An (unofficial) update on the Palmer Zoning litigation; Palmer I, II and III. The present standard of court review

Unfortunately, the current Palmetto Bay council is led by a Mayor and Vice Mayor who appear reactive, rather than proactive in their performance.  This has led to the constant need for prodding from those outside the council to push for a return to more transparency and place information into public view. 

Any copious reader of the deep crevasses of the village web site and agendas can now begin to find that there are litigation reports made public.  And all this after the Mayor Stanczyk accused me of asking them to “break the law”. She actually went further and stated that “He was advising us to break mediation and break confidentiality. Those are things you don’t do. He has told us to break the law and to put our village at risk.”  See the Miami Herald article online, January 10, 2012, Palmetto Bay to appeal court decision on school expansion.

My response is contained in that article.  Hardly.There is no reason to hide public information and true intentions. I would personally like to thank current Council member Howard Tendrich who singlehandedly pushed to have litigation information posted on the Palmetto Bay official website and into public view. 

As I have stated previously, there needs to be a return to a true interactive process in Palmetto Bay, a process that unfortunately has come to a screeching halt with the current Mayor and Vice Mayor.

What is it that the current Mayor and Vice Mayor don't want the Palmetto Bay taxpayers to know?  

Fortunately there has been a groundswell of concern coming from my fellow residents, both seen in public as well as expressed privately to the council members demanding increased accountability and real disclosure, not just unindexed information out for the web surfers to incidentally come across.  

The right to know through open discussion versus forcing residents to engage in "a hunt for scattered information"

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 decisive issue. I do not agree that posting a 25 page legal brief, especially unannounced on the front page of an official website infrequently viewed is transparency.  I say it is burying the information and breaking up the relevant information in a manner that would challenge the best scavenger hunter.

The results of this litigation will have a much more profound impact on the finances and future direction of Palmetto Bay over any one person winning the Miami Herald's Tropic Hunt.

It is strange that now there is a quality legal report that is posted by the Village Attorney in the current Palmetto Bay agenda – Click on to view the Village Attorney Update, dated February 6, 2012. Scroll deep - the information is contained back on page 6.

This information, technically listed, but certainly not openly mentioned to web site readers, hardly disrupts Palmetto Bay village official business, so why does it take so long to come out and placed so matter of factly?  No one is asking for the internal legal theory, if there is one, but let’s lift a veil from the secrecy and explain to the taxpayers who have invested so heavily in this litigation how far this litigation has progressed.  

Litigation timeline of PALMER I, II AND III

I have put together a timeline and explanation of the Palmer litigation to date.  Please note that no laws ‘were broken’ nor was any attorney/client privilege violated.  Just click "Read more" below to view.  The timeline and narratives are all based upon materials, dates and information clearly out in the public domain, but I have tried to compile in here, accessible through one source designed to aid in the understanding of the present posture of the appeal.  No one event defines the current status or scope of the present litigation. It all needs to be put together and placed into a timeline.

It is also important to note that I am only discussing the zoning matter, which I refer to in the current set - PALMER I, II, and III, not any of the other law suit(s) filed by Palmer for damages against Palmetto Bay.  Those are separate matters entirely for another time.

The two recent court orders were rendered on February 11, 2011 and then on December 23, 2011.  But let’s review some of the proceedings that bring us to the present zoning litigation:

Litigation Update: Palmetto Bay continues fight against Palmer Trinity School over attorney’s fees

This is a story that begs the question whether Shelley Stanczyk and Brian Pariser overplayed their hand (using our tax dollars) by failing to seize the opportunity to settle this issue once and for all when Palmetto Bay was briefly in a position of strength.  There was a missed window. The oral argument did not seem to go well for Palmer.  Update on the Palmer Trinity Litigation – Oral Argument held June 12. I opined at the time that "If I were a betting man, I would say that Palmetto Bay prevails in the 3rd DCA action.  This was judging from the questions / comments from the 3 member appellate panel."  However, Just like an obsessive gambler who doesn’t know when to stop, when he wants to keep doubling down, because he is convinced that the next roll will reverse the recent bad fortune and be the winning roll, the played out to the end, and busted.  It got worse. The Third District Court of Appeal ordered Palmetto Bay to pay Palmer Trinity’s legal fees accrued during the village’s losing battle to keep the school from expanding.  See Update on the Palmer Trinity Litigation – Palmer prevails on its motion for attorney’s fees and costs against Palmetto Bay.  Friday the 13th indeed.

Now Howard Cohen of the Miami Herald reports that Palmetto Bay is going back to the Third District Court to try to fend off the attorney fee award.  See: Palmetto Bay fights Palmer Trinity School over attorney’s fees.  This motion appears to be a confession of “mea maxima culpa” and where the village promises to behave in the future if the court backs off the award of attorney’s fees to Palmer.  This pleading is NOT posted on the village website under its litigation tab.  It could easily be posted there and should be posted there.  There is significant background contained that would assist village residents to gain an increased understanding of what this case has become.

Palmetto Bay makes an important admission in the motion, that it now accepts the Appeal’s Court decision that Palmetto Bay is not entitled to the extraordinary relief that the certiorari petition it filed represents. The motion argues that ‘It is quite another, however, to imply, by awarding attorney’s fees to the opposing party, the (Palmetto Bay’s) position was “so devoid of merit on the fact of the record that there is little prospect it will ever succeed.”’

In essence, Palmetto Bay Council is saying it is really, really, sorry, and did not mean to push the court so far to where the appellate court determined that awarding fees and costs was the only way to make Palmetto Bay comply with the numerous prior decisions of the previous courts. 

The Council should have gone further to say that the award of fee is not hurting the council as it is not their money, but that the court was only hurting the taxpayers who may then retaliate by returning the hurt on the elected officials at the ballot box at reelection time.

What do I think?

Many have asked what I think.  I would think that the Village will have a very hard time overcoming the award of attorney’s fees and costs given the strength of the court opinion. Third District Court of Appeal was direct and used the language “willful disobedience” in overruling prior actions of this Palmetto Bay council in failing to heed previous judicial instructions.  This is serious stuff.  Senior Judge Alan Schwartz remarked that village’s recent actions were “an exercise in superfluousness and futility.”

What was the legal advice? Was the council advised by $650.00 an hour attorneys that this was a meritorious fight?

I do agree with the filing of the motion, so long as it is filed in good faith, and not as a further delay tactic.  Why should Palmetto Bay taxpayers have to foot the bill for this latest court action?  I am torn however, between the council’s fiduciary duty to protect village money versus the Council majority trying to extend the litigation simply in order to prevent release of the village shade session transcripts prior to the upcoming November election.

People have asked me what I think of the legal advice given in this case. I think the Village received outstanding legal advise. It is up to the Council to take the advise and act appropriately. None of us will know the facts, be able to review the advice, until those transcripts are released.  

It is interesting to add that it would be in the best political interest of any incumbent up for election to hold up release of the transcripts until after the elections.  The less than subtle hints put out there indicate that there will be some quite interesting reading in these transcripts.  I say release the transcripts now.  The litigation is over.  The trial tactics are not relevant to the motion for fees (unless the transcripts indicate that the trial tactics were simply to ‘delay to deny’ or out expense Palmer in an expensive litigation war.)

I agree – it is unfair that the taxpayers of Palmetto Bay are being singled out while the CCOCI agitators go on scot-free. It was not the “taxpayers” who were pursuing the litigation against Palmer.

I do share many of the concerns of residents I have spoken to in that why is Palmetto Bay being singled out to pay the bill, as the Miami Herald has continually reported, A group of residents who banded together as Concerned Citizens of Old Cutler, Inc. to join Palmetto Bay in the fight the school were not ordered by the court to pay Palmer Trinity’s legal fees. Note that the group, commonly referred to as CCOCI was created in large part by current councilmember Joan Lindsay and her husband.  Both have left the board just prior to her election, but she is still a party to remaining lawsuits involving CCOCI, Palmer and Palmetto Bay. 

It will be interesting to see whether any of the council majority have raised questions at any of the attorney client shade sessions to discuss why CCOCI is not assisting by paying its fair share of the court ordered costs and fees.  Will CCOCI be filing anything in support of Palmetto Bay to attempt to extricate itself from the potential of a six figure judgement?  Wouldn’t this be fair?  After all, has not the village council been there supporting CCOCI? It is time to return the loyalty.

