Venice City [Hall] Hell -- the official blog of Venice Florida! dot com

The lies of Greg Giles

2011-11-02T12:05:00.001-04:00

.
The Venice Gondolier admitted that they are scared of me in a recent editorial, a line so wonderful that I am using it in political ads. This, however, has led the newspaper to go beyond stating their opinions. So disturbed at my candidacy, the paper is now actively in the game of trying to affect political outcome by peddling fictions, this through the work of their star ace cub reporter (and Alaskan ex-pat) Greg Giles, who has been inventing an alternate universe and, in issue after issue, reporting this set of fictions as fact.

Sounds like a paranoid delusion, right? Because the next question you would have is: Why would the Gondo do that?

One doesn't need to look too far into the organization to understand how truly scared the newspaper is of me. Giles' immediate supervisor is Bob Mudge, an ex-attorney who, prior to working for the Gondolier, was an in-house attorney with the Boone law firm.

For those of you who are new in town, Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines, & Koda is the local law firm that has financially supported the campaigns of the current majority of city council and who also represent any land developer who wants to get anything built in Venice or annexed into Venice. Attorney Jeff Boone is currently the chair of the Charter Review Board, which has been tasked with reviewing council members' benefits.

Below is a slightly modified version of an email that was sent to Gondo editor Bob Mudge on November 2, detailing some of the many recent fictions that Giles has invented.

BTW: Online campaign reports, to verify statements below, can be found at http://www.venicegov.com/Municipal_links/City_Clerk/election.htm

TO: Bob Mudge
FROM: John Patten
SUBJECT: Corrections requested

Today's paper was a wowser of misinformation, and it could only be deliberate. I refuse to believe that Greg Giles is so stupid as to make these kinds of misstatements by accident. I'll get to those in a minute.

But first, regarding factual misrepresentations, apparently deliberate ones, made by Giles in recent issues of the Venice Gondolier:

Sue Lang has not contributed to my campaign. Nor has her husband. Giles cited my campaign reports, but no such entries exist in these readily available public records. Giles has made this up.

The Venice Taxpayers League has never sued the City of Venice. Giles has made this up.

Here's a two-fer of glorious journalistic fraud that made it to the front page, above the fold: Despite the fact that the Gondo printed it as gospel (swear on a stack of pancakes), there is no campaign law prohibiting city council candidates from working fair booths of political parties. Giles has made this up. Morever, contrary to a statement made in the Gondo, there is nothing in the oath of candidacy that addresses the issue. Giles has made this up.

I graduated from USF in 1990, did my internships with the city in 1989 and 1990. Giles has me graduating in 1990 and doing the required internships in 1999, some nine years after they would have been required. Giles has made this up based on his lack of knowledge about how higher education works.

I do not have Asperger's, nor have I stated that I do have it. Giles has made this up.

Now, regarding the glaring, well no other word will do, lies that appeared in today's paper:

Accepting loans from anyone other than yourself for campaign purposes is a violation of law. I have not done it, nor have I indicated I have done it on my campaign reports. Giles has made this up.

I have not accepted $1,000 from anyone, nor have I reported anything of the kind. Accepting more than $500 from any single person is a violation of council campaign law. Giles has made this up.

Two creditors have also donated to my campaign, but the donations are unrelated to why they are listed as creditors. Giles made a bad assumption, then invented the campaign loans based on his bad assumption. Giles has made this up.

I did not say my credit card debt was for personal expenses. Giles asked me if it was for personal expenses several times. I refused to answer several times, with him begging, "Aw, c'mon...."

I finally stated, "Whatever. Do you have any questions about the issues?" So, again, gee what a surprise, Giles has made this up.

So that's seven glaringly invented fictions, plus two misinterpretations based on lack of basic knowledge, and all designed to paint me in the least positive light possible. Nice work.

I do not mind the Gondo publishing their opinions. That is a First Amendment right. I do object to the Gondo publishing their invented fictions as fact. That is not protected by the First Amendement.

You are free to not like me.

You should not be free to lie about me. Unfortunately, your publication and I have a serious disagreement about that last bit.

The above isn't really an advert in the classic sense, but still -- to cover my butt -- I need to include this disclaimer:
Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Patten for Venice City Council, Seat #1

Nonpartisanship questioned by dummies who don't understand campaign laws

2011-10-24T15:20:00.002-04:00

.
The following is a Letter to the Editor at the Gondolier, which I guarantee you that they won't publish as they are not in the habit of correcting their errors. This is in response to a recent article that stated that myself and Don Anderson had violated campaign laws by working at the fair booths of national political parties during the recent Sun Fiesta. In reality, Dave Sherman and Gondo reporter Greg Giles invented a non-existent law and then chastised us for breaking it. Proofreaders and fact-checkers at the Gondo let it slide into print without verifying the accuracy of the story.

Contrary to what you might have read or written, there is no prohibition against political parties getting involved in non-partisan elections. Quite the opposite is true and always has been. To write that partisanship has been "happening subtly for years" indicates that the writer has either been sleeping for a few decades or is writing about a land I know not where.

There is a huge legal difference between a non-partisan race and a non-partisan election. Venice has non-partisan elections.

A non-partisan election means two things and two things only: No (D) or (R) appears on the ballot and there are no primaries. That's it. That's all it means.

I researched all of this many years ago and every once in a while I have to educate someone on the law and the history behind it.

In the 1970's, Venice (then a typical southern heavily Democratic town) did away with partisan elections for one reason: it saved money by eliminating primaries in city council elections. The political parties stayed involved and are still involved, although to a much lesser extent today.

I don't know anything about this so-called "spirit of the law" that Dave Sherman invented and that the Gondo wrote about. I do know that I and the other candidate were accused by the Gondo of breaking campaign laws when, in actuality, we were obeying the letter of the law.

While we are talking about campaign laws (and this is important because as candidates we are seeking to become lawmakers), there's this glass house thing going on with Dave Sherman, as there is specific legal wording that has to be used on print advertising, and Sherman is breaking that law. Well, he's kind of in the spirit of the law, but he's definitely breaking the letter of it in his handout brochures. It's the same mistake that Bud LeFebvre is making on his campaign signs and that Jeanette Gates made in her advertising last year.

