Gondo's Giles copies Herald-Trib article on police chief applicants... including the mistakes

.
Do you know how teachers usually catch students copying another's work? The cheater invariably copies the mistakes.

On the morning of Friday, December 17, the Herald-Tribune's John Davis reported that former Sarasota Sheriff candidate Dave Gustafson had submitted his resume to city hall for the police chief position (LINK). Gustafson had attended the city council meeting last week in an effort to find out the ground rules for submittuing an application. I spoke with Gustafson during the meeting, even introduced him to the Herald-Trib's Kim Hackett, while the Gondo's resident CQG ball-washer Greg Giles stood by, uninterested and unaware.

On Friday afternoon, the day after Davis' article appeared in the H-T, both Alan Bullock and Kathy Smith (of the city's Human Resources Department) stated that they had received no such resume from Gustafson.

In Saturday's Gondo, Giles re-reported the dubious factoid under his own byline with no attribution to the Herald-Trib (LINK). The Gondo went on to report on Saturday that several "unknown" candidates had submitted resumes, not altogether accurate information again taken from the Herald-Tribune by Giles and unattributed, as several had simply sent letters of interest, not resumes.

Officer formally accuses City Manager, interim Police Chief Dunaway of retaliatory actions and criminal acts for complaining about hostile work environment

.
In a nine-page document (LINK - pops in new window), beleaguered police Officer Demitri Serianni exhaustively documents how the department and City Manager Isaac Turner have violated city policies and the law in an effort to duct tape the mouths of officers who complained to Turner about former chief Julie Williams.

Turner's response so far has reportedly been to privately tell council members that Serianni is a lazy cop.

Budway self-destructs, flies plane into Taxpayers League in attempt to avoid hostile takeover by former board members -- VTL re-births itself in spite of Budway's sabotage

.
After his entire Board of Directors resigned to protest Budway's idiotic mismanagement, a group of former board members, including the late Herb Levine, had engineered a hostile takeover by demanding Budway's resignation under threat of legal consequences -- Budway freaked out, called the former board "a bunch of flakes," then tried to destroy the League in an act of political terrorism, ending his childish tirade by blaming the entire world for ganging up against him; unfazed, former board members start re-incorporation process

ref: Gondo story on Budway heroically pushing the self-destruct button on the Taxpayers League (link - pops in new window)

The Venice Taxpayers [League] is alive and well, something that apparently scares the bejeebers out of both ex-VTL dictator Gary Budway and semi-literate newsroom gadfly Greg Giles. After reading Giles' premature article on the death of the VTL, I was laughing like hell. To the casual reader, it appears as though Gary Budway is one very bitter and lonely man while the Gondo couldn't even wait for Herb Levine to be in his grave for four weeks before spitting on it. The Gondo and Budway are behaving as though they are scared shitless that Herb might change his mind about this dead and buried thing he has going.

Nice job, guys. Good to see that the Gondo continues to stay classy.

Now that the Gondo has spun out the fiction, here's what really happened.

Jeffy Gates' moist pants

.
Below is an email from me to Jeff Gates, husband of council candidate Jeanette Gates, fired off this morning to all who received his original emails ( both published further below on this page). Jeff sent his off to all candidates, various reporters, and then arranged to have his emails posted on the city email server by sending it to all members of council.

I'm still trying to figure out if he is a listed officer on his wife's campaign. If he is, sending these emails would be a big OOOOOOOPS.

Holic claims he warned bilked investors -- not so, says one of Christensen's victims

.
In today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, mayoral candidate John Holic claims he notified all investors that fired investment salesman Brian Christensen had left the employ of A.G. Edwards (see Ethics charges fly in last days of Venice race by Kim Hackett).

From that article: "We sent a letter to all of his [Christensen's] clients that he was no longer an employee and to contact us about any irregularities," Holic said.

Not true, according to Venice resident Roger Bellehumeur, one of A.G. Edwards' former customers and one of Christensen's Ponzi victims. Bellehumeur, an A.G. Edwards client from 1996 until 2004, stated today by phone that he never received any such letter.

Bellehumeur and his wife sued A.G. Edwards and were awarded $1.2 million, including $250,000 in punitive damages for Edwards' "lack of honest dealings."