Palmer Trinity also has a separate lawsuit against Palmetto Bay, CCOCI and Joan Lindsay, who was the head of Concerned Citizens before she was elected to the council, seeking about $13 million in lost tuition and other costs allegedly created by the village’s actions. That lawsuit is pending.

The litigation issues are far from over.

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.

Palmetto Bay and the bizarro world of non-disclosure: The continued lack of transparency from Stanczyk and Pariser.

When will the taxpayers of Palmetto Bay become fully apprised of the specifies of the next potential big lawsuit? The suit (Petition for Writ of Certiorari actually) is pending in the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, titled: Shores at Palmetto Bay, LLC v Village of Palmetto Bay.  This is the litigation that has resulted from the December 2011, summary denial of the Charter School application. 

The village officials may have finally ‘fixed’ the Palmetto Bay litigation link: see Thursday, July 12, 2012, What is the status of the Palmer litigation? Does anyone have the right to know?  (Thank you squeaky wheel).  The "Current Litigation" page now appears to be on a new link (CLICK HERE). 

But there is far from complete information which makes me more concerned than ever.  It leads a reader to erroneously think the listed opinions are the limit of Palmetto Bay's current litigation.  That is why this new and ‘improved’ page is misleadingly.  After all, it is entitled “Current Litigation in Village of Palmetto Bay” and, sorry Shelley Stanczyk and Brian Pariser, but I have to call you both out on this, it is entirely (as you both far too often accuse others) MISLEADING, if now outright dishonest, due to the fact that there is much more litigation going on at the present time. 

I am starting to come to the personal conclusion that neither of you can ever make complete and proper disclosure to the public.  Do you think we all are so stupid that we will never find out there are other cases pending, or do you both simply like to surprise us?  I know, we can all view the attorney’s report temporarily posted monthly with the regular village agenda, but who thinks that you have to go to so many different places to assemble your piece-meal information, especially when you allegedly have assembled what many thought to be a single site for all information.  Again, Shelley, that is misleading. This is another example of bad leadership; why so many people are getting disgusted with you and Brian.

Back to the page.  At the time I posted this blog article, the page provided only the following:

Current Litigation in Village of Palmetto Bay

Disclaimer: The following order is subject to an appeal and is not final during the pending litigation:

    Opinion Filed Dec. 22, 2011
    Petition Filed Jan. 23, 2012
    3rd DCA Decision (Not final):  July 5, 2012

What are the real cases of interest, why the page was actually set up?

Palmer Trinity Private School v. Village of Palmetto Bay ; Circuit Court Case No.: 08-28977 CA 30;
Palmer Trinity Private School v. Village of Palmetto Bay, Appellate Court Case No.: 10-259-AP; Palmer Trinity v. Village of Palmetto Bay under Circuit Court case no. 10-34016 CA 20

All are pending.  The Appellate Court Case No.: 10-259-AP may see a renewed motion for attorney’s fees and costs filed by Palmer due to the strong language contained in the recent Third District Court of Appeal decision and its award of fees and costs.  The original motion was denied without prejudice.

Interest readers and residents should start looking for what happens next in Shores at Palmetto Bay, LLC v Village of Palmetto Bay, pending in the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, case No.: 12-029, regarding resolution 2011-85. The petition for writ of certiorari for was filed on January 12, 2012, but is not getting much attention, but it will be soon.

Other lawsuits of little or no interest:

There is at least one personal injury lawsuit pending, which is unfortunately part of being a service provider: Justin Anctil (Parent) v. Village of Palmetto Bay, Circuit Court case 11-14303 CA 01 (others have been filed and settled, which are not unusual).

The village is nearly always a party in any foreclosure suit filed regarding to private property located within Palmetto Bay.  These are far too numerous to list.