The correct wording has to be this, exactly this and nothing else but exactly this: "Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Doe for Venice City Council, seat #x" where x is the actual seat number. Anything else and you are violating election campaign laws.

Sherman's ads leave off the words "and approved." Gates' ads last year left off the words "paid for and." LeFebvre is so off the mark that it defies description. His signs state, "Paid for and approved by Bud LeFebvre no party affiliation."

Those are three actual bona fide violations of campaign laws that have been committed by candidates who can't figure out how to obey existing campaign laws. In Sherman's case, after failing to understand a simple part of campaign law, he goes the extra step to invent fictional campaign laws that he expects others to obey.

Granted, the disclaimer wording violations are minor. I have no intention of reporting them to election officials. Anyone would have to be a real jerk to report these petty violations.

However, to my less-than-knowledgable opponent I would issue a reminder that people who live in glass houses shouldn't invent fictional campaign laws. Or something like that.

Patten's platform -- a self-serving bit of self-promotion

2011-10-17T13:24:00.000-04:00

.
Venice United had me fill out a questionnaire, and I'm proud of what I wrote, so here it is, below, in full. They never did endorse anyone. Seems that in the end, they wanted someone who looked distinguished like Sherman, but that thought like me.

Go figure.

Anyway, this pretty much spells out my platform and how I think for those that are unfamiliar with my writing over the years.

"Democracy doesn't work unless you participate." -- Frank Zappa

1. From 2007 – 2010, the City of Venice spent a great deal of time and money, including a plethora of citizen input, to create a comprehensive plan designed to serve the City of Venice for the next 20 years. With the 2011 city council, this plan has come under attack by special interest groups, specifically the Toscana Isles project and the Venice Airport. How do you feel these and other comprehensive plan changes / revisions should be handled?

A.): Unfortunately, thanks to our illustrious governor (with a lower case 'g') the DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs, the agency responsible for collecting, approving and enforcing the state's collection of Comprehensive Plans) has been castrated. This makes any Comprehensive Plans (including Venice's) optional luxury documents that carry about as much legal weight as the text on the back of a box of Wheaties.

The Comp Plan is still law, but it won't be the DCA enforcing it in any great capacity. The way things are falling out, it looks like citizens will have to sue in order to get compliance in the case of a disagreement. At least that is my current understanding.

So to answer by walking away from the question: The Comprehensive Plan is unfortunately legally irrelevant. We are on our own. You may now kiss the environment goodbye as whatever makes money for land developers and their attorneys (especially their attorneys) is now law.
--------------------------------------------------

2. Of late, council meetings which started at 1:30 PM have gone to 9:00 PM or later and then resumed the following day for several hours. Some believe this is caused by long winded oral dissertations by council members, others think it is caused by this council micro managing the city’s business. What are your thoughts?

A.): It isn't of late. This has been going on for as long as I can remember -- long meetings, I mean. Depends what is on the agenda. As land development issues heat up, count on more.

My concern is these hidden-in-plain-sight workshops that have been held all over the city, usually on extremely important and core issues, and NEVER televised or video recorded. It's been a great way to sneak stuff through.

All meetings should be video recorded and available for download.

Now, as to the length of meetings -- what cost democracy? Moreover, I want my chance to speak my mind. I can't very well tell others to shut up or keep it brief. I'm not going to promise you that I will try to make them shorter, although, God knows, the boredom at some of these meetings when the gums start flapping extensively is mind-numbing.
----------------------------------------------

3. While the current council has created a vision statement defining Venice as a nice place to live, work and play, the vision fails to identify the economic road forward for the city of Venice. What do you see as the economic engines (s) which will drive Venice for the next 20 years?

A.): Real estate and tourism. That's always been the economic engine here -- people come down on vacation, like the place, then buy into it. Building more and more houses only adds to the current real estate market glut and drives every one's home values down. With so many abandoned and foreclosed properties, it doesn't make much sense to add more to the mix, plus the county is approving massive quantities of land just outside our borders for near-future development.

Does anyone remember how we got into the real estate boom and bust? Anyone? Oh, but here's an idea on how we can get over the damage that the burst real estate bubble caused -- let's do it all over again, because we have learned our lesson, right?

Pop quiz: What do they call it when you repeat the same behavior over and over, expecting different results?
--------------------------------------------------

4. Recently, there has been a controversy regarding benefits for council members and charter officers, both past / present and future. What is your position regarding benefits for these groups?

A.):First off, it isn't recent. Herb Levine and I tried to get this in the public's eye for a number of years and nobody had a clue what we were talking about. Former elected officials Dean Calamaras, Rick Tacy, and Jim Myers violated the charter when they voted on changes to employee benefits that they used to then give themselves FREE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR LIFE. Later, Vicki Taylor would also benefit from this, however the perk was already (illegally) in place when she took office, so I can't really fault her -- I know from talking with her that she had no idea of the background of the perk.

This perk was and is in violation of the charter.

This controversy came to light because of postings on my web site, Marshall Happer took it from there. This wouldn't be a controversy if it weren't for Herb Levine and I continuously trying to bring it to light. Now, almost accidentally and as an afterthought, the seeds of doubt that we planted are bearing fruit in the name of Marshall Happer and Ed Martin (although we complained about it to Martin while he was in office only to get a blank and empty gaze back -- now suddenly Martin sees the light; funny, that).
--------------------------------------------------

5. What (3) issues do you feel your council will need to address?

A.): If growth is to be allowed, we must make sure that any growth is compatible with what we already have and we shouldn't repeat the same mistakes of the past (like putting houses next to industrial land again).

We need to take a long look at how one Charter Officer, namely the City Attorney, can rack up such huge legal bills with little to no council knowledge of what is going on in the numerous lawsuits that the city has involved and is involving itself in. If you were being sued, would you just hand your credit card to your attorney, tell him to do whatever he feels is OK, and not look back while the case is ongoing? When you are the defendant / respondent?

Not me - I want to know what is going on (and, in fact, I already do). This and prior councils, including members who claim to be brilliant attorneys, just turn a blind eye away from what has been the single biggest unnecessary financial black hole. The city just settled an EEOC discrimination case in the police department with an out of court settlement of a whopping $190k. While City Attorney Bob Anderson has claimed that insurance has picked up that tab, he never said what our legal tab was. There are currently two other lawsuits pending against the city from the police department, and council is oblivious.