A letter to John Holic: Sir, we have caught you fibbing again

.
My problem here with Holic, one of many, is that he claims to have all of the answers for Venice yet he is incredibly oblivious to basic facts of recent history. This would be forgivable in, say, fellow CQGer Bob Daniels, who only moved here four years ago, but Holic has lived here for what, 20 years? 30? I forget which of those two numbers he keeps touting.

The point is that the events in Holic's mangled version of recent history all fall well within those time frames and should have been as obvious to him as the name of this town. If, that is, he was paying any attention at all to then-current events. He says he did pay attention, but these kind of mistakes are akin to not knowing who was vice-president under George W. Bush.

Profiles in Dumbassity: How to start a war with the media that you are guaranteed to lose

.
Some things need no explanation, they are the result of actions that are incredibly self-destructive and stupid beyond description.

Take, for instance, this email:

From: Isaac Turner, City Manager
To: City Council
CC: Nancy Woodley; Pam Johnson
Date: Tuesday - July 6, 2010 9:16 AM
Subject: Airport Article in Tribune From July 3 [link to article]

FYI - Kim Hackett called me Friday afternoon to confirm information she had been provided regarding airport ALP recommendations which will be provided to the City Council later this month. She stated she had spoken with a member of the City Council and just wanted to verify the facts. Kim had questions about specific details which I would not confirm.

FOP is unified in joyous support of police administration; anyone who disagrees will be made to shut the hell up

.
OK, this is where PR goes hilariously wonky.

Remember that FOP vote of confidence I reported on nearly a month ago? The one where a majority of Venice Police administrators voted that they support and are in favor of the VPD administration, while the patrol and beat cops either voted the opposite or didn't vote at all?

The union, nearly one month later, has finally issued the results of their vote of confidence in Chief Williams, this in a press release. Well, they released some of the results, anyway. They're just withholding a few bits of data, like how many voted in favor of Williams' regime, how many voted against Williams' regime, how many didn't vote at all, any breakdown in rank of who voted, and what the actual wording was on the ballot.

So, other than the fact that the FOP's press release was about as illuminating as a police flashlight with dead batteries, it was very nice, incorporating complete sentences, correct spelling and mostly correct punctuation.

Who gave police Lieutenant Mike Rose permission to double dip and how much double dipping did he do?

.

(pic, from left to right: Julie Williams, Mike Rose, Mike Frassetti, from Frassetti's reinstatement hearing last year -- Chief Williams was forced to rehire Frassetti after a hearing that determined that charges against Frassetti were the result of a department-created fiction)

Chief Julie Williams is finally speaking out on some of the allegations being levied against her, but her answers are about as illuminating as the silent treatment that she has been giving the media up until this point.

The Herald-Trib's Kim Hackett was finally able to get Williams to repeat to the media the same thing that Williams said to council on May 25: that Police Lieutenant Mike Rose had been double dipping by going to his business while on the city's dime. Williams states that Rose had a supervisor's permission to do so.

This opens up a whole new set of  questions, ones that Williams and staff are still successfully ducking with the aid of City Manager Isaac Turner. Two that immediately rise to the surface: how much double dipping did Rose do and which supervisor gave Mike Rose permission to, well, steal from the city (because that's really what was happening)?

Attorney for "disgruntled" officer accuses Chief Williams of making false statements to council, creating a hostile work environment, more....

.
The attorney for Venice Police Officer Demitri Serianni has accused the department's chief of lying to city council (specifically citing the chief's answers to questions asked by Councilman Emilio Carlesimo), of creating a hostile work environment, and, by implication, of falsifying police records.

Winter Park attorney Gary Wilson, of the top-rated labor law firm Jill S. Schwartz and Associates, laid out much of the case that will be made against Chief Julie Williams and her two captains, Dave Dunaway and Tom McNulty, in a packet of documents that was sent to city hall on June 15.

Wilson is threatening the city with a potential lawsuit to be filed later this year if the police department does not mend its evil ways.

I am still analyzing much of the document for veracity and this site will publish the full document with analysis within the next 24 to 48 hours.

At first glance: this is a bombshell, the beginning of the end for Williams and her administration.

Audio recordings of the police bathroom? Yeah, we'd like to hear them, too...

.
From: John Patten
To: Lori Stelzer, city council, Julie Williams
Date: June 21, 2010

Lori:

I would like to see everything that Frascatore is provided with and I would like to see any and all denials and responses to his recent public records request(s).

For the uninitiated, you may remember Chief Williams at a recent city council meeting speaking of an officer resigning to join the NYPD -- Williams claimed that this was a great officer who didn't want to quit and who Williams hated to lose and that the officer even (sniff) had a tear in his eye (sniff) as he fought back a well of wailing over leaving his beloved Julie Williams.

Remember that?

Chief Williams accused by officer of admitting to bugging the bathrooms at VPD

.
Here's an odd twist: one of the police officers at the Venice Police Department is claiming that Chief Julie Williams has admitted to bugging every room at the department, including the locker rooms (i.e., bathrooms) in an attempt to find out who is talking to the media (i.e., myself and/or Herald-Tribune reporter Kim Hackett).

Officer James Frascatore, who has just resigned to move back north to join the NYPD, is claiming that Williams has accused him and other officers of leaking department info to city council and to the media. Frascatore claims that Williams confronted him with the accusation and that Williams stated that she has proof in the form of taped conversations from the VPD's men's bathroom and locker rooms as well as all of the other rooms in the police department building.

Frascatore's allegations became public when he made a public records request to review and receive copies of any and all such recorded conversations.

In a related disclosure, a ranking officer at the department, under promise of anonymity, told me that Williams is claiming that she has initiated criminal investigations into myself and Kim Hackett over the Herald-Trib's reporting of a botched search-and-seizure job of an alleged smuggler, this having taken place at the Venice airport a few months back. Williams has reportedly stated that Hackett and I somehow violated the law in learning about the department's screw-up, and that she will use the investigation to seize and examine Hackett's and my computers in the hopes of ferreting out more department moles.

I would probably be highly concerned except for the fact that this is about the fifth time in the last decade that someone in city government has come up with this same bright idea.

For example: ex-city manager George Hunt and ex-utilities director John Lane tried to convince City Attorney Bob Anderson to file a lawsuit against myself and Venice Florida! dot com in the hopes of seizing both the web site and the computers used to create and maintain the site. Anderson reportedly told Hunt to get his meds checked.

About a year or two before that, then ex-police chief Joe Slapp tried nearly this exact same tactic, this when he tried to cover up his previous cover-up of embezzlement within the city's computer department. That was an odd little caper that eventually caused the computer department head, Steve Randall, to resign and contributed to the woes that befell Slapp in forcing his later early retirement due to (cough, cough) health reasons (look up our old "Putergate" stories, still online, from around 2002 or so).

So Slapp, who at the time had been promoted up and out of the police department to some make-work job title at city hall, was about to get uncovered. His brilliant solution was to connive with then-councilman David Farley in trying to fabricate a case of felony extortion against me, an attempt that was fouled by then-Chief Jim Hanks' ultimatum to Slapp and Farley that if they tried it, somebody would be going to jail but that it wouldn't be me.

Back to the present: things are so seriously weird that I'm beginning to wonder if there really is a Julie Williams or if she is really just Joe Slapp in drag. Before you laugh, is it just oddly coincidental that the two have never been photographed together or even seen in the same room? I think not.

But wait. There's more.

Slapp and Williams have the same body types, they apparently visit the same barber, it looks like they use the same brands and shades of makeup, and they both share an eerily identical contempt for the constitution and for the concepts of civil rights and due process.

Below is a chain of emails to City Clerk Lori Stelzer, a dialog between Frascatore and Stelzer, that contain Frascatore's allegations.

Just to top things off, included at the very end is a BONUS SURPRISE email, YET ANOTHER threat of lawsuit against Williams and the department for yet another act of alleged malfeasance. This makes what, six? Eight lawsuits pending against Williams and the department?

Add popcorn, sit back, and enjoy.

--------------------

From: James Frascatore
To: City Clerk Lori Stelzer
Date: June 18, 2010

Lori,

On the morning of June 16, 2010 I took part in a meeting that was conducted by Chief Williams, Captain Dunaway and I. During this meeting Chief Williams stated that Police Officers that are employed by the city of Venice and the Venice Police Department have no expectations of privacy. Chief Williams stated that the agency has the right to monitor and record officers in the agencies locker room, patrol vehicles and other places within the Police Department. Chief Williams stated that she is aware which officers are talking to council members and media and made accusations that I am one of them.