Update on development issues relating to the Palmetto Bay Village Center. Reviewing the staff updates to weigh our best options

A Special council meeting requested by David Singer was held on Monday, April 2, 2018, regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC) legislation. On March 19th during the zoning hearing, the Village Council considered an agenda item seeking to repeal the zoning regulations adopted through an ordinance 2016 for the Palmetto Bay Village Center and revert to regulations adopted in 2008.  During the Special Council Meeting this past April 2nd, the Village Council once again discussed the VMU zoning designation for the Palmetto Bay Village Center at length.  Councilman Singer, the sponsoring Council Member for an alternative ordinance, presented the differences between the regulations of the 2008 Ordinance and his amended one. The Village Planner, our Traffic Consultant and Village Attorney discussed historical and zoning background and answered questions to provide clarification between pending legislation and the impact of competing ordinances. CLICK HERE to view the video of this Special Council meeting.  The meeting should be an eye opening for many. Numerous presentation boards created for this meeting to address the differences between his amended/clarifying ordinance (which passed on a first reading 3-2) from the ordinance that repeals the 2016 ordinance entirely.  (CLICK HERE to view the presentation boards)  Here is what the facts show:

·       The 22 acres have development rights. There are NO covenants prohibiting development. Our village attorney clarifying that ‘any attorney opining otherwise is committing malpractice’.

·       All village planners, past and present, agree that the 22 acres are in fact developable. Past and present village attorneys have opined that these 22 acres are developable. The land is an Interim Zoning district.

·       A DERM vegetation management plan is NOT a covenant prohibiting development.

·       The Village Planner explained that this land was once part of a general zoning under a long-past county plan that predated Palmetto Bay.  This designation had at one time provided for 1,400 residential units located throughout the overall property.  This was prior to the Burger King World Headquarters.

·       The maximum development allowed under the 2016 ordinance is based upon a traffic study – The traffic study cap/requirement is REMOVED if the ordinance is repealed. The 2016 ordinance places a real cap on development at the Palmetto Bay Village Center.  This was a negotiated cap.  Therefore, a repeal of the 2016 ordinance would remove it and create uncertainty, risk of greater traffic.

·       304 units, not 389, is what the PBVC is limited to if the developer refuses to deed over the 22 acres (you can’t keep your property and transfer developmental rights too).

·       The maximum number of units drops from 400 to 304, from the 389, if the developer refuses to deed over the 22-acres to the Village.

·       The clarifying ordinance and the numbers determined by our Planner can reasonably be defended in court, much more than a full repeal, as it is based upon the evidence as it is based upon competent substantial evidence.

·       The repeal would re-establish the development of 400 units plus the development rights associated with the 22 acres and a hotel as well.  The 2014 attempt to allow development in the 22 acres involved an initial 41 units, but placed that land at risk for a maximum up to 220!

·       The risk of a hotel is real, as hotels are commercial uses, not residential, not subject to the 100/300 units in the 2008 ordinance. Hotel units generate significantly more traffic than residential.

·       If, and that is an “if” the PBVC ever built a hotel, it would be limited to a maximum of 189 hotels rooms (exhausting any right to any residential) or would drastically reduce any residential if less than 189 rooms are built as hotels generate no hotel and a maximum of 389 units under the 2016 ordinance, versus unlimited development of a hotel (at a much higher traffic count that residential units) and 400 units plus the development rights to 85 units or more in the 22-acre buffer area, if the 2016 ordinance is repealed.

·       Less traffic will be generated through the traffic controls agreed to in the 2016 ordinance and demonstrated last night in the presentation. Repeal reopens the Palmetto Bay Village Center to risk of aggressive growth and substantially higher traffic counts.

·       The PBVC is the last piece of property in the “Urban Infill Area” (properties east of 77^th Avenue).  Properties located within the Urban Infill Area are not subject to the same traffic concurrency requirements, therefore there is no traffic restrictions with a repeal but there is with the 2016 ordinance (77^th Avenue ends at 184^th Street).

·       Repeal of the 2016 opens the 22 acres to development at 5 to 10 units per acre (applying simple math shows the risk to be 110 to 220 units in addition to the hotel units and 300/100) for a potential total of 620 units and in addition the real possibility of a hotel.

·       The 2008 ordinance was adopted unanimously- 5-0 - after over 40 public meetings were held and included the public Charette process (The Charette report was accepted in September 2004).

I am always willing to listen to alternatives. That is what a public process is about.  But why not argue the merits of the 2016 traffic controls placed in the 2016 ordinance.  Offering only ‘don’t be afraid to litigate’ is not a good option.  We need to be proactive and find real solutions. Did Palmetto Bay learn nothing from the Palmer and Charter School litigation? Both BIG losses as the Court recognized the property development rights in both cases over the simple denial of development by the Village Council.

