Goose Eggs for the Citizens

It’s a good thing that Easter is right around the corner because Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, Councilman Tim Schaffer and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey are doing an excellent job hiding those Easter eggs. Back to this later.

Monday night’s Council meeting, from its start at 7pm to its conclusion at 12:15am, should be considered the Mayor Shelly Stanczyk show. If you’re buying crap she was selling, I have some land in the Everglades at a special price for only you. I’ve never seen anyone avoid and disseminate as much misinformation as the Mayor did last night. From her agenda of converting the much loved Palmetto Bay Skate Park into soccer fields to her success in perverting the NPO ordinance, that she and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey fought so hard to pass in November of 2012, so that it doesn’t apply to the Village Parks but only the Schools and Churches that she so inexplicably despises.

The Mayor would like you to believe that the Palmetto Bay Skate Park, which is now closed due to Village mismanagement, is a blight on the Village. According to her, juvenile delinquents, hooligans, criminals who don’t actually reside in the Village hang out there causing damage to the surrounding business, are an insurance risk and, horror of horrors, lean again the fence that separates the skate park from the roadway. Funny thing is that no one, not even the Village Park Manager, had any information to support her position. If it was really a litigation nightmare don’t you think she would have referenced a lawsuit in her 15 minute soliloquy? The parks been open since 2006 and not one lawsuit being filed against the Village was mentioned.

As far as the NPO is concerned, the former Council, spearheaded by Councilwomen Joan Lindsey and supported by Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, passed a restriction on the height of light poles in the Village. This restriction relates to single family homes, Churches and Schools, but apparently not Coral Reef Park. I agree the tennis lighting at the park is in need of repair or replacement, but at a cost of 250,000 dollars? What’s even more absurd is, as was mentioned last night, that no one from the Village (and we have a lot of Park Staff on the payroll) has even attempted to change any light bulbs. This reminds me of when I was a kid and my friend’s mom called the TV repair man just to find out the television wasn’t plugged in. The fact is that if two new tennis courts were built at both Coral Reef Park and at a School or Church in Palmetto Bay, the park would be able to have taller light poles. I would assume by the actions of the Council that what is good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander. Or can we just say that the Churches and Schools got “goosed.”

In regards to my opening comment regarding Easter eggs, even though there continues to be no legal reason to keep the Shade Session of concluded litigation private per the Village Attorney (stated numerous times at the Council meeting,) Mayor Stanczyk, Councilman Schaffer and Councilwoman Lindsey voted to hide them from their constituents. I’ll give Councilman Schaffer a pass for voting against an open and honest government since I’ve come to the conclusion he still doesn’t get it. In fact, I’m starting to believe he doesn’t get much of what’s going on while he’s on the dais. He’s an honest soul, but he’s apparently lost.

As far as Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsey are concerned, they are simply covering their behinds. They have said repeatedly that they will attempt to hide these matters for as long as possible. Rumor has it that they didn’t even listen to their own outside attorney’s advice in ending the litigation against Palmer Trinity’s zoning approval. It is said that the former Council were told they had a 20% chance of winning but still voted to continue with costly appeals. And who was the attorney that advised them of this? Raoul Cantero, a former Supreme Court Justice who now works for the distinguished firm of White and Case who billed the Village over $650.00 an hour for his informed expert opinion. I love it when Politicians gamble with my hard earn tax dollars – it sure gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling – especially when someone with the experience of a pit boss advises them that the house odds are so stacked against them and that they can’t win unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat. If you were Mayor Stanczyk or Councilwoman Lindsey who ignored that advice, would you want that ugly little Easter egg found? Probably not. So the shade sessions will probably remain in the dark until somebody besides John Dubois and Patrick Fiore get some backbone.

I walked away from the meeting last night very tired and with a major headache wondering why can’t these people just stop all the madness and concentrate on things that municipalities are supposed to do – simple stuff – like fixing potholes. We did not incorporate to get into litigation with friendly private Village institutions and then have our anti-transparency Council hide all the facts when it turns out to be a major screw up. Maybe this Easter we can wish for something new, maybe a basket full of coherence, sensibility and good governance. Or next election maybe some good eggs.