At this time I am requesting all audio, visual and electronic recordings that the Venice Police Department and or the city of Venice have of me while being employed by the city.

I am also requesting at this time all audio, visual, electronic recordings and all written documentation and notes taken during the meeting of June 16, 2010 which included Captian Dunaway, Chief Williams and myself.

Thank you for your assistance fulfilling this request.

Sincerely,

James Frascatore

--------------------

From: Lori Stelzer
To: James Frascatore
Date: June 18, 2010

James,
I received your request and need some clarification. I believe this request, as presented, will be rather voluminous, time consuming and costly. In order to minimize your costs and staff time, does your request include recordings of
1) all police radio transmissions where you were involved;
2) all MDB communications;
3) mobile/video recordings on certain police vehicles if you were in one of those; and
4) citizen complaints (which I have been advised you have already received copies of)?
After I fully understand the extent of the request, I will provide you with an estimate and request a deposit prior to proceeding. If you would like to discuss this, please feel free to call. Thank you.

Lori Stelzer, MMC, City Clerk
City of Venice

--------------------

From: James Frascatore
To: Lori Stelzer
Date: June 18, 2010

Lori,
Chief Williams eluted to possible recordings of police personal being tracked and monitored and recorded by the department and or the city of Venice. I am interested in all video, audio, and or electronic transmissions in which I would not have knowledge of while at work. (The agency secretly taken video, audio, and electronic recordings of myself while at work.) I am not interested in radio transmission, MDB transmittals, evening vehicle camera systems or citizen complaints.

On the morning of June 16, 2010 I took part in a meeting that was conducted by Chief Williams, Captain Dunaway and I. During this meeting Chief Williams stated that Police Officers that are employed by the city of Venice and the Venice Police Department have no expectations of privacy. Chief Williams stated that the agency has the right to monitor and record officers in the agencies locker room, patrol vehicles and other places within the Police Department and track vehicle movement. Chief Williams stated that she is aware police officers are speaking with council members and members of the media discussing issues within the agency. Chief Williams made accusations that I have been meeting with Councilman Emilio Carlesimo and members of the media.

At this time the Chief stated that there are recordings of officers in which we would not have known or been aware we were being recorded, such as the locker room, briefing, room bathrooms and vehicles.
I am requesting all audio, visual and electronic recordings that the Venice Police Department and or the city of Venice claimed to have of myself meeting with council members and media staff while during my employment of the Venice Police Department.

I am also requesting at this time all audio, visual, electronic recordings and all written documentation and notes taken during the meeting of June 16, 2010 which included Captain Dunaway, Chief Williams and myself.

Thank you for your assistance fulfilling this request.

Sincerely,
James Frascatore

--------------------
SPECIAL EXTRA BONUS LAWSUIT THREAT EMAIL

From: Eric Reisinger, attorney
To: To Whom it May Concern
Date: June 16, 2010

My name is Eric Reisinger and I am an attorney representing Mrs. Mary Walters. I mailed a claim letter to the Mayor's Office on April 9, 2010, seeking damages for the illegal entry and arrest of my client by your police department. As of this date I have not heard anything from either the mayor's office, your insurance company, nor your City's Attorney.

I would like a written response back from your City Attorney within the next week so we can try to resolve this incident and avoid any litigation. However, if i do not hear back from anyone with the next week i will be forced to bring a law suit against your city for violating my client's civil rights.

Thank you for your time.

-- Eric Reisinger, Esq
Mata & Reisinger, PA
Bradenton, Fl 34205

FOP vote of confidence bombs on itself as police support of Chief Williams drops to the ground

Turns out the number of unhappy coppers is quite a bit higher than the one or two disgruntled employees that the chief and the mayor keep talking about -- 40% of the department doesn't support the chief or her new replacement good 'ol boy network
.
Only 60% of eligible voters in the police union support the current Venice Police Department's administration, this according to a vote of confidence held this past Friday by the Venice chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

What's more, nearly half of that 60% of stated administration supporters are themselves supervisory members of the police administration, the same "administration" that was the primary subject of support on the ballot.

The vote was engineered by administrative staff at the VPD with the blessing of FOP chapter president Joe McGee. According to several, separate sources, Police Lieutenant Eric Hill was one of the lead organizers, reportedly at the behest of the chief herself.

