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:
