Monday, October 8, 2012

Update on Palmer litigation. The story of hubris and a very missed opportunity to settle from a position of strength

I am posting this article not because I am taking a side. I am posting this article because you have a right to know, regardless of which side you are on in this very divisive issue. 

The Palmer story could have ended during the period of June 12, up to July 3, 2012, after Palmetto Bay did so well at oral argument.  Palmer thought they lost – and bad, that they would have to live with no expansion, staying at 600 students.  This would have been a good time to settle and end all litigation, past, present and future.  The zoning case could have been settled for anywhere from 600, to 900, to 1,150 students, but more importantly, focusing on the big picture, conditioned upon Palmer dismissing its civil rights claims for $17 million (currently demanding $13 million to settle). 

Unfortunately, Brian Pariser, Shelley Stanczyk and Joan Lindsay were far too over-confident of winning the appeal after the dramatic oral argument.  There is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson is that elected officials cannot get too cocky and that only settlements bring closure. Lawsuits and court decisions can take unexpected and, more importantly, unwelcomed turns.  In fact, the sun can burn your wings if you allow yourself to fly too high on hubris.

Instead of being statesmen on behalf of the village and negotiating from a position of strength and settling on June 13 or as soon thereafter, their overconfidence lead to going to the well once too often and having a binding final appeal decision forever published in case law legal opinions where a court determined that Palmetto Bay officials acted either from “wishful thinking” or “more likely a willful disobedience” when the Village Council placed a 900-student limit on Palmer Trinity School after a lower court told the city, in effect, to allow up to 1,150 students.

As a lawyer, I know what those words mean and they sting. A neutral appeals court actually ruled that a government acted contrary to rules of law and improperly frustrated an applicant appearing before it (Palmer).  “Wishful thinking” denotes derision, that the thinking of the current mayor and majority of council were not clear.  “Willful disobedience” means that just that.  Harsh words indeed.

Remember.  I was mayor during part of this period, up to 2010. But the findings of the courts, the orders enforcing the prior decisions and the overturning of the failure to comply with prior court orders all occurred under the current council.  I never acted or permitted any acts termed by the courts to be wishful thinking or willful disobedience.  We prevailed on the first level appeal in 2008.  Palmetto Bay, under my leadership, complied with the third district court of appeal after it overturned our first appellate victory.

The Miami Herald reported this as well. There were strong words from Councilman Patrick Fiore in the article, who as quoted states that “…the council majority of Mayor Shelley Stanczyk, Vice Mayor Brian Pariser and Councilwoman Joan Lindsay had wasted the taxpayers’ money on fruitless litigation.”

“Three members of this council, despite knowing what the village’s chances were of being successful in this appeal, decided to move ahead and continue to spend taxpayer dollars and, once again, the court has ruled in favor of the applicant,” Fiore said Friday.

Again, I thought Palmetto Bay had won the appeal based upon the strongly worded oral argument. So did Palmetto Bay officials, and so did Palmer, its board members and supporters severely deflated.  Everyone thought Palmer would have no expansion, not even the 900 students that Brain Pariser voted to support at the 2010 zoning hearing.

This would have been a great time to settle, to gain certainty, to look magnanimous, to entice Palmer to drop its lawsuit for $17 million in damages; to move the community forward.

Brian Pariser and Shelley Stanczyk chose instead to bask in the glory of the oral argument. Their perceived massive route of their archenemy Palmer, acting as if they had prevail before the Third District Court of Appeal that would be forever known as Palmer’s Waterloo. 

It was Waterloo, but not as intended.  Vice Mayor Pariser, a lawyer by trade, allowed defeat to be pulled out of the jaws of victory and how decisive action could have ended this litigation for the good of Palmetto Bay.

There is a lesson to be learned when you entrust strategy and decisions on significant litigation to current leaders who cannot bring themselves to negotiate, even when in a position of strength.  We cannot litigate the pending Palmer lawsuits into oblivion.  The three leading members of the current council cannot engage in further “wishful thinking” that they can will or delay this Palmer lawsuit away.

Brian Pariser’s “wishful thinking” did not work before; it certainly will not work now.

20 comments:

  1. I hope you are joking. Could Palmetto Bay have settled the lawsuits?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pariser is unable to make any decisions. Watch him at meetings. He looks out in the audience to a spouse of a council member for either guidance or permission before each vote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simply outrageous.