Legislation versus a zoning hearing:

I offer the above on the legislation, separate from the zoning hearing that will be held late this year.  The Mayor and Council essentially sit and act as judges in a quasi-judicial proceeding – matters such as the Palmetto Bay Village Center – at any zoning hearing. I have made it clear that I will continue to conduct myself accordingly. Any discussion based upon political catch phrases and emotion, ignoring the evidence would not be defensible in court.

The opinions above are consistent with the near action taken in 2014 where prior Mayor Stanczyk attempted to development of those 22 acres. That effort failed due to political reasons, not due to legal barriers – the 2014 staff report NEVER claimed any inability to deny that development due to any alleged covenants. The proceedings leading up to the 2016 ordinance arose directly out of concern that those 22 acres would in fact be developed. It is my goal that the 22 acres must be protected.

The Court rules on the evidence and law, not emotional wants or political statements.

Elected officials need to be honest about property rights and cease the false contention that a property has no rights greater than what currently existing on a property. 

It takes true leadership to speak the truth about developmental rights.  It is tempting to hide behind political rhetoric and let the courts decide. Of course, that what we saw in the Palmer litigation - years of politically fueled litigation entanglement that led to approximately $1 Million – that’s right, $1 million in hard monetary costs to our Village.  And, in the end, the prior administration ended up totally capitulating after years of assurances of litigation success.  See:  Palmetto Bay approves Palmer Trinity expansion, by Lola Duffort, Sept. 26, 2014, documenting that the Village gave back all gains in the zoning issue, releasing about 80 conditions. All of this could have been resolved years earlier through rational compromise, but the politics got in the way of common sense, as well as, in my opinion, a failure to own up to basic legal principals.

The article details include:

Mayor Shelley Stanczyk made a point of underlining before the vote that all was not said and done with Palmer Trinity’s litigation outstanding against the village and some of its residents.

“We’ve been promised a new era tonight,” she said. “But I think that era only starts – in my estimation – when those lawsuits get dropped.”

Ball Mehta said on Tuesday that the school was looking to end litigation, but would not say whether or not it would seek a settlement.

“Discussions are going to commence and I anticipate that we will find common ground so that the parties can reach an acceptable resolution,” she said.

The bottom line is run for cover when your officials rely upon political tag lines and cute campaign sound bites, used far too often to gain populist appeal over truly serving the public good. I have followed much of this litigation on my blog at eugeneflinn.com. In fact, CLICK HERE to follow the “litigation” label you only need to scroll down 5 posted to read articles of how the Palmer litigation progressed.

The real issue is this – there are very real property rights vested in the PBVC site. Do we want to be proactive and limit development or fall victim once again to the political campaigns that want to litigate with our collective tax dollars and then ‘blame the courts’ for any adverse consequences?

Do we want to risk real controls agreed to in the 2016 ordinance by repealing it and having the courts decide.

In summary, the stakes are real.  We either engage and work to reduce our exposure using what leverage we have or turn the entire matter over to a court and risk a real unmitigated traffic disaster.

Time for village to settle with Palmer | Palmetto Bay - Litigation management. An important election issue

Time for village to settle with Palmer | Palmetto Bay
Click the link above to read Grant Miller, Publisher of the Palmetto Bay news, article.  Miller asks the important question: “Who will step forward to settle the Palmer Trinity issue, Palmetto Bay’s most divisive issue?”

It is election time and shouldn't litigation management be a key issue, especially for the current vice mayor, a licensed attorney who has managed litigation in Palmetto Bay more like a casino pit boss than a trained lawyer who should be looking out for the best interests of his clients, namely we the people. 

As Mr. Miller points out, “(t)he tactics of letting the courts make all the decisions have been devastating for Palmetto Bay.”  As well as “(w)ill 2013 be the year where a statesman (or woman) steps forward to show some leadership and bring an end to this black cloud overhanging the village?”

Now simply known as “the decision” the court published its opinion that the current Palmetto Bay Council (actually three of the five) 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.