David Singer

Missteps and misinformation given by the Village Attorney

If you can’t rely on the Village Attorney to give proper procedural instructions during a monthly commission meeting who can you count on?    SouthDadeMatters.com broke the story on Monday March 5^th, that Village Attorney Eve Boutsis made a major mistake and incorrectly informed the commission on a procedural process dictated under Roberts Rules which permitted a very unnecessary and expensive Resolution to pass when it was originally stopped dead in its tracks.

This resolution created a master plan that permits new batting cages, the replacement of tennis lights and new benched seating areas at Coral Reef Park.  These are all necessary improvements but this resolution takes away the approval process of electing to spend in excess of $275,000 away from the Council and gives it to our fiscally challenged Village Manager, Ron Williams.

The Resolution needed a super majority vote of 4-1 to pass.  It passed 3-2 because the Village Attorney incorrectly directed one of the commissioners, Patrick Fiore, who voted against the resolution, that he was required to vote for it under Robert’ Rules of Order since he had seconded the motion.  Who could have known whether this was correct or not at the time?  Eve Boutsis should have known, its her job.

I would assume anyone with a law degree should know in a Country where democracy is King, a Council member should be able to vote either for or against an item.  No one on the Council questioned her analysis of Roberts Rules.  Fortunately, she has since admitted her error. 

As far as I know the Mayor Shelly Stanczyk would like to error to stand since it was her Resolution which passed.  Not very honorable and extremely deceitful if true.

What else was disturbing was the fact that the Village Attorney stated numerous times that there is no Master Site Plan for Coral Reef Park.   This is complete misinformation and inexcusable on her part.     There is a standing Master Site Plan that was created by Miami-Dade County detailing six tennis courts with lighting which was recorded prior to the creation of the park in 1974.   I was a small child attending Coral Reef Elementary while my parents were involved in the planning of the park.

In my humble opinion the batting cages do need to be moved, benches are necessary and the lighting requires either repair or replacement.  Experts I’ve spoken with all say that all this work could be accomplished for under $100,000 not over $275,000 as planned.

All of this reminds me of the $1.1 million snack bar at Coral Reef – it was too much money, it’s in the wrong place and it’s almost impossible for a vendor to operate because of its absurd interior layout.  It’s not even a snack bar – it’s an out-of-the-way useless sculpture- the council could have bought over  four hundred commercial-grade hot dog stands for that price (don’t get any ideas Mr. Williams, you would only have needed two.)

It’s time for the Council and the Village Attorney to stand up, admit their mistakes and revote on the Coral Reef Master Plan with the correct information at hand.  I’ll tell the Council the same thing I tell my kids -  it’s imperative to do what’s right instead of what’s easy in order to be a better person, or in this case a better Council and a better Village Attorney.   