    TS

    ReplyDelete
  4. We await the response from the current council members as to why they failed to protect the interests of the residents of Palmetto Bay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This entire situation makes me sick. How dare Vice Mayor Pariser not take action and allow this situation to fester.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The entire council should be ashamed for the mismanagement of these lawsuits. They merely doing their best to push the inevitable off for the next group. There is no leadership here. You are right. Mr. Pariser is the fire. He is a lawyer, but you wouldn't know it by his failure to act.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So why didn't you settle when you had the chance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We held mediations. I admit that I made the mistake of allowing then Councilwoman Stanczyk to attend rather than handling it myself. There is a lot contained in the recorded attorney/client minutes that have never been released.

      It is time that these transcripts are released.

      Finally, note that we won the first appeal, then lost on the second. We complied with the court's ruling 5-0. The second zoning hearing was held the last year I was in office. The appeal and other action (including zet two more zoning hearings) were held after I left office. I was not on the council that voted contrary to the appellate decision and did not vote to continue the appeals that resulted in the strong language from the Third District.

      Delete
  8. Makes my stomach churn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is some serious stuff. The Council is charged with protecting the interests of the entire village. Any council member who cannot make the tough decision should resign right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that's some "wishful thinking" right there!

      Delete
  10. Thhe three amigos are beginning to quickly unravel. It is clear that they have committed malfeasance in office and pander to the few loudmouths who regualary appear at the council meetings.

    There is no respect for speakers. Spouses to the council members are the worst offenders. This is far worse than high school bullying.

    I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stanzyck via recent email: "I just received an email from a supporter of a candidate for Vice Mayor saying that the Vice Mayor could have settled the Palmer Trinity issue and how. His statement was a bold faced lie and of course he knows it. He was once in a position of trust in our village. (While the issue is being resolved many attempts were made in the past by this Council. Remember, they are suing us and they continue the process. Not the Village.)"
    I would like to know HOW is this a lie?
    Also, her statement that "they are suing us and continue the process. Not the Village" is unbelievable to me! Perhaps the only reason the Village is not pursuing this is ... ummm ... because it lost, has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees, and has basically has no other recourse!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You hit a nerve. Mayor Stanczyk is spreding more lies.

    She put out an e-mail where claimant that Palmetto Bay's reserves are at over $8 million, far in excess of what best practices calls for.

    She is lying when she states that the current council has contributed to our reserves yearly, that if the legal expenses compromised our Village at all our reserves would not have increased.

    She is clearly mistating the truth. As you pointed out, the reserves have dropped from $11.4 million to the $8 million. This is not addition. THis is known as subtraction.

    Palmetto Bay has become the village of misinformation from elected officials.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see that Mayor Stanczyk put out a lie filled rant trying to rewrite history. She actually still claims that they have added money to the reserves every year. WHAT A LIAR!. $2.3 million was taken this year alone. How low will she go?

    ReplyDelete
  14. And now little miss Stanczyk is crying victim. She is harassed at work and at home. We need this recall to work. She has to be the most deceitful, most unprofessional elected official ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irony at play. She has been doing the victimizing. Actually both she and her family. Madam Mayor with her stupid new laws designed to drive off anyone from Hialeah or Westchester and her husband who has actually threatened people in chambers with physical violence.

      Delete
  15. Does anyone know what the status is of the recall effort?

    I'm usually not in favor of recall movements ... I believe in the electoral process ... but sometimes a mistake so huge has been made, or the elected parties' actions are so gross, that a recall is necessary. It's time to get these bozos out of here!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. HI Gene. I am slow to catch up on my e-mails. I just saw this and I have to say that Pariser clearly fails to understand the art of negotiation. The case appears well positioned for settlement, the Judges are basically telling Palmer to take what Palmetto Bay will offer,and yet Pariser and council fail to pull the trigger and their opportunity to end this case on a high note. Worse yet, the opinion that follows the oral argument devastates Palmetto Bay's credibility before the judiciary in any future actions. I think he could be brought before the bar for failing to keep a client reasonable apprised of the status of his case if he was a private attorney in a private case. Where was the choice for people to make a reasonable decision?

    This is bad case handling, bad case handling. Don;t leave out their hired gun. Why was Mr. former Florida Chief Justice, not telling them to take the bull (and I mean bull) by the horns and settle this now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where is this settlement that the council was talking about? More talk with little action. I am sick of how long this continues to drag on. Geez. Enough already.

    ReplyDelete