoint. Um, and while I love the Hutzba and the idea of fighting it out in court, um, I think that you should seriously consider the second option with which is basically kind of a a tolling agreement or kind of a for foreclosure of a continual growth in fees. I mean, it sounds like our hurdle for proof is going to be very high. um that there isn't, you know, as much as we want to say, hey, we made a good effort. We didn't intend to withhold records, um you know, it really doesn't come down to litigation of intent. It comes down to when was the request made and when was it fulfilled. It's a calendar exercise. And I think that's what our town attorney has kind of laid out here tonight. Um I would just encourage you guys to consider going the path. And I don't know, maybe maybe Ryan mentioned this. I don't know whether that um negates our ability to continue past trial if we don't um like

what that second option uh concludes in terms of attorney's fees and sort of the tolling agreement. Um but I think it's worth exploring that um if possible before making the final decision to proceed with trial. I've been a party to a number of lawsuits um from a company that I was running at the time and um litigation is not fun is very costly and what Ryan was talking about with depositions I mean you just hear the dollar meter rolling as attorneys ask one inane question after another inane question and you see multiple attorneys there, you see court recorders there and you get a sense for how costs escalate very quickly. So, I would just encourage the commission to um to really consider what is the probability of success if we go to trial. Um as much as there may be a glimmer of proving, you know, mal intent on the mayor's part. Um you know, it sounds like that is not

That's Feno LLC. I'm sorry. Yeah, Feno. Thank you. Yeah. Um I I think that um you know, that that sounds like a very hard thing to prove. Thank you. I just want to say I appreciate the vice mayor. Thank you. You're up.

Jan Pence, 200 Riverside Drive. Thank you, Commissioner Cronin and others. I'm going to read uh Florida statute 19.12. Improper purpose penalty. Courts assess complaintant motives. If a if a request or a suit is for an improper purpose, that's an exact word in the statute. Frivolous or to cause violations, no fees will be awarded to the complainant. Instead, agency recovers its le its fees and cost. I I think that we're missing a big factor here. I understand what Ryan's saying. It's It's not hard to miss, but I think that there's another point here that we aren't pushing. Uh I'd like I also like to read this, and I will try not to address the elephant in the room. It's obvious to so many of us that there's one member of our commission who stepped into the seat with a personal agenda trying to disparage, harass, and abuse numerous employees and to tear down the town of Melbourne Beach. From her fake tears pretending to be the victim to her harsh criticisms of our past town manager, our current town staff, our town staff that has quit, and town residents. We have had no choice but to tolerate her continual abuse and frivolous lawsuits. We have asked her to step down as a town and we have asked her to drop her lawsuits graciously but to no avail.

Point of order. It's Feno LLC's lawsuits.

Feno's lawsuit. Thank you. Leadership requires responsibility, stability, and love for the town and people one was elected to represent. True leadership requires building something, not tearing down our town, tearing down our staff and the residents who do not agree with one particular individual's position. It's apparent that this person's term has been an entire waste of time. It's been built on insults and attacks on others instead of solutions and love for our town and its residents. This person has accomplished nothing for any of us. I applaud the majority of this commission for its commitment to transparency and for standing up to the town's number one bully. I won't say her name. By taking this case to trial. Her bullying must stop. That's the only way you stop a bully. I would also ask the And never mind because that's been addressed. I wanted to make sure that we were asking Ryan to look into an experienced trial attorney to sit second chair with him as this case moves forward if that's how y'all vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Just uh we want we want to be uh able to disagree without being disagreeable. So, uh fake tears might be seen as an insult. So, I don't want to make bring that uh recognize that. Okay. Any any further public comment? Susan Stark, 307 Fth Avenue. I have the civility pledge in front of me. And it's hard to put this into words, but there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And unfortunately, we're in a position as a town that we have to go with the letter of the law because a lawsuit has been filed and it's going to court and they're going to rely on facts, not the spirit, not the attempts, not the changes. And that's hard for everyone to accept that. But as um Mr. Baldwin said, he has some experience in it. he had a different recommendation for your motion that you maybe vote that down and consider the second um alternative that um town attorney um Knight has suggested and that's where the discussion really needs to fall as where that where we are at that point. I would love for our society to be spirit of the law. And in most cases, you get pulled over for speeding. If it's your first time, you might get a warning. That's the spirit of the law. Letter of the law. You could get that ticket. So, we're looking at those kind of situations. So, I'd like you to have more discussion and consider um the second um recommendation by attorney. And the last thing I want to say is um what something I've said on this podium before. It's not it's not us versus them. It's all us.