David Singer

Village of Palmetto Bay's New Poll Tax

I have now had the opportunity to peruse ten days of Ron Williams emails amounting to approximately 500 sheets of paper.  You might think to yourself "that Ronnie Williams, what a hard working man - 500 emails in 10 days, that's 50 emails a day. When does he rest?" But you'd be sadly and unfortunately mistaken. What I got from my $700.00 investment to the Village of Palmetto Bay for 'public' records, which incidentally is an exorbitant fee equivalent to a poll tax, was government efficiency at its, ahem, very best.     Every email that was sent, forwarded,  cc'd  etc.  to Mr. Williams was meticulously printed with its entire thread of the previous conversation with all attachments no matter how many times it was forwarded. I basically got the same email and whatever was attached and forwarded around 4 or 5 times between staff and Mr. Williams.  What colossal waste of paper.  I feel trees weeping in the forest somewhere.  So much for the Village of Palmetto Bays attempts to be a Green Village.  Why couldn't they just email it to me or burned a disk.    Regarding the emails,  I've come away with the opinion that I'm not really sure what Ron Williams does to earn his relatively large salary.  Judging from small sample of emails I reviewed, one can surmise that Mr. Williams does not generate any original thoughts or emails.  He receives them and may or may not respond to them, and when he does respond to them it's with with three or four non-committal words.  Mr. Williams, it seems, prosecutes his duties verbally to avoid leaving a trail. I wonder why?   I was able read some interesting information that Mr. Williams was cc'd on.  For instance, I ran across a very interesting email from Village Attorney Eve Boutsis to Councilman John DuBois in response to a request by Mr. Dubois questioning the State of Florida's Attorney General's (AG's)opinion on the Sunshine Law with regard to releasing records related to the Palmetto Bay-Palmer Litigation.  Ms. Boutsis states to Mr. Dubois "the AG punted." Punted?  In other words, I assume, there is no legal opinion from the AG that states the shade sessions need to be kept from the public.  They can be disclosed.   I, along with numerous other individuals, have been requesting access to the Shade Sessions related to the Palmer Litigation for months.  I even went so far as to ask the Village Attorney to write to the Attorney General and ask for the opinion.  I figured since the primary litigation is finalized the shade sessions should be open to public scrutiny because revealing the Councils passed errors, if there were any, can't effect the outcome case anymore.   I think it is in the best interest of the Village and its Citizens to uncover exactly who made what decisions and why.  This way the Mayor and Council Members can clear their names from the suspicion that there was wrong-doing.   It seems to me that since we have the AG's non-answer, the Council should immeditately bring up the question of releasing the Shade Sessions in a public forum.  If there was a legal basis to hold back this information from the public, the AG would have given one in its opinion.  That the AG would "punt", Village Attorney's word, once again sounds like there is no legal basis for withholding this information.   In her email dated December 18, 2012, Ms. Boutsis writes "I need to do further research as I need to determine whose responsibility it is -- to make the final determination" to release or not release this information.  Now that it's the end of February, I wonder whether she's done that research or whether there has been pressure on her not to release the information due to the damage it could do to Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, Councilwoman Joan Lindsey and Ex-Councilman Brian Pariser.   If I was any one of them, I might want those Shade Sessions buried as long as possible if errors were made in the litigation process that could/will eventually cost the Village Millions of Dollars. Currently, according to the Village Attorney, there's no legal basis preventing the disclosure of the Shade Sesssions on the Palmetto Bay - Palmer Trinity litigation and if there's nothing to hide then why not disclose?  Once again, this topic needs to be be discussed at the next Council meeting.  The citizens of Palmetto Bay have the right to know what happened. Any effort by the Current Council to protect the prior Council from scrutiny will reflect poorly on the present Council.  It's time to open up the books, learn the facts and move on so this never happens again.     David Singer

Whose Information is it anyway - Part II

Village Attorney Eve Boutsis and Village Manager Ron Williams have devised a new and improved way to dissuade and undermined a resident's ability to get access to public information.    Before I touch on that subject, I would like to thank Councilman Tim Shaffer and Councilman Patrick Fiore for their time and effort in teaching and explaining to the Village Manager that if he read and understood the Village Charter and Florida Statues, he (the Village Manager) would realize there is no legal argument  for refusing me  public information I asked for over 30 days ago.   I must admit I am neither poor nor rich, as Goldilocks would say, I'm just about right.  So when I was given an invoice by the Village Clerk for $700.00, for the information I requested, I was a little in shock.  It's not that I can't afford the $700.00 but the Florida Statues state:   (4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized: (a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches; 2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and 3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record. (b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication. (c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record. (d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.   If an average citizen had any inclination to ask for the same information  -  which, by the way, should have been readily available since it is basic financial information that consists of some bank reconciliations and 10 days of the Village Managers emails - they would be deterred by the financial obstruction put in place by the Village Manager.    And why should it be so hard and expensive to share this information in this day and age.  Google gives me a world of email, maps, books, and all sorts of information for free, but the Village charges me $700 for 10 days of emails and some bank statements which should be readily available to the public with the push of a button.    The only explanation is that the Village Manager's tactic is to charge a lot of money for public records so that I might go away.    Nice try Mr. Manager.   In case you were wondering, included in the $700 they billed me was time spent by the Village Attorney to review emails, time spent by the Village Director, time spent by the Clerk's assistant, time for the Village Manager's assistant and so on.   The invoice is not exactly legal according to the Florida Statues, but then again why should the rule of law be taken into consideration by the Village Manager now when it's never guided him in the past?  A very large portion of  the bill is for services by the same Village Attorney that was admonished by the Council in the last meeting for questionable billing practices, including over-billing.   And to top it all off, after months of the Village Manager's delay, obstruction, diversion and mis-direction to keep the public information I requested out of our hands, I still won't have everything I asked for in exchange for my $700 payment.   If you think about it, I've actually paid for this information twice now - once with my tax dollars and now with my Visa.   For a Village and a Mayor who profess to have run on the platform of "Transparency in Government",  we are experiencing nothing but the opposite at a jacked-up price. David Singer