Third, we need a city manager we can trust, not Nancy Woodley who has alienated the unions with past statements that anyone who has filed a union grievance will not be promoted or allowed to laterally transfer (source: reprimand from Marty Black in her employee jacket), nor one who helped cover up the shenanigans of our former building department head, Hans Behrens.
------------------------------------------------------

6. During the discussion of the 2012 budget, the issues of fire department staffing, city staffing and the possibility of increasing property taxes have taken the stage, front and center. What is your position on these three issues?

A.): As I stated in council meetings on the record, giving tax and impact fee breaks to the Boones and their clients on the backs of employee layoffs is unforgivable and ought to be criminal. It was guaranteed to start a union war against the city, one that could cost the city nearly as much as the $3 million in breaks that were being offered to the Boones. In this pre-election period, Dan Boone has pulled the request -- for now, anyway. I'll guarantee you that he will want it again in the second week in November, right after this election, and he may well get it, depending on the results of this election.

For the record, I am opposed to merging any existing fire or police services with county agencies. I believe it will not save money and we will lose autonomy.

Further layoffs may be an awful necessity, but I would prefer a hiring freeze across the board. The idea of layoffs is an ugly thought that makes my skin crawl. People's lives are in the balance, real people, and this city goes way out of its way already to make working life uncomfortable for its many employees.

Taxes? Raise them? OK, fine. Who can afford to pay them? I suspect that raising taxes may very well backfire and give less revenue to the city by causing people who can't afford the tax raise to walk away from paying them entirely, as the tax collector's office will not let you make partial payments on past due tax bills. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the near future in the both the cities of Sarasota and North Port, as both have decided to raise taxes substantially. If what I think will happen there actually does happen there, it'll be a disaster on multiple levels.
----------------------------------------------

7. An issue which consumed a great deal of the 2007-2010 council’s time and money was the Venice Municipal Airport. This topic has divided the community pitting neighbor against neighbor. Do you think these issues have been handled properly by the current council and if NOT, what would you have done?

A.): We virtually condemned a number of homes by arbitrarily placing them in an RPZ (Runway Protection Zone), thus temporarily, more likely permanently, devaluing them with no thought of compensation. That's not fair or right and may well result in yet another set of costly lawsuits (think Bert Harris Act). Mayor Holic's argument that these homes have always been in an RPZ defies logic, history, and common sense. For starters, if they had been in an RPZ before, that would and should have shown up in the title research prior to the current homeowners' purchases. It didn't.

The city is going to have some problems here, this was an unlawful taking, and this could be even costlier than the Sunshine Lawsuit, the EPA battle, and the current police department lawsuits combined.

Strangely, in order to do get those homes into an RPZ, the city effectively photoshopped two 60 foot trees out of the RPZ, trees that clearly exist in the RPZ in the backyards of two houses on Airport Road just two houses away on either side of Harbor Drive. This council was told this recently by members of the reformed Venice Neighborhoods Coalition at an open council meeting, yet the council members I have asked since all claim they have no memory of receiving that information.

You can actually sort of see the trees in the aerial photos if you already know what you are looking at. The written docs and charts that would require their mention are strangely mum on their existence. According to the city's docs as submitted to the FAA, these two trees do not exist.

Meanwhile, this deception of the FAA means that the FAA has no knowledge currently of the existence of two 60 foot trees smack in the middle of an airport runway flight path in what should be a cleared part of the RPZ. Which was the plan all along. Sure hope the pilots see them, at least.

By saying this, I become an enemy of the airport politically, which is not true at all. The airport needs to be there, if only to prevent more development and buildout at the south end of the island. To stay there, it needs to be economically viable, which means no more sweetheart leases written by the Boones and bypassing the city attorney (Hona Luana, the Venice Golf Association, etc.) so that the airport's coffers gets fair market value. The supporters of the airport need to play fair -- Art Nadel is no longer here. While the airport is free to fly over its neighbors, it doesn't need to bully them on the ground as in the case when Paul Holliwell referred to them as "anti-airport Nazis."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

8. There has been some discussion suggesting the council should be reduced from 7 to 5 members and a separate discussion on the possibility of districting the city. What is your position on these issues?

A.): Do it. I would even offer up my seat. But that's not all.
--- Go from 7 to 5 members.
--- Make terms of four years, thus calling for elections every other year instead of every year -- cuts election expenses by half.
--- No districting (this whole town isn't much bigger than some city's districts, and then there is the size of the county's districts in comparison)
--- Eliminate seat numbers so we don't have a repeat of this circus of an election, which, in turn, is an EXACT replay of the 2004 elections (see my comments made in 2004 at http://www.veniceflorida.com/features/2004endorsements.htm). As I stated in 2004, if five people are running, vote for any two. This is just like how the Sarasota Hospital Board elections are done.
------------------------------------------------------------

9. Following the resignation of Isaac Turner as city manager, the council has been unable to agree on a path forward; a. to make the acting city manager ( Nancy Woodley ) the city manager or b. using an outside recruiting agency, perform a national search for a new city manager. What is your position and why?

A.): Seeing as I am the guy who gave Woodley her nickname of Godzilla due to her blind stomping on employee rights, take a wild guess as to how I value her as a city manager, or even as a department head for that matter. For her stances on employee and union rights, Woodley shouldn't just be fired, she should be deported to Wisconsin to live with those who share her views. She has done more to foster unfairness, employee favoritism, and fear than any other current city official, a holdout from the George Hunt / Dean Calamaras administration that has failed to notice that Hunt is no longer here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

10. If elected to the city council, what would be your goals for the next 3 years?

A.): Get a decent city manager (we haven't done it yet, but maybe); better understanding and oversight of our current legal problems with an eye towards the root causes in an attempt to avoid them in the future (that is not as difficult or vague as it sounds); fair treatment of residents and employees (that'd be a first, eh?), fair treatment of both airport businesses AND the neighboring homeowners (it is possible, but it will take a unified effort, and I am not sure that can happen), protect the land values of existing homes, make developers pay their fair share in impact fees rather than burdening the rest of us, reduce vehicular inventory, more.....
----------------------------------------------

11. How would you describe yourself: A slow growth advocate, a proponent of reasonable growth, or a pro-growth advocate supporting revisions to the comp plan?