According to sources in the FOP membership, McGee stated that FOP leadership planned on releasing the results of the vote only if the vote was highly favorable to police management. When asked by FOP members during the vote as to what would happen if the results did not make the chief look good, McGee shrugged but would not answer.

So far, the results have not been officially released to the media. Venice Florida! dot com confirmed the vote numbers and details in this story with FOP members on condition of anonymity.

As to the wording of the ballot, some union supporters of the chief were reportedly worried that if the vote was aimed directly at Police Chief Julie Williams, then it might look as a defensive reaction on the part of Williams that might, in turn, make her appeear weak and cause low voting numbers of support.

Thus, instead of voting in direct support of the chief, the vote was worded as "Do you support the current Venice Police adminstration?"

Of 49 possible votes, only 29, or roughly only 60%, voted yes in support of the chief and her administration.

16 nay votes were cast. 4 members abstained from voting.

Of the four abstentions, one refused to vote because he just wanted to avoid the question entirely; one abstained because he claimed he was new and hadn't made up his mind yet. Venice Florida! dot com hasn't determined the reasons yet for the last two abstentions.

Even more telling, according to police sources: 29% of the eligible voters (14 members) are supervisors (sergeants and above) who would fall under the category of the "administration" that they were being asked their opinion about. In other words, 29% of the voting bloc were being asked if they supported themselves.

Williams, Mayor Ed Martin, and City Manager Isaac Turner have repeatedly made statements that Williams is universally supported and that only a small number of disgruntled officers were unhappy with her.

The numbers, as determined by the FOP, tell a decidedly different story. With only 60% of the department stating support in Williams (and support of 14 of her supervisors), the numbers talk of a serious rift that would spell corporate civil war in any private sector small company.

Ritcey destroyed police survey notes, claims he wasn't told by city to retain them

.
I spoke with Dr. Larry Ritcey earlier today, reference the confidentiality issue; to wit: did police employees speak with Ritcey for his survey with the knowledge that their responses would be confidential or were they told that what they said would be identifiable and made public record?

City Manager Isaac Turner is now claiming that he told police employees that their responses would be confidential. Minutes of an FOP meeting that Turner attended last year state the opposite, and an email from Captain Dave Dunaway to all police employees that was sent prior to the survey interviews likewise warned employees that their statements would be public record.

At issue is how to interpret the minimal data that was provided to the city by Ritcey (two typed pages of mostly anecdotal material -- PDF; cost -- $7,646.20 total just for the police survey*). If employees were told that their remarks would be made public and attributable, how likely were they to state any negatives about the department or their supervisors?

Ritcey's summary notes a warm, glowy feel from those that did participate, which has been used by the police chief, city manager, and mayor as hard proof that the department is one big Woodstock lovefest with one or two malcontents, despite the fact that 75% of patrol officers declined to participate in the survey.

As to my conversation with Ritcey, he stated earlier today that in each interview, he never guaranteed anonymity, and he states that he told each individual that their words MIGHT be attributed back to them, but that if it was something that they believed strongly in, they should take a stand.

In his notes, he took down the name of each individual, the answers to his questions, notes about their comments, etc.

He noted that those who were willing to talk with him stated that they were largely satisfied with the department.

He could not and would not speculate on what he wasn't told to him by those who would not participate or those that didn't answer key questions.

After all of the interviews, Ritcey stated that he compiled his work into his report and submitted the report to the city. Sometime after the project closed out (Ritcey is uncertain exactly when), Ritcey destroyed his supporting notes and documentation. He states that he does not have any copies of those original notes.

When asked, Ritcey stated that he was unaware of any requirement to maintain those documents, that nobody from the city advised him to either retain his notes or to turn them over to the city for archiving.

I advised Ritcey that he might want to give a read-through of Florida's Public Records laws and give a look at First Amendment Foundation's web site. Ritcey stated he was unaware that neither Isaac Turner or Julie Williams had tried to give him this information.

This knowledge that Turner failed to advise Ritcey to secure the documents would appear to be the most likely reason for Turner's recent about-face on whether or not police employees were told that the results would be confidential. Of course, Turner is claiming that he has not changed his story at all, but even there his story keeps changing -- watch the video below, the first four minutes show Turner's denial followed by Turner being confronted by me with documents that say... well, that Turner is just flat-out not being truthful.