The Neighborhood Protection Ordinance Misdirection

I recently received a Village of Palmetto Bay Public Hearing notice for a February 25th meeting   Usually, I toss these in the trash, but this one caught my eye because it relates to Coral Reef Park's tennis courts.    The Village has set up a Public Hearing to address revisions to the master plan of the park to include two new batting cages, replacement of tennis court lighting and the addition of benched seating areas.     A little research reveals that the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance (NPO,) passed by the Mayor and council in November, or thereabouts, prohibits the tennis court lighting to be replaced at their current height.   To meet the requirements of their own ordinance the Village must reduce the height of the new light poles for a cost that is budgeted at whopping $250,000.  Or they can just take the easy way out and exempt themselves from the rules that they demanded be in place to protect the residential character of the Village. Best I can tell, the Village is not asking for a one-time variance for this park update, but to exclude the park completely from the new NPO in perpetuity. They are attempting to do at tonight's council meeting - see Item 12C on their posted agenda.   The last council's main thrust - spearheaded by Joan Lindsey, backed by Mayor Shelly Stanczyk and their ousted pal Brian Pariser  - consumed over six months, hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money working to pass their magnum opus of activist government:  the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance.  This was all done, as we were told, to protect the residents of Palmetto Bay from the ills (light pollution, noise pollution, traffic, garbage collection, etc.) associated with activities that occur on large parcels of land in residential areas that are not residentially zoned.   They claimed repeatedly that they were not targeting churches and schools.  And if the Village is successful in excluding Coral Reef Park and the other parks from the NPO, what properties does the NPO regulate?   The answer remains the same: Churches and Schools -- the same Churches and Schools that the Ms. Stanczyk and Councilperson Lindsay have been out to punish since their Palmer Trinity litigation defeat.   The true tragedy of this situation is the shamelessness on display by certain council members.  The last council created the crippling NPO targeting large parcels of land and was able to craft ballot language which was opposite of the NPO's true discriminatory intent.  This resluted in easy voter passage.  Proponents on and off the council have touted that the NPO was passed by a substantial voter margin -- a sure sign of rock-solid backing by the public. But now that the Village  finds itself to be subject to the parameters it has created for others, they can't stand the overbearing regulation.  So they plan to rewrite the rules only for themselves.   One or two or three or four or all five of the council should do the honorable thing and speak out at length against this deceptive dishonorable banana-republic-style action.  Someone up there on the council needs to make the plea and decry the utter duplicity and unfaithfulness to the public trust.  Maybe it will be Mr. Fiore -- he has shown to be a minority voice on the right side of issues time and time again.  Or Mr. Dubois who has demonstrated himself in short order to be a sensible breath of fresh air.  Or maybe Mr. Shaffer has this opportunity to cement his reputation of a man of honor early on.  But it would be best if it was all three.  Three votes to two.    What is at stake is a basic ethic and American value: the law must be applied uniformly. All large parcels of land must be subject to the rule of law or there must be relief uniformly applied to all affected parties.  If the Village gets exempt, so should the Churches and Schools.  If not the Churches and Schools, then not the Village either.  This attempt at preferential treatment smacks of discrimination.  How many times had we heard from the prior council that the 'rule of law' must be followed without exception?  Make no exception here, ladies and gentlemen of the council.  May the rule of law be applied uniformly -- no exemption for the Village without equal protection under the law for all other affected properties whether private or public. An American bedrock principle -- be sure to stand by it.   Co-Written by David Singer and Douglas Zargham.

Whose information is it anyway?