A.): Slow growth, and I am the only slow-growth candidate. The other three are vocally pro-growth, although they use the meaningless phrases 'intelligent growth' or 'smart growth' -- buzz phrases used to hide a pro-growth, pro-annexation agenda.

If you want this economy to grow, overbuilding is not the way to do it; in fact, overbuilding is just a repeat of how we got to where we are. Supply and demand -- you want property values to rise? Limit the availability until the market catches up.

Real estate and land devel;opment are two entirely different concepts and can be at odds with each other. The real estate market must be protected and nurtured. The land developers can fall off a cliff as far as I'm concerned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

12. Which member of the current council do you most respect/admire and why?

I like Kit McKeon and John Moore, although I don't agree with some of their votes. Moore in particular, for bringing to light things like the blank lease in the Sharky's debacle a few years back, plus his stance on demanding better clarity of terms in land development issues. Moore has been a constant advocate of due process, and for that he has been a bit of a hero of mine.

This page: Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Patten for Venice City Council, Seat #1

Sherman given permission to pad his resume by Circus Arts Foundation

2011-10-17T07:05:00.001-04:00

.
On Dave Sherman's campaign literature, he states he is on the Board of Directors of the Venice Circus Arts Foundation. Not true, says member Rosemary Vauzanges in a reader posting on Ed Martin's blog.

I confronted Sherman at Saturday's candidate forum at East Gate Homeowner's Association. Sherman stated that he had since resigned from the board even though he technically was never an actual board member, but he had acted as though he was a board member and was given permission to state he was a board member by Orlando Bevington, the non-profit organization's Exec Director.

If that doesn't make sense, don't feel alone. I had to play it back several times in my head before I could begin to figure out what Sherman wasn't saying.

The literature for the Venice Circus Arts Foundation, which can be found on their web site, shows three board members through the non-profit's history: Tito Gaona (founder), Armando Gaona, and Larry Ryan. Additionally, Orlando Bevington is listed as Exec Director and Debbie French as Office Manager (http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs068/1103530896159/archive/1107911428260.html).

Curiously, not mentioned is the name Dave Sherman.

Here's a screenshot from their site from June of this year, which would supposedly be just shortly before Sherman states he resigned from the board:

Larger copy of image can be found at http://www.venfl.com/features2/images/vcaf-screencap.jpg -- but again, no mention of Sherman.

In fact, a Google advanced search through the two domains that are used for the web site reveals no instance of Sherman's name ever being mentioned at all on the web site.

I called Bevington on Sunday. He ultimately refused to give me a yes or no answer to the question: Has Dave Sherman ever been a member of your Board of Directors?

What I got over and over was "He was asked to be on the board," and "He acted in the capacity of a board member," and, hilariously, "Well, we never actually finished the paperwork," this after Sherman's claim that he spent two years working with the group as a member of the Board of Directors.

I asked again and again: "So was or is he on the Board of Directors, yes or no?"

It is a fairly simple question that should be about as controversial as "Is there water in rain, yes or no?"

Bevington didn't see it that way. He saw a trick question by an unscrupulous and devious ne'er-do-well. He repeated those above three answers over and over again, while refusing to give me a straight yes or no answer.

Then things went strange. While I was trying to explain that little things really do matter, he interrupted me and then dominated the conversation by talking on and on without taking a break. For a full three minutes, I couldn't get a word in or ask a question. I have no idea what he was trying to yell at me, as I kept repeating: "Can I get a word in here?" and "Excuse me, can I interrupt your interruption?"

I apparently got every bit of information possibly available about the Circus Arts Foundation except the one-word piece of information I was asking for.

After he did it the first time, he finally took a pause and I told him he was preaching to choir about the arena, I am not the enemy, I would have gladly helped if they had just asked, but would he please just answer yes or no to the question of whether Sherman was or is on the Board of Directors.

That set him off on another droning long-winded diatribe that lasted another couple of minutes. I put the phone down and played solitaire on my computer until he finally paused. Then I asked again and got the same dance.

I never did get a yes or a no.

The closest he ever got to a yes or no was "He [Sherman] asked me if it was OK to put that on his literature and I said yes."

All in all, it was a highly entertaining converssation, but ultimately uninforming.

If I am correctly understanding this comedy duo of Sherman and Bevington, Sherman was never on the board; Sherman admits that he was never on the board; and both Sherman and Bevington agree that Bevington gave Sherman permission to lie about his title on his campaign literature.

If there is any misunderstanding on my part, I'd love to be enlightened.

Bevington also challenged my assessment of the asbestos problem at the arena, stating that I was exaggerating the problem in statements I had made and that I was an enemy of the arena.

I was part of the team that brought semi-pro boxing to the arena in the late 1990's. I have a ton of photos from those test bouts that were supposed to be used on a promotional web site that was never launched. The whole boxing project caved financially shortly after its launch due to lack of community support.

For verification of that, you can ask then-VACC board member Don Hay, as I was heavily trying to recruit him to the cause at the time.

So I am hardly an enemy of the arena.

According to Bevington, there's only a little bit of asbestos and it is in the floor tile and it can be resolved by putting a rug or some carpet over it. Oh and also in the flashing around the building. But that's it. Other than that, the building is completely safe. He wants me to stop the fear-mongering that happens when people mention the word asbestos. Such talk is apparently unhealthy.

The Venice Circus Arts Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to saving and revamping the old circus arena building on airport property. In spite of what they think of me, I believe in their efforts and wish them luck. I just don't realistically believe that their goal is achievable, but I'll be cheerfully proven wrong if they actually do manage to pull it off.

I've met and known (not very well, admittedly) Tito Gaona now for going on some 12 years. He came to my home one time to hire me to do his family circus web site back in the late 1990's, but I was asking a bit more than he wanted to pay at the time. I still have a ton of photos somewhere on my hard drive that I took of him and his circus group at the 1997 or 1998 Shark's Tooth Fest. He's a good guy. I like him and wish him well.