Hmmmm........................

Mayor used hidden private Hotmail account to support Chief Williams

Despite a complaint from me about using his private email account to do city business (didn't we go down this road before?), Mayor Ed Martin has, so far, refused to release this email to the public record. I do not know how many other emails are equally hidden. The email below is printed as a public record, although the mayor has not made it an available public record yet.

From: "Ed Martin" edwilsonmartin@hotmail.com
To: "Jan McDermott Collins" pat_jan@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:02 PM
Subject: Accurate info available

Jan, You know how much I appreciate your service on Council and your willingness to check things out. You need to revert to those tendencies and not believe everything you might read on the web, without asking for info.

If you want to write to me at emartin@ci.venice.fl.us I will provide you info on issues that are within my perogatives as Mayor/Council member. You might also write to my website, and I will forward them to the city email account if they deal with City business as they almost certainly will.

I believe you can be a voice of reason if you chose to be, but after recent postings by John and some others I no longer feel it is productive to write to that site as people read but do not reason.

Best regards,
Ed

---------------------------------------------

Of additional concern is the mayor's blind affinity towards the police chief based on clearly wrong and invented information, too much of which is being issued by him to be countered. According to Hizzoner, this is all the fault of a few cops who don't want to do things "by the book."

Below is just one of several emails I have sent in a futile attempt to bring His Dimbulbyness up to speed.

Ed Martin had previously written:
(START QUOTE) "Re Chief Williams, the City has not ignored any police concerns. The City Manager arranged for an outside consultant, one that the Council has used to facilitate priority-setting meetings, to interview as many police officers as wanted to, (interestingly, some declined to meet on a private and confidential basis-those with the most complaints.) The consultant's report has been available since its submission and it is reflected in today's HT story--most officers supported the chief while some suggested a more tactful handling of interactions. The department had recently won accreditation after a number of years before her arrival." (END QUOTE)

---------------------------------------------

To: Ed Martin, city council, Isaac Turner
From: John Patten
Date: May 24, 2010

The discussions with Ritcey were not and never could be confidential. The officers who refused to participate did so because their comments would be public record with their names attached to their comments. The officers feared retribution. I know this because many at the time told me so. Where you got the idea that their comments would be confidential, I don't know. I know that you have never looked through the report, otherwise you would have seen comments and attributions.

Here's what one officer posted anonymously to the web (spelling errors kept intact):

"The Mayor seems to think that Dr. Ritchey's study of the police department was confidential when he met with officers in order to obtain his data. Obviously the Mayor and the City Mangager have noline of communication. All information that was obtained by Dr. Ritchey from the officers who met with him is considered public record. Turner met with officers at the FOP lodge prior to Dr. Ritchey meeting with officers. He stated that all information provided to Dr. Ritchey is public record. Next thing the mayor fails to inform the public on is who actually met with Dr. Ritchey. Out of the thirty or so people that met with him only about seven officers met with him. The rest were employees who were promoted by the Chief. The data obtained is not an accurate assessment of the agency because the officers knew it was considered public record and were scared of retaliation."

The department winning accreditation -- FYI: this was on the back of much work done under previous chief, Jim Hanks. It was under Hanks early takeover of the department from ousted Chief Joe Slapp that the department initially lost its accreditation.

It should be noted that Chief Williams found obtaining accreditation impossible to do under the department's own steam, however, and a full-time outside consultant was brought in. I met him and spoke with him once. Cop from another jurisdiction in Florida. I have no idea how much it ended up costing the city.

Council, police chief set to violate Sunshine Law

NOTE: The following is an email that was sent to from me to city council members, City Manager Isaac Turner, and Police Chief Julie Williams, on May 17, 2010. Now three days later, despite advice from First Amendment Foundation lead attorney Barbara Peterson, Turner is still planning on having council members meet one-on-one with Police Chief Julie Williams to discuss, out of the public eye, allegations raised by the Herald-Tribune and by Venice Florida! dot com. 

Subject: The upcoming one-on-one meetings with Julie Williams, set to address concerns that I raised publicly at the last city council meeting.

These are different than the one-on-one agenda meetings. According to Barbara Peterson at the First Amendment Foundation, the meetings with Williams would be clear violations of the Sunshine Law for two reasons. One -- they are a continuation of discussion started during a public meeting. Secondly, the one-on-one meetings with Williams would be for the purpose of holding the discussion with council members away from public eyes and would involve the dissemination of new information that the public is entitled to.