I started this blog to discuss the ever expanding Village of Palmetto Bay bureaucracy that is costing us dearly. But, I must pivot to a really important issue that faces all residents of Palmetto Bay: the inability to get public information from the Village administration.      Everyone who reads my blog knows I spend a lot of time reviewing various pieces of information I receive from the Village.  Some of the information is extremely benign while some points to poor governance.  In fact, I wish I had more time to write on this matter because some of the inept financial decisions the Village has made would be a great case study for a political science course.  Unfortunately, for us it's rare that an elected official demonstrates financial aptitude.      In any event, I have continued over the last couple of months to ask for various documents from the Village Attorney and Village Manager which they have refused to release.  They use one lame excuse after another. Most documents I've requested relate to the annual audit of our Village and various emails sent and received by the Village Manager.      This lack of transparency goes against the Village's Municipal Charter, specifically the Citizens Bill of Rights which reads:   Truth in Government. No municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on any public matter, nor knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to members of the public.    Public Records. All audits, reports, minutes, documents and other public records of the Village and its boards, agencies, departments and authorities shall be open for inspection at reasonable times and places convenient to the public.   The Municipal Charter goes on to read;   The Village Manager responsibility is to "Ensure that all laws, provisions of this Charter and directives of the Council, subject to enforcement and/or administration by him/her or by employees subject to his/her direction and supervision, are faithfully executed;   In regards to the Public Audit, for information I've requested over 30 days ago;   A summary of the results, including any deficiencies found, shall be made public. A written response to any noted deficiencies shall be the responsibility of the Village Manager. The response shall be made public no more than 90 calendar days from delivery of the independent auditor's report.   Apparently, both the Village Attorney and Village Manger should spend a few minutes re-reviewing the Charter.  It would help them get familiarized with the concept that the Village of Palmetto Bay citizenry has the absolute right to public information.   Maybe I've been incorrect in my focus on the Mayor and Councilwoman for the past six months.  Maybe my focus should have been on the Village Attorney and Village Manager.  It's the Village Manager and the Village Attorney who seem to spend a majority of their time and a great deal of expense impeding the free flow of public information.   I think it's time for the Council to reassess the administrative personnel of the Village.  They might find that termination is in order.  The new Council has some hard decisions to make in the next six months. Maybe the first item on the agenda should be to review the Village Attorney and Village Manager's interaction with the Village citizens.  After all it's our money that pays their generous salaries and fees.  Maybe they should do their jobs correctly or be replaced.   Once again if you would like to be removed from recieving future emails please notify me. David Singer

A Waterfall of Litigation

To all,

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, news has been released that a lawsuit has been filed against Mayor Shelly Stanczky, Councilwoman Joan Lindsey, Councilman Tim Shaffer, the Councilwoman’s Husband Jerry Templer, Gary Pastorella, Delores Triana, Warren Lovely, Betty Pegram and the owners of PBCHECKTHERECORD.ORG.

So what do all these individuals have in common?  They all supported Brian Pariser’s reelection campaign and Tim Shaffer’s campaign to win Howard Tendrich’s seat.    Brian Pariser has not been named in any litigation.

OK, maybe this isn’t breaking news to everyone who lives in Palmetto Bay, but I’ve been on vacation and it’s the first chance I’ve had to write about it. 

The suit contains allegations of negligence, defamation, libel, etc., etc., etc.     Apparently, it’s judged as bad form, if not illegal, to disseminate misinformation about an individual’s (in this case Jim Ariza and Louis Medina’s) character based on apparent lies that will damage their respective reputations. 

The definition of defamation and libel is simply the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image, or in layman’s terms, a blatant lie that injures someone’s reputation.

I prefer not to detail the facts of the case, because I for one don’t want to further damage these individuals reputation more than they’ve already been damaged.  Apparently, or allegedly, the individuals named in the suit had no difficulty in that exercise.    

The real issue is that three of the individuals - Shelly Stanczky, Joan Lindsey and Tim Shaffer - named in the suit are Village of Palmetto Bay Councilmembers that should be holding themselves to a higher standard.  But once again, they may be found without the moral fiber to serve in office.

My question to these individuals, if they are found to have been libelous, is: was it really necessary to behave so poorly to get your candidates elected to office that you were willing to be devoid of any morals?  Is that the way you want to be known within this community?  Is this the face you want to show your colleagues within your profession? 

How long do the citizens of the Village have to put up with elected officials and their cast of groupies who apparently have a moral handicap?    How long must this Village be subjected to members of our Council that do not serve us in our best interest?

If they insist on acting like obstinate children then they should be punished.   Maybe the Village electorate will show their continued dissatisfaction with their behavior and vote certain incumbents out of office as they did in November 2012 or maybe we shouldn’t wait. 

In any event, they should to be held accountable if they acted improperly as alleged in the pending lawsuit against them.  We as a Village deserve better.

In the meantime, I can assure you, I will be reviewing the Village’s legal bills to ensure no legal expenses are incurred to defend any of the accused in this litigation using public money.  Be sure to keep an eye out  for my reports on this matter.

You can find the complete lawsuit on recallpalmettobay.com

David Singer