(note: I'm not sure if the following applies or not, so I'm placing it here in the event that it does)
Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Patten for Venice City Council, Seat #1

Sherman's campaign treasurer is CQG's blogger, Wick Headed Woman

2011-10-12T12:13:00.001-04:00

.
Listed on Dave Sherman's campaign treasury reports as treasurer is Andrea Cooper. You might also know her as Wick Headed Woman, the woman who ran Winston Wilmore's attack site against the Venice Taxpayers League candidates of Martin, Zavodnyik, Lang, McKeon and Bennett, even going so far as to give ex-mayor Martin the nickname of Mayor Martini. Cooper referred in print to the prior administration repeatedly, usually in conjunction with articles by Cooper and Wilmore or linked to from her site that supported airport growth, as the Slang Gang.

After Wilmore retired from the site, Cooper continued on with her politics page as Wick Headed Woman supporting Mayor Holic, and council members Gates, Daniels and Carlesimo. Cooper hasn't been active on the site since last April, but on her politics page are past slams against Golden Beach residents over airport issues and the like.

Venice Florida! dot com last year asked Cooper to take down a page in which she reproduced, without permission, a full article written by John Patten and originally posted on Venice Florida! dot com. Cooper was informed by email that she could link to whatever she wanted, but that she could not reprint whole articles. When she refused to comply, a DMCA complaint was filed with her internet provider, GoDaddy, who then took down the site for several days until Cooper agreed to comply with copyright laws.

Cooper has not unlawfully reproduced any of this web site's content since, although she does reproduce a number of articles taken in full from the Venice Gondolier. It is not known if the Gondolier has given her permission.

More on Wick Headed Woman / Andrea Cooper can be found at her web site, linked to below:

Cooper's politics page: http://www.wickheadedwoman.com/Venice_Politics.html

Cooper's airport page: http://www.wickheadedwoman.com/Venice_Airport.html

I have sought comment from Ed Martin, but so far he has not replied. Martin is sort of, semi, but not really, maybe, needs to do more research, gosh not really sure, etc., supporting Sherman in this year's election while stating that he doesn't want Patten to lose (I don't know what that means, either).

(note: I'm not sure if the following applies or not, so I'm placing it here in the event that it does)
Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Patten for Venice City Council, Seat #1

Ed Martin: short-term rentals are all Patten's fault so vote for Sherman

2011-10-10T09:14:00.001-04:00

.
NOTE: In politically supporting Dave Sherman, former mayor Ed Martin is blaming me for my stance on short-term rentals, implying that I am in favor of not regulating them.

That would be not true. I live next to some nuisance long-term rentals that are nightmarish at best, so I'm more than sympathetic to people who find themselves living next to an ongoing and never-ending Spring Break party.

So I sent the following to Martin and to Marshall Happer, who seems to partially agree with Martin on this point.

Hold on here, buddy. This short-term rental fiasco is your mess, Ed. You created it, you perpetuated it, and you needlessly cost us a couple of million dollars in legal fees and judgments only to end up right back where we started.

If elected, I get a shot at helping to clean it up. Trust me when I say that it is not something I look forward to, and the cruelest thing you might do to me is actually put me in office.

First off, I am NOT ARGUING FOR short term rentals. I am arguing against the continual legal stupidity as perpetuated by our city's legal department to take us down the wrong roads in nearly every legal adventure we find ourselves in. I'm sorry if this seems nasty again, but I am out to win an election and you appear to be trying to make me look bad by saying that you were right all along.
You weren't and you still aren't.

Also, both you and Happer should be paying attention to the Clearwater and Brevard County cases. If you think Venice alone has legal problems in short-term rentals, think again.

As to Venice, go back and listen to the winning arguments in the Venice case made by attorneys Richard Rumrell and Valerie Fernandez. They are up on YouTube, linked to below. These are the arguments I base my legal logic on, as the court agreed, not Bob Anderson and Andrea Zelman's arguments which you still adhere to and which the court rejected.

Politically, your argument here seems to be that Ed Martin is right about the short-term rental law, John Patten is wrong, so therefore vote for Martin's pick, Dave Sherman. You are trying to make as much hay out of this as possible with all of the legal gobbledegook that you can invent in the hopes that nobody understands.

Your logical shenanigans here may actually cost me the election if you can confuse enough people with your deliberate obfuscation, so good work there, Ed.

However, I should like to remind you that you had your butt handed to you in court on this one in a ruling linked to below (with full text) like I predicted and stated you would back in December of 2007 when the hearing that you chaired and presided over took place.

Listen to the arguments again, the ones that won the case against you.

First, attorney Valerie Fernandez, who accuses the city of a regulatory taking [of rights and land values] with the ban, and she argues that you cannot do this without recompense to ALL homeowners affected, not just the ones currently or previously engaged in short-term rentals. That actually appears to be affirmed in the court ruling below, and I'll show you where just a bit later on.

Valerie Fernandez' argument filmed at the Venice short-term rental hearing over which Ed Martin presided.-- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2PW9Moakjk

(note: I'm the one who posted all of these to YouTube back in late 2007)

Then comes Richard Rumrell, who exhaustively makes the same argument over the course of 40 minutes or so, which had to be broken down as YouTube only accepted clips of 10 minutes or less at the time:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqGUfzlb-T0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G7_woDEka8 -- main argument
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeGQNCVz0Sw
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAU8XU8Cso

For Ed Martin, this should be deja vu as he chaired this hearing and ruled against Rumrell.

On appeal, Judge Robert Bennett ruled that the City (Ed Martin, et. al.) was in error. See http://miamibeachpropertyrights.com/Venice_order_CA552SC_3_2008.pdf
More importantly, see the Judge Roberts' ruling in the Martha Gwynn case: thttp://www.heraldtribune.com/assets/pdf/SH214941111.PDF (the city is currently appealing this case, however I predict that the appellate court will rule against the city again, and I've been right every time so far).

Ed is right partially when he states that the court ruled in favor of the Appellee (Gwynn) in part because she was short-term renting prior to the ordinance. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that under the ordinance (which was not exactly struck down in this ruling, but it was mortally wounded), it was possible for existing owners of resort dwellings to comply.

HOWEVER, and this is the part Ed never addresses, -- The court never addressed whether or not that stipulation exempting existing renters and forbidding future new renters was legal as the question WAS NEVER RAISED in this case, and it is a fiction for Martin to say otherwise. In Martin's favor, the court noted that a city has the right to enact ordinances that protect the character of a community.

