Lorenzo v. City of Venice was a transparency lawsuit before the judgepedia:Florida Twelfth Circuit Court:Florida Twelfth Circuit Court in Florida in 2008. Judge Robert Bennett was the presiding judge.
[edit] Important precedents
This case established that communication performed through private emails by public officials concerning public business was in violation of the Florida Sunshine Law and the Florida Open Meetings Law.
[edit] Background
On May 20, 2008, attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen sent a letter to Venice City Clerk, Lori Stelzer, requesting "email communications to and from council members, including non-city account emails utilized by council members, for the period beginning November 14, 2007, through the date of receipt of this letter, including all email attachments."[1] A second request was made on June 12, 2008, and directed to members of the Airport Advisory Board after it was learned from an email dated May 31, 2008, that an airport advisory board member had "deleted electronic public records in his custody and control."[1]
The suit alleged that 9 current and former city officials violated state open meetings laws by conducting official city business over their personal emails. The plaintiffs filing suit were activist Anthony Lorenzo and Citizens for Sunshine, Inc., a non-profit devoted to promoting awareness and compliance with open government laws.
[edit] Injunction of council's computers
Early in the case, Circuit Judge Robert Bennett issued an injunction authorizing the seizure of the personal home computers of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and a council member. The personal computers were subjected to a forensic examination. During discovery, numerous depositions of elected and appointed officials were conducted. Subpoenas were also served on citizens accused of being liaisons, including third party subpoenas directed to internet service providers. From that discovery, plaintiffs learned that a secret code had been developed to refer to the council members in case their emails were intercepted. The code used characters from Disney's Snow White animation film. Because there were 7 members of City Council, each of them were named after one on the 7 dwarfs. The Mayor's code name was Doc, the Vice-Mayor was named Happy, Council member Noren was named Sleepy, Council member Simmonds was named Grumpy, Council member Zavodnyik was named Bashful, Council member Tacy was named Sneezy. Airport Manager Watts was named Dopey. Council Member Sue Lang was referred to under the code name Snow White.[1]
Six substantial motions for summary judgment were filed by the defendants. Only one was granted. Trial was scheduled to begin on February 23, 2009. On the eve of trial, the parties reached a settlement that required approval of the City Council.
A Special Meeting of the Venice City Council was scheduled for February 28, 2009. A quorum of four council members was required for the vote. Because three members of the City Council were defendants in the case, they were not permitted to vote by state ethics laws. City Council member Vicki Noren, who was not involved in the litigation, refused to attend the scheduled meeting to protest the terms of the settlement agreement that called for the City, rather than individual officials, to admit to violations of the Public Records and Government-in-the-Sunshine Law. As a result, there was no quorum to vote on the proposed settlement. [2]
[edit] Ruling of the court
[edit] Settlement
On March 10, 2009, the Venice City Council voted 3-1 to approve the settlement agreement. The settlement imposes broad remedial requirements on the City to ensure the preservation of public records. City officials are expressly prohibited from using private email accounts to conduct official business. The agreement also requires mandatory annual training for all elected and appointed officials on the requirements of the Public Records and Government-in-the-Sunshine Law and calls for the establishment of an official policy that strongly discourages the exchange of position papers or memoranda in advance of a meeting. The settlement also requires the City to pay substantial attorneys fees, as mandated by the Public Records and Sunshine Laws. Estimates of the costs to the taxpayers in the City of Venice for attorneys fees are well over $1 million dollars.[2]]
Plaintiffs were represented by attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen, based in Sarasota, Florida, and attorneys Matthew Leish and Amy Leigh Carstensen of Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Michael Barfield served as a Legal Consultant to the legal team.
[edit] Final Judgment
On April 1, 2009, Judge Robert H. Bennett, Jr., entered a final judgment finding that the City of Venice had violated both the Sunshine Law and the Public Records Act. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The Court also set a two-day evidentiary hearing for September 14-15, 2009, to assess attorneys fees and costs against the City. In early June 2009, the City Council ordered that taxpayers pay the legal fees of their private attorneys of more than $250,000. [3] [4] On June On June 25, 2009, Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a fee application seeking $2.2 million in attorneys fees and costs.[5] [6]
[edit] Associated cases
[edit] See Also
[edit] External links
- Judge refuses to exclude some e-mails in Sunshine Law case, Herald Tribune, February 12, 2009
- Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence
- Order granting the Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence
- Fourth Amended Complaint
- Sunshine lawsuit e-mail exam turns up little, Herald Tribune, December 30, 2008
- Nation watches open-records case, Herald Tribune, June 14, 2008
- Why Sarasota citizen is suing City of Venice, ABC 7, June 13, 2008
- Judge: City officials must hand over home PCs, Herald Tribune, June 12, 2008
- Courtroom View Network Lorenzo v. City of Venice
- Settlement Stipulation
[edit] References