And that's what's important for community. And I hope there could be some kind of resolution. Apparently, we're stuck in the legal system and once you're in the legal system in courts, you're at their mercy. But there should be some way moving forward for their disagreements to be um settled and resolved and that people feel heard, changes have been made and the the recognition of a delay or fault, which I think is what the second stipulation, the second recommendation is, is considered to put an end to it so that those funds instead of paying legal fees can pay for improvements to our town and things that are good for the community and things that are fiscally responsible for the residents of this town that are the taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other uh comments from the public?

Hi, this is Don Barlo, 1710 Pine Street. Um, as many of you are aware, I used to be in your position and I don't feel like you're I feel for you having to be objective and looking at this collectively. The last few years have been tumultuous. But in those times where we look at some actions that haven't been favorable to the town, there's also been action that has been favorable to the town. And collectively, we can say that the employees, the commission, and the residents have all been working towards a betterment, especially in this category. We've got unfortunately a presiding um commissioner that is um a principal in the plaintiff. The plaintiff still has an opportunity to not move forward and to retract this. I'd like to repeat that the plaintiff still has an opportunity to retract this

listening.

And when you hear about the options that the attorney has presented in front of us, the town is already sort of in a lose-lose situation. We've got funds that are going out the door irrespective of this right now. It's mitigating that. I do after hearing and understanding what is presiding in front of us that the first option is going to be more costly to the town than potentially the second option when we have storm water and overall budget and some long-term planning that really needs to take into account. I too will sit here and say that the actions of individuals that are leaders within this community are haven't been to in totality um keeping the town in its own best interest. I think that's where we've got to really kind of get refocused. And this moment calls for an opportunity for clarity, collaboration, but remembering that there's an opportunity to do what's in the best interest of the town of Melbourne Beach. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Great words. Any any other comments? always been an opportunity to pace out of order. Why are you mumbling under your breath? Oh my god, you you two mumble all the time. I'm not mumbling. I'm sitting here quiet. Sorry. I guess I was thinking out loud. All right, so everybody everybody uh let's uh let's listen to public comment.

Brian Troy, 509 Hibiscus. Um, I find it completely hypocrit hypocritical that we're defending a lawsuit for timely public records requests when the person responsible for that was asked for public records for their social media accounts 6 months ago. So, m Mr. Troy, um, it is Feno LLC that is bringing this case against us. Uh the mayor uh madame mayor Dennington is a manager of Feno. Okay. So um she is not the plaintiff. She is part of the plaintiff.

Okay. So the principal of FO has not given those public records requests. So I believe that there's somebody in the audience right now that used to sit up there and when that commissioner was asked for public records requests, they supplied them in one day. So maybe he could help out with getting those public records requests before we have another lawsuit. Um, and I would just like to remind everybody that come November, and I appreciate that our election went the way it did, but we have we have to elect another leader, not another litigator. That's all. Any other public comment? Seeing none, we do have an opportunity for further comments from the uh from the commission. Commissioner Corey. Um, I' I'd really like to say that um the previous leadership that their the comment um regarding that the um the litigation could be removed by the um the group that is causing the litigation instead of just the town saying we don't want to go forward in litigation. I would think that for community that the litigant would want to do the same thing for the community. the um community, as one of our residents has pointed out, and it's been pointed out by members of the commission in other

meetings, the community is in dire need of storm water management funds. Why would that not be a factor as well? We're not going to put these funds towards litigation. We're going to stop the litigation so that the town doesn't suffer the loss of that money so that the storm water can be um increased. It it's taxpayer money and that taxpayer money is the burden on our residents. This is a burden on our residents in in both directions. And um you're right, we're we're in a hard place. It it seems like it it needs to be dropped for the sake of the community by the the litigants that are that are holding our feet to the fire over the fact that we had a massive which I know doesn't matter legally, but we had a massive request and it should be recognized that that our staff ran the offices and was able to achieve that massive request in 48 days as the maximum. Not trying to say, "No, we don't have enough staff. We're not doing it." But achieved it in 48 days. And I think that that really speaks to the dedication of our staff and should be followed up by the dedication of our commission to make sure that the residents are protected in every way, shape, and form and that our residents tax dollars go towards the good of the residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Butler. Um, I appreciate Don Barlo's comments. I think um, ideally just to to recognize that changes have been made. Good has come. Good has come. And unfortunately, you know, I would have hoped that would have come to somebody at the town and said, "Hey, do is there is there an issue? Is that why this is taking so long?" instead of going directly to litigation. And unfortunately, that didn't happen. But in in a normal situation, you would have a conversation and say, you know, can maybe maybe this one isn't such a priority for me, but this one is. Can you work on this one? But that's not what happened. It was litigation and it was it feels like I need to be right, you need to be wrong. And I I struggle with that. when you're when we are here for the town, how could I how could I be part of anything that was against the town? And I I just am grappling with that. Um and I do want to go back to my understanding with treat fee triggering of for this case is that there would have to be constructive refus refusal bad faith stalling intentional non-compliance complete failure to acknowledge and that mere tardiness is not automatically not automatically an un an unlawful refusal. So I I'm hoping that those items come into play. I know you're saying that that's very difficult, but my prayer is that that you know, I come down to just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should. And people people sue people all the time. Does it really mean that you should?

No. I that's my opinion. And I'm here to fight for the town and I'm not and anybody who, you know, I'm sure there going to be plenty of people that say you just want to spend our money. that that's not the case. But there are two other lawsuits coming down the pike and I have a hard time believing this wouldn't set a precedent if we settled. Madame Mayor, would you have a comment? No, I just you asked you had a little list of things your understanding of the law. You asked the town attorney and said no. I didn't ask. Oh, I thought you did. Nope, I stated. Oh, it was a statement. Thank you. I'll [snorts] listen to the recording. Did you have any comments?

Thought you said I I hope that that's right. and he looked at you and said no. But I was curious where you got your just because in the past ma'am there's been no it's my fault I didn't ask him a question. I I accept that. Well, in in the past, there's been this always these constant volley of attacks to me that listen to the town attorney. Take the town attorney's advice, but it does seem a bit like you mentioned something. You weren't asking him, but he's telling you his the legal advice and you're not attorney that you're wrong, but you're but your position is but I'm still going to pray that I'm right, but I didn't say I'm going to pray that I'm right or hope or Yeah. Yeah. He did. He was shaking his head. But

no, Mr. Knight curious. Hey, we're going to we're going to order when I'm curious where you got the bullet point. Let's not let's not argue amongst ourselves. Let's let's have you comment on the motion. Comment on the motion first. No, my question are I'm curious where you got your legal bullet points. I did research. Okay. You did your legal research, but Okay. All right. That's all I said. I did research. All right. Commissioner Reid, please don't put words in my mouth.

Sure. So um for for all matters that come come before us here my uh approach is to try to be completely objective. Um and the question I always asking myself is how does this how does this benefit the town? So in this matter um it's that's a difficult question to answer. Um there's no there's it's it's a um I I don't see how there's the net outcome of this doesn't seem to be any kind of a benefit to the town. Um, so yeah, that's I just it's a disappointing situation to be in. Thank you.