But that's where the good news ends.

The rest is bad for folks who live near problematic short-term rentals, and here's why.

The court ruled against the City NOT ONLY BECAUSE Gwynn had been renting prior to the ordinance, but THAT ALSO SHE HAD THE EXPECTATION OF BEING ABLE TO RENT SHORT-TERM, INDEPENDENT OF ANY RENTAL OR NON-RENTAL IN THE PAST (page 7) -- this, then, opens the floodgates to ALL homeowners who owned homes before the ban, not just to ones that have rented in the past.

So on its face, based on this ruling, everyone who owned a home prior to the ordinance passing could still rent short term if they brought their homes up to structural and legal conformity before OR after the ordinance passed. This ruling affirms that by clear inclusion of the affirmation of Appellee's argument here that she merely had the expectation of being able to rent short-term (which tosses your "use it or lose it" clause out into the street, which is what I have been saying all along).

In other words, if you bought a house with the knowledge that you could possibly rent it out short-term, the court is stating that the city cannot take that right away even if you never exercised the right to date.

Now go back to Rumrell and Fernandez and their arguments about value and a taking. Listen to the whole thing. Remember, they won, the court bought their arguments, not Bob Anderson's.

Now as to rights that may be transferrable. The court didn't make this leap yet, but it is easy to see that it likely would and that these questions may prove to be the final undoing of the City's stance: Is there an additional tangible seller's price dollar value attached to homes that can be rented short-term? If so, is that value transferrable or does it expire with transfer of deed under the city ordinance?

The same argument that Rumrell made for existing owner/renters can be made here that such a denial by the city would constitute a taking and the seller and/or buyer might be able to successfully sue the city for a taking under Bert Harris as they ALL ALONG had the same expectation of being able to rent right up until the City said "no, you can't do that."

That same argument that Rumrell made wasaffirmed by the court. There is no reason to believe that the court wouldn't affirm it again.

The court ruled that you, Ed Martin, and the rest of city council were wrong in your application of the law.

I argue that you apparently haven't learned anything since.

I'm sorry, Ed, but you blew it. Except for the doomed appeal, it's over. Stop blaming me for pointing that out and for disagreeing with your political failures.

As to the problem of nuisances created by short-term rentals -- a different tack needs to be made, one that hopefully also protects folks like me who live next to long-term nuisance rentals.
Which, again, I stated back in 2007, but you didn't believe me.

(note: I'm not sure if the following applies or not, so I'm placing it here in the event that it does)
Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Patten for Venice City Council, Seat #1

Rose gets a pass from Ethics Commission for going to second job while on duty at Venice Police

2011-09-21T11:54:00.000-04:00

.
The Florida Commission on Ethics dismissed a complaint filed by me against Venice Police Lieutenant Mike Rose. I am publishing the entire document (PDF file, 18 pages) along with a 2007 investigation into Rose performed by then-Captain Dave Dunaway (later interim Chief Dunaway and now retired) into an allegation that Rose was knowingly selling stolen Shimano reels through his bait shop, Mahi Mac's.

The main allegation I made against Rose was that he was working at his out-of-town bait shop during his work shifts and that he was using city police vehicles to travel back and forth between his two jobs.

The Ethics Commission found that the allegation was true, that Rose was indeed working at a second job while on duty and that he was using city vehicles to go to and from his second job. Normally, both would be prohibited actions, yet the commission recommended against taking any punitive action. The reason? According to the ruling, Rose didn't do anything wrong as he had been given permission by Dunaway, this in spite of the fact that (in the official narrative anyway), such permission was allegedly rescinded by then-Chief Julie Williams when she found out about it and that Williams immediately held Dunaway responsible.

Williams made it a point to publicly state at the March 25, 2010 city council meeting that giving such permission was improper on the part of Dunaway.

The dates on the documents provided to the commission should have raised some serious red flags as to the credibility of Williams' and Dunaway's version of events.

For instance -- Williams claimed in a now-famous city council meeting on May 25, 2010, that she had taken care of the matter when she first discovered what was going on. According to documentation at City Hall, this would have been in the first week of March, 2010 -- March 5, specifically, as that is when the city's H.R. Director, Alan Bullock, first made Williams aware that allegations had been made against Rose to the effect that he was working at a second job while he was supposed to be on duty at the police station (we are asked to believe that Williams and Dunaway, whose offices were next to Rose's, never noticed his frequent absenteeism on their own).

To be sure, Williams made Rose reimburse the city for hours misused by way of Rose giving five vacation hours back to the city, but this didn't happen until May 24, 2010, just one day before the May 25 council meeting in which Williams appeared before council to try to defend herself against public allegations of lack of oversight of her department (allegations made public by me, which the Venice Gondolier referred to at the time as an unfounded "rant").

Even odder is the fact that according to city responses to my prior public records requests, there is no paper trail prior to May 24, 2010, to indicate that Williams or Dunaway did anything in the way of investigating or documenting the problem, a direct violation of Williams' own written policies on how complaints against officers are to be handled. Then-City Manager Isaac Turner was reportedly told by Williams that she had handled the situation, this sometime prior to the May 25 council meeting. Williams stated the same thing to council on May 25.

Which leads to an obvious question, one that still hasn't been satisfactorily answered to this day:

Where's the paperwork to indicate that Williams had done anything?

If you have ever worked in or around law enforcement, you know that such organizations as the Venice Police Department are fanatical to the point of near-extreme paranoia about documenting every tiny mundane detail of daily life within the department.

So I ask again -- if Williams "handled it" prior to the city council meeting of May 25, where's the paperwork?

There's not even a memo to Rose telling him to stop going to his bait shop while on duty. No email either.

Additionally, Dunaway's memo where he takes the blame for giving permission to Rose to work at Mahi Mac's while on duty (memo included in Ethics Commission report) is dated July 1, 2010, some five weeks AFTER Williams told council that she had taken care of it and some four months after (she claims, anyway) she first learned that Rose was engaging in employment synchronicity.

This comes amid reports to this writer to the effect that within days of Williams making the public statement that Rose's supervisor (Dunaway) had given the permission to Rose to go to Mahi Mac's while on duty, Dunaway reportedly told several Venice Police officers that he had never given such permission, that Williams had thrown him under the bus, that he was furious, and that he wasn't going to play along.