Mr. Miller points out that word is out that all cases could have been settled. Perhaps he is taking in part of my prior blog post:  Update on Palmer litigation. The story of hubris and a very missed opportunity to settle from a position of strength (Monday, October 8, 2012)

I agree with Miller.  It is time for the electors of Palmetto Bay to stop rolling the dice and elect someone with some spine to take control over the endless litigation that is plaguing our community.  Miller is right, the residents and students are stuck in the middle, having no voice and worse, no ability to influence any change in ongoing lawsuits.

Don’t let the “wishful thinking” of Mayor Stanczyk and Vice Mayor Pariser continue as they roll ‘snake eyes’ at our expense.  “The politicians need to know that this is not about their egos. Lawsuits should be properly managed in the best interest of the residents.”

What is the status of the Palmer litigation? Does anyone have the right to know?

The Village council met last night (Wednesday, July 11, 2012) in what is known as a shade session.  I checked the village litigation page at 11:45 AM on Thursday, July 12, 2012, and found the “litigation” link to be dead. All information has been removed.  Clicking onto the litigation link for the Palmetto Bay official website only provided the following:

Page not found

The requested page could not be found.

__________________________________________

This is not acceptable.  Mayor Stanczyk needs to immediately drop her self-proclaimed allegations of  government in the Sunshine or “transparency.”  Palmetto Bay has gone fully opaque under her and Brian Pariser's terms of office.

Information can be made available to Palmetto Bay residents without giving up “trial tactics” or “attorney / client privileged” information.  Mrs. Stanzcyk was able to speak with the press for the July 7, article Appeals court slams ‘intransigent’ Palmetto Bay council. Herald Reporter Howard Cohen interviewed Shelley Stanczyk on potential next steps: “Right now, it’s hard to say,” Mayor Stanczyk said. Legally, the village could apply for a rehearing or ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case. 

“We haven’t had an opportunity to meet with Eve and haven’t had a chance to meet with the manager,” Stanczyk said. The council is expected to meet Monday night at its next regular council meeting. “The five of us have to make that determination,” she said.

OK, so NOW you can talk to the press, after all those previsous cautions that you had to keep tight lipped.  Don’t tell us how you are going to do it, but you can tell the residents as to whether you have accepted the jurisdiction and the decisions of the courts (plural) or whether we are moving forward incurring more costs and attorney’s fees.  Obviously the Palmer litigants will know, if you are either negotiating or will be pursuing additional appellate review, so why subject interested taxpayers to further delay?

Additionally for those looking for background, why is the village litigation page currently removed from the public view?

Click on the “litigation” label below to see prior articles relating to village litigation.  Please also review my prior posing Thursday, April 12, 2012 posting: I invite Mayor Shelley Stanczyk and Vice Mayor Brian Pariser to watch a video of the Wednesday, April 11, 2012 press conference and learn how to communicate information concerning court cases to the public. It can be done. Here is a good example:

Franz Kafka would be proud. The Stanczyk method of “transparency” reads like the Kafka novel: “The Trial."

Update on the Palmer Trinity Litigation - Scheduling Order rendered 2/27/2012

The Third District Court of Appeal issued a scheduling order on February 27, 2012, in the case of Village of Palmetto Bay, Florida. v. Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc.  CLICK HERE to review the official public online case docket, case number 3D12-190, for the Third District Court.

What this means: The litigation moves forward. Palmer Trinity School was ordered to file its response within thirty (30) days of the order.  The Village will be required to file its final brief, the reply, within five (5) days from the time Palmer Trinity files the response.  

No word yet whether any party has requested or if so, if  the court will hear oral argument on the appeal.  I will post any updates as they become available.  

Prior decisions can be read by clinking the link to prior posting: Read the Palmer court decisions posted on South Dade Matters

Two of the Court decisions have been posted on the South Dade Matters blog.  

Click the case number to read the December 23, 2011, court decision: CaseNo10-25912232011 

Click the case number to read the February 11, 2011m court decision: CaseNo10-259AP.

Both opinions contain significant background that should assist interested readers in becoming updated in the status of the ligation between the Palmetto Bay council and Palmer Trinity School.  There are other orders and court filings not posted here that would also be of assistance in gaining a full and complete understanding of the present issues.

In response to public demand, Palmetto Bay recently added a litigation tab located in the right lower column of its official website.  This scheduling order has not been added to the page as of 6:20 PM, Tuesday, Feb 28, 2012.  CLICK HERE to view the official Palmetto Bay litigation page.