Thank you all. So So there is a motion on the floor and before we uh reread it, I did want to comment that it's kind of hard to imagine that you could wear two hats at the same time. one where you're the leader of the town and the other hat where you're an officer of a organization that is in in conflict with the town. But that is that is the state that we are in. Uh and and it seems that many of the things that were set out to do were accomplished. We have a new town manager. We have a new chief of police. We have a new commission. Things have gone uh in a very positive direction. Uh it seems like you know to use a legal term and I am not a lawyer. You know I tried to use uh uh as much research as I could but obviously I know nothing. But I think the point is moot if I could say it. The point is moot. Why go forward with this? If if Feno was to show grace and and and remove this, it would save the town residents money. It would save the town residents agitation and aggravation. It would it would make a statement in a positive direction that the town is the primary focus of our leadership. It would be a wonderful and and and and and a wonderful garland to hand to the town and say, "Let's let's withdraw this." That being said, I'd like you to read the the motion, Miss Brown. The motion on the floor is to sorry, Vice Mayor Terry Cronin made a motion that we move to fight this in court. Commissioner Anna Butler seconded.

Okay. All in favor? I I I Mr. Reed. A and and Mayor Dennington has to abstain. Yeah. And then you say yeah one abstension. One abstension. Alison Dennington. So 3 31 with one abstension and I'll file my 8B form afterwards if you have a copy. [applause] Keep going. You're doing great.

Okay. All right. So, uh, I would like to hear a motion, uh, to, uh, contact the governor about, uh, our mayor is harming the town and and that we would like, we would like, uh, the governor the governor to do something about this. I'd like to make a motion that we appoint the can anybody could do it I suppose that we um contact the governor and um have a have just have conversation about his looking into the egregious behavior of our mayor and doing harm to our town.

[applause] Do do I hear a second? Second. Okay, we have discussion. Uh that Commissioner Reed. Yeah. So I would like to see them if the motion to be more specific as to uh the uh action. Would you like to make a friendly amendment? I'm asking the the the uh the person who brought forward the uh the uh the motion to specify who is being tasked with doing that. To me, having it open like that is not uh is not productive.

Okay. Um, I would like to look into contacting the uh governor's office in order to look into uh his

M. Uh, Commissioner Butler, could I just offer something to you? Uh it's Florida statute 11251 that says that the governor can suspend and remove municipal officers uh if they are engaged in wrongful conduct, intentional wrongdoing to the town uh lawful acts performed improperly or negligently causing harm and neglect of duty. Those are things that if they apply the governor can can just remove the uh municipal officer. Where are you reading from? Point of order. It's right there. So, do you want to amend

I make a motion that I contact the governor's office to look into uh statute statute sorry statute number 11251-51-51 in regard to the mayor of Melbourne Beach. All right. Is there a second to your final amendment? Second. All right. There's discussion. Madame Mayor, do you have any comments?

Commissioner Reid. All right. Now we have public comment. Jan Pence 200 Riverside. Uh thank you very much for this discussion that y'all are having. It's been much needed. Now, I think there have been numerous people who have been before this commission asking for the same thing. I personally would like to volunteer, and I think we probably have a room full of people that would like to volunteer to actually go get signatures if that's part of what we need to do to present to the governor. And I would be happy to go to Tallahassee on my own expenses to help in whatever we need to get rid of this human being, which is hard to say.

That was very similar. Yep. Uh there's no need for signatures. This is uh this is law and uh there's case there is case law of um of officers bringing suit against their towns being found uh on this on this. So it there is precedent I should say. Again I'm not a lawyer. I'm just using legal terms. All right. Any other public uh comment? Seeing none, um, we're going to bring it to a vote unless there's any other comments from the commissioners. Yes.

I would just like to I'd just like to have the, uh, the the attorney kind of weigh in on on the motion if that's really is it really necessary for the commission to have a motion of that if there's if it's really just an open um action on on behalf of a any person. So an individual commissioner can make whatever request they want to uh the governor. In these circumstances, what would typically happen is there would be first an authorization for an investigation from outside counsel. Usually whatever that report reveals, then the commission would vote to forward that report to the governor along with a request for removal or a finding of malfeasants or misfeasants, whatever it may be. some more fees.