One of Williams' defenses will be that she cannot discuss this publicly as parts are part of ongoing investigations. Not valid. Anything that she legally cannot discuss publicly she is likewise prohibited from discussing with any of you.

I described the situation to Peterson in great detail to avoid confusion and to make absolutely sure I was standing on firm ground. A lengthy discussion followed, the gist of which is above.

Below is an excerpt from Peterson's email to me that is on point.

The Sunshine Law is applicable to meetings between a board member and an individual who is not a member of the board when that individual is being used as a liaison between, or to conduct a de facto meeting of, board members. See AGO 74-47 (city manager is not a member of the city council and thus, may meet with individual council members; however, the manager may not act as a liaison for board members by circulating information and thoughts of individual council members). Compare AGO 89-39 (aides to county commissioners would not be subject to the Sunshine Law unless they have been delegated decision-making functions outside of the ambit of normal staff functions, are acting as liaisons between board members, or are acting in place of the board or its members at their direction).

For example, in Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), the court held that a series of scheduled successive meetings between the school superintendent and individual members of the school board were subject to the Sunshine Law. While normally meetings between the school superintendent and an individual school board member would not be subject to s. 286.011, F.S., these meetings were held in "rapid-fire succession" in order to avoid a public airing of a controversial redistricting problem. They amounted to a de facto meeting of the school board in violation of s. 286.011, F.S.

Similarly, in Sentinel Communications Company v. School Board of Osceola County, No. CI920045 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. April 3, 1992), the court found that a series of private meetings between a school superintendent and individual school board members which were scheduled by the superintendent to present and consider staff recommendations concerning the administrative structure of the school system and to privately address any objections or concerns that the board might have, should have been held in the sunshine. The court said that its decision should not be construed to prohibit individual board members from meeting privately with staff or the superintendent for informational purposes or on an ad hoc basis. However, "[i]t shall be construed to prohibit the scheduling of a series of such meetings which concern a specific agenda." Thus, the court enjoined the board and its superintendent "from holding any further closed door meetings to formulate Board policy, discuss matters where Board action is contemplated, or otherwise conduct the public's business."

In Citizens for a Better Royal Palm Beach, Inc. v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, No. CL 9114417 AA (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. May 14, 1992), the court invalidated a contract for the sale of municipal property when it determined that after the proposal to sell the property which had been discussed and approved at a public meeting collapsed, the city manager met individually with council members and from those discussions the property was sold to another group. The circuit court found that these meetings resulted in a substantial change in the terms of sale and that the execution of the contract, therefore, violated the Sunshine Law.

Anything Williams has to say can be made in writing (a public record, and I request any such communication in advance right now with this sentence) or at the next open city council meeting.

I will raise holy hell and scream cover up if you have these discussions privately and I later find out about them (and you know I will).

Noren, Budway in race for mayor? Oh this oughtta be good

.
Grace versus the graceless -- aaah, roadkill never looked this pulpy before
.
Gary Budway, president of the Venice Taxpayers League, has announced that he'll be running for mayor this November.

Budway appeared on a council election ticket once before, garnering some 200+ votes.

The Taxpayeres League has been in total fail mode since Budway took over from outgoing prez Herb Levine. Membership has fled the organization and key board members (including this writer) have resigned, citing Budway's alienating and gruff handling of the position.

Last Monday's monthly meeting of the VTL had to be canceled as there aren't enough board members left in the organization to form a quorum at meetings.

So if that's Budway's approach to accidentally killing off a once-thriving civic organization,  I can't wait to see the political road kill that he is destined to turn himself into.

Meanwhile, former two-term councilwoman Vicki Noren (nee Vicki Taylor) picked up papers today with the stated interest of entering the mayor's race. Noren isn't committed yet to entering the race. In an interview earlier today, she stated she is considering running and wanted a good look at the entry requirements for this year.

A Noren / Budway race for the mayor's seat should prove to be hilarious: grace versus the graceless, brains versus the semi-literate. Budway will never see the train coming.

Has the Venice Police Department over-managed itself into law enforcement irrelevance?

.
By failing to balance the need for public safety against its cannibalistic appetite for eating itself, the Venice Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Julie Williams, is becoming a danger to the very public it is supposed to be protecting
.
Several stories that I have been working on for some time have all dovetailed into current stories involving the upper management of the Venice Police Department, which in turn brings into question the city manager's ability to manage and city council's ability to oversee both the city manager and the police chief.

For several months I have been researching allegations made by county resident David Moore that a Venice police officer committed perjury in an attempt to secure a reckless driving conviction against Moore last year. Moore opted for trial by judge and successfully defended himself against the charge by accusing the officer in open court of lying. Moore obtained a video from a local business that, according to Moore, shows that the officer was not where he claimed to be when said officer allegedly witnessed the violation, and that showed Moore driving in a normal and safe fashion through an intersection when the officer claimed under oath that Moore was driving like a rocket-packed bat out of hell.

Judge Kimberly Bonner took several months to issue her decision, during which time she reportedly reviewed the video evidence and weighed it against the cop's written statement. Finally, in late September of last year, Bonner ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the criminal charge by stating somewhat cryptically that "the evidence, as indicated by the evidence" (sic) showed that Moore was not guilty of reckless driving. Bonner stated in her ruling that Moore had committed the violation of speeding (as Moore admitted in court that he had been going some six or so miles per hour over the limit), but that speeding alone did not constitute reckless driving.

Translation: Bonner didn't believe the cop.

I've been studying the video evidence and the audio of the trial on and off since the beginning of this year. There's still a few questions I have that remain unanswered, like why the Venice Police Department never investigated the outcome of the trial, seeing as Chief Williams has a well known predisposition to investigate anyone on her payroll that she doesn't like for ridiculous sounding reasons (anyone remember the Michael Frassetti story?) and has been known to look the other way on allegations of wrongdoing pointed at her favorites.

Dovetailing into this story is the tale of Officer Demitri Serianni, who Williams referred to as "despicable" for challenging an internal investigation against him earlier this year. While Serianni was cleared of any wrongdoing through the city's resolution process, that didn't stop Williams from stating to the Herald-Tribune's Kim Hackett that Serianni was a "despicable" officer for questioning a decision made by a fellow officer (coincidentally, the same officer that the above David Moore has accused of perjury and that Judge Bonner didn't believe).

Serianni is currently under yet another internal investigation, this apparently for the way he defended himself against the last set of charges, and as if that isn't overly weird even by Venice standards, wait until you read the next few paragraphs on this page.

Venice Florida! dot com has asked for paperwork surrounding Serianni's recent annual evaluation in which Serianni was taken to task for, among other things, making public records requests (in order to defend himself ) in writing. The police have had me bouncing back and forth between city hall and the police department in an as yet unsuccessful attempt to get the full documentation.

However, dealing with the partial documents that the police have provided me with, it becomes clear that Chief Williams is blissfully unaware of Florida's public records laws.

If I am reading these documents correctly, and if Chief Williams was actually stupid enough to make this accusation, Serianni was told that if he wanted to make public records requests, he was to make those requests verbally only. In his annual review, Serianni is taken to task for continuing to make his public records requests in writing. Such a chastisement itself is a clear violation of Florida's public records laws.

Serianni is also cited for his low "stats." What are stats? The department's desired amount of traffic tickets. This is not a quota, I am told, because quotas are illegal, and if the department had quotas, offenders would be able to successfully challenge their tickets in court based on the fact that they were merely a means to the end of meeting an officer's quota. So nobody at the VPD ever gets disciplined for not meeting their quota; instead officers are sanctioned for not meeting the desired "stats," which, the department wants me and you to know, are not quotas.

Also, read Kim Hackett's story on the arrest of Joshua Graf in today's Herald-Tribune very carefully.  Hackett raises an interesting issue, although she stops short of asking aloud the obvious question in the story: why did the cops wait a day to arrest a dangerous and violent person and why, oh why, haven't the police raided and searched the known drug dealing house in question? From out here in the cheap seats, it looks like standard VPD actions with drug dealers: give them plenty of notice and time so that drugs can be disposed of BEFORE an actual raid takes place.

Some members of the VPD will take great exception to this point of view. Such management members of the VPD should prioritize public safety over revenue enhancement through traffic tickets, and maybe this kind of criticism wouldn't be necessary.

I'll be back in a few days with more details.