You don't necessarily have to have a a vote on this. You're free to contact the mayor or sorry, the governor should you choose. Um, if we did have an investigation with a report, then I would recommend that you all take a formal vote on it. But a formal vote on this particular issue would not be necessary. Mr. Knight, I'm sorry. I'm I'm curious and I'm having a problem understanding. So, you're saying if we vote to do this, you would recommend or that we would have to have another lawyer involved that we could not send a message directly from the commission to the governor or a letter or a message directly from us saying or do we have to get other lawyers involved? So you can in your individual capacity.

Yeah. The problem if you have this vote is that someone's going to write a letter, but you can't communicate with anybody else on the commission regarding what's in that letter. Um, so you're essentially giving one person the authority to draft whatever they would want to to send to the governor. Typically, like I said, that's accomplished through an outside investigation, which would require an outside attorney. So, we could send a letter or we could have a letter drafted and then vote on it at the next meeting and and have to and sign it there. That would be that would solve that problem, wouldn't it? It could. Okay.

Could that subject the town potentially to some kind of defamation claim if there's facts or liable? I mean, if there's if there's if there's statements in there that are clearly like false, I don't Is there an issue at all? I don't know what's in there. There's all kinds of exceptions. I would I would just I would just have the letter in reference to this this case. That's hall. Um, so, um, would you accept a friendly amendment? Uh, Commissioner Butler, turn on your mic. Yes. Which is that the that a letter be drafted to the governor uh to enforce uh and not by a commissioner, right?

To enforce the statute. I I don't have the number right in front. Uh it's statute 112-51. Yeah. To enforce that and that it be and it be in reference to uh our our mayor being a manager of Feno LLC which is bringing suit to the town that cost is costing our residents a lot of money. That's basically the whole thing. You know I don't want to get involved in defaming anybody. I just want to right straight fact. Straight fact. and that we could and if if that's the way to go, we could have that letter at our next meeting and we could reassign it. Maybe maybe maybe FO would choose to withdraw before that happens. But possibly

and we we would have a non-commission member draft that letter. Correct. So that so that it could be communicated to ask the town attorney to draft that or that's something that I would not draft especially against a sitting commissioner or a mayor. Okay. I wouldn't do it to anybody else on there. Um I think it would be improper. Should be asking whether have a resident do it or resident. It would have to come from somebody else as long as it's presented to you at a public meeting and you voted on it. Okay. You want to appoint somebody to do that or I would no also appoint [laughter] Yeah. totally appoint also not appoint a resident.

No. Um, if somebody wants to create a draft and bring it to the next meeting for review, then I think that would be more appropriate. All right. So, a commission member could bring that as a an agenda item as well if they wanted to. Yes. Okay. I didn't hear what he said. I think you you said a Could you repeat yourself, Commissioner Reed? Could bring that as an agenda item. All right. Just like normal. Translate it. Write it. Bring it. All right. So, that's the motion. Um, that was long-winded. I don't know how we bring that into a a tight [clears throat] little thing, but that we're asking a commissioner to bring a draft to the next meeting that will go to the governor to enforce that statute

statute. Yep. I didn't I didn't think we have a motion vote on this. So, you don't have to have a vote. What I would recommend to make it easier is just somebody bring it up as an agenda item. Okay. Under the hours where you submit an agenda item. All right. I withdraw the existing motion. All right. Thank you very much. I would be happy to hear a motion to close. Can I make that motion? I'll make a motion to adjourn. All right. A second. All right. All in favor? I I

Do I have to Do I have to recuse from the from that motion? I didn't vote on it, but I mean, we don't have to. Yeah. I know. I'm just Hey, hey, I'm trying to, you know. Um, I appreciate that you actually