If that last part of the story is true, and I believe it is, it would mean that Dunaway's memo of July 1 was a falsified document made in an attempt to save Mike Rose's career. As it turns out, that one memo saved Rose from further legal complications from the Ethics Commission.

It all makes sense when you understand that, at the time all of this was happening, Dunaway was up for retirement soon. He would go on to become interim Chief when Williams was later forced to resign, this due to the audio recordings of her in which she claimed that the entire police department building was bugged for surveillance and that she was more powerful than the President of the U.S.

Dunaway has since retired and moved out of state.

Prior to all of this comes another interesting story, that of then-Captain Dunaway investigating Rose for allegedly selling stolen Shimano reels (new and still in original packaging) at a price way under Shimano's stated retail value (PDF file - 2 pages).

The reels in question had been purchased with a worthless check by a Shimano dealer who was going out of business. These in turn were sold to Rose at an apparently ridiculously low price. Rose, in turn, was reselling them at prices lower than Shimano's listed retail value (Shimano does not allow their dealers to sell or resell new Shimano equipment at anything under their listed retail prices).

When Shimano sales rep Steve Barnhill started making inquiries about the stolen reels to the Venice Police Department, Dunaway quickly investigated the matter, determined that it was a civil matter, and instructed Rose to give the stolen reels not to Shimano rep Barnhill or to the police evidence locker, but to the man who originally acquired the reels by writing a worthless check, this in spite of the fact that Barnhill is quoted as stating that he would be filing a criminal complaint about the bad check.

The big irony in all of this is that Rose was the main officer involved in the numerous internal investigations that the department did, including the demotion and near-firing of a school resource officer for working extra unpaid hours at Venice High School and the accusations of destruction of electronic records that were aimed at former officer Mike Frassetti (an administrative hearing on Frassetti ruled that the accusations against Frassetti were false, that Rose and the department had been "overly zealous" in their persecution of the office; the hearing officer stopped just short of accusing Rose, Williams, the city's I.T. department, and City Attorney Bob Anderson of fabricating evidence).

If there is any lesson to be learned, it is this: if you work for the city and you want to get into some serious slacking, make sure you are very good friends with your supervisor (or, better, have some serious dirt on him/her) and get him/her to give you permission to do whatever you want -- steal a fire truck, sexually harass your co-workers, smoke dope at your desk, whatever. Here's the beautiful part: your supervisor can later use the Steve Martin defense ("Your Honor, I forgot it was against the law to rob a bank!") as Dunaway did in his July 1 memo. Smile sheepishly and say it was all a learning experience.

Trust me on this, as this is Venice and this is the way things work here. If you do all of that, whatever you have done will be forgiven. You and your supervisor will come out of this unscathed, even to the point of looking like inncent lambs who have been wrongfully persecuted by the nasty residents of this vengeful little burg.

Budway's blotter blather

2011-01-04T12:51:00.049-05:00

After slamming the late Herb Levine in the press and then boycotting Levine's funeral, Gary Budway objects to being criticized, says anyone who speaks ill of him is slanderous. Then the brown acid kicks in as Budway inadvertently admits to violating campaign financing laws.

click to embiggen
(artwork by Venice Florida! dot com)

Ex-VTL dictator Gary Budway (he wasn't really president as he never allowed elections), after getting bootf**ked out of the Venice Taxpayers League, spent quite a bit of ugly time and breath insulting the late Herb Levine. Budway even boycotted Levine's funeral, but the Gondolier gave him plenty of ink to issue his venal verbiage in an article by Greg Giles on Budway's fictional reasons for dumping the Venice Taxpayers League when, in reality, quite the opposite had happened.

It was outrageous enough that I responded in writing while creating a new award from this site: Scumbag Of The Year, which was co-awarded to Giles and Budway for their printed post-mortem slime job of Levine.

Budway's tenure as leader of the Venice Taxpayers League was nothing short of disastrous. Budway took an organization of over 500 members and managed to wreak such personal and professional havoc that within two years, those membership numbers had dwindled down to 2. Not 200. Not 20. Just 2 -- himself and Rosemary Vauzanges. That is an unbelievable 99.6% reduction in membership.

While I doubt that that would set a national record for non-profits, I'll bet it is some kind of state record for TOTAL FAIL.

What's worse is that this guy still isn't done trying to destoy what was once a strong citizen action group. He is actually trying to defend this record by continuing in ongoing personal attacks against me. I have a pretty thick skin, so I'm flattered. I think that the whole thing is pretty damned funny in a sort of sad and pathetic way.

Below is Budway's response, composed under the influence of some of the finest blotter acid that Budway can buy from the high school kids in his neighborhood. He is shopping this to the Gondo, but we're beating them to the punch. Budway posted this version to city council members via email, which is how I acquired it.

My comments are inserted in brackets and blue italics.
----------------------------------------------------------
[start of Budway's email to council here]
A guest column by John Patten on 12/18/2010 made many comments and accusations about me and the Venice Taxpayers’ League. Mr. Patten’s well-known rants are often lacking factual support, and can be characterized as figments of imagination from someone whose actions, as listed below, could be charitably described as eccentric, to say the least:

--- Threatening political candidates while chasing them down the street [Which candidate? What threat? Name names, Gary. Never happened; Budway is exaggerating an incident in 2009 when I spotted Emilio Carlesimo campaigning on the street and I tried to interview him on video. Carlesimo didn't want to answer the questions and he ran away -- see this video clip - JP]
--- Arguing with sign crews placing signs for candidates he deems unworthy [What crew signs, which candidates? a reference to this video posted by Venice Florida! dot com when Venice firefighters put up a humongous Carlesimo billboard in front of my living room window]
--- Holding shoving matches in Council chambers [When? With whom? a reference to an apparently drunken Winston Wilmore, who snuck up on me and physically attacked me twice in council chambers; Wilmore was physically thrown out of council chambers both times, he subsequently apologized in writing to then-mayor Fred Hammett for the disturbance-- see this news story]
--- Intimidating photographers with threats [When? Who? Not even a shred of truth here -- this is a reference to an incident that happened at a VTL meeting that I did not attend, but where Budway and several others harassed Emilio Carlesimo for taking photos -- I think that it was Budway who called the police on Carlesimo to get him kicked out of city hall. When I found out about it, I hit the roof. I subsequently apologized to Carlesimo for the behavior of others, informed him that he was legally allowed to take as many photos as he liked, and advised him to stand his ground. I further assured him that I would see to it that it would not happen again.]
--- Issuing bellicose “kick ass” challenges to persons at meetings with whom he does not agree [When? Who? Not true, although Budway physically challenged me at the last VTL meeting and I responded by telling him that I wasn't scared and that I'd be happy to kick his ass if he felt so inclined.]
--- Banging his head on the table when speaking to Council during the 5-minute Audience Participation allowed each citizen (He should start wearing his scooter helmet at all times to prevent brain damage) [true -- a bit of comedy theatrics that I did once to bring home the point that dealing with Mayor Ed Martin could sometimes be as frustrating and productive as banging my head on a table]
--- Refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord’s Prayer [I do not and never will pray in secular public places. Matthew 6:5-6: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Hilariously, Budway also openly criticized Levine once for not saying the Lord's Prayer, apparently not realizing that (ahem) Levine was Jewish and that the prayer is from the New Testament.]
--- Being so confrontational at political meetings that several candidates and one campaign manager who had signed up for the VTL Candidates’ Forum asked that Security be provided to prevent disruption at the Forum (The presence of a policeman ensured a peaceful meeting and we were thanked afterwards) [When? Where? Who? How? Again, name names, I always do and I will throughout my responses. I don't know what meetings he is talking about, but according to Budway, Harry Walia said this. Walia and his attorney/ladyfriend/campaign manager stated to me that they never made any such statement, that Budway made it up, and that the Gondo's Greg Giles printed it anyway while knowing full well that it was a fictional quote. Additionally, Budway and Giles stated in the Gondo and in private emails leaked to me that I caused a ruckus at the 2009 VTL political forum, the problem here being that the VTL didn't hold a forum in 2009.]
--- And last, but hardly least, posting on his web site a full-front, nude photograph of himself at our local controversial beach. (We know the Emperor Has No Clothes, but John surely could use some!). [true -- and I looked damned good at the time. Eat your heart out, Gary, you've always been a pug-ugly pudgeball. The shot is about 15 years old now, this was taken before I put on my current poundage. The shot was taken at a distance of around 50 yards, so you can't really see anything. I was going to repost it here, but I really can't find it. John Lennon had a nude on the front of Rolling Stone in the mid- to late-1970s. Sigourney Weaver had a memorable nude modeling shot. That was also in the 1970s. What year is it now, Gary? Oh, and Budway assumes that it was taken at Caspersen, forgetting that there are a number of legal nude beaches in Florida. I originally posted it as a humorous response to another's post.]

During the years I knew Herb Levine, we held many conversations on City topics. Herb had an encyclopedic memory of controversies in Venice, and could tell many good stories and jokes. He was committed to what he believed to be right for the City. I had great respect for him, and was honored to be asked to join the Venice Taxpayers’ League, then become a Director, and finally to be asked to be his successor. [Correction: Herb asked three others to be president, including myself, prior to Budway volunteering after finding out that nobody wanted the job -- Budway wasn't asked, he was the only one who came forward and was a replacement of last resort.]

At that time, I discussed Patten’s behavior at length, as well as his tendency to speak on behalf of the VTL although he was not a dues paying member. Herb and John had a reciprocal arrangement whereby the VTL’s Newsletter was posted on John’s web site and periodically Herb would contribute towards Patton’s expenses. [There was never any such reciprocol agreement, Budway is just making stuff up here. Nothing was ever that formal between Levine and myself. I did publish two issues of the VTL newsletter on Venice Florida! dot com as an experiment in distribution, but that was my idea and decision, done with Levine's permission but without his prompting; Levine paid my dues of $10 a year in exchange for computer support and occasional computer repairs; Levine never made any donations to Venice Florida! dot com with the exception of a fundraiser for legal expenses when former city manager George Hunt unsuccessfully sued the web site -- Herb donated $50 and promised more if I needed it.]

I warned Herb that I understood his long, mutually beneficial political relationship with Patten, but that, when I became President, Patten had to become less confrontational, as I considered his actions to be an embarrassment to the VTL and would not tolerate them. Herb had no problem with this. His attitude was, “You gotta do what you gotta do.” [If this were true, Levine would have told me as we had no political secrets; moreover it is ludicrous on its face: Levine could out-confront me any day of the week, I'm an amateur in comparison, and he was much better at goading politicians into revealing their true dumbassery. Take his arrest at the budget meeting in 2002 for example]

He also understood that I could not be a one-man band operation following in his footsteps: writing, editing, printing, sorting, labeling envelopes, and mailing Newsletters and fund-raising letters with only the help of his wife stuffing and sealing envelopes. My own view of a watchdog citizens’ organization has always been that such a group should be non-political and made up of active committees sharing the work. [How you can be a political watchdog and be non-political is beyond me. Herb couldn't figure out Budway's 'method' either, although we both tried to help Budway. I loaded the entire membership list onto Budway's computer and tried to teach him how to print labels, but Budway could barely figure out how to open the label program. Budway is still an AOL user, the refuge of techno-illiterates. On the contrary, what Herb did truly understand was that Budway was, in Herb's words, "a schmuck." Herb rarely, if ever, referred to Budway by his real name, Budway was always "the schmuck" and we knew who he was referring to. That's a high swear word to a Jew -- it's a dirty joke referring to the sound that circumcised penis skin makes when a Rabbi drops it on the floor.]

As the months of my VTL tenure went by, it became increasingly obvious that Patten was going to continue to speak as he wished on behalf of the VTL. We finally had words at a Council meeting. He asked me if I was telling him he could not speak on behalf of the VTL? and I replied “Yes.” He threatened to resign, although, as I have mentioned before, he was only a member in his own mind and had never paid dues. ( At least to me.) I told him to go ahead and send in a letter of resignation. He did, and the Board, which included Herb, voted unanimously to accept the resignation. [This never happened -- the boy is on drugs. I always spoke as myself or from Venice Florida! dot com as I backed away from VTL involvement when Budway took over. There was never any such argument. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as myself and board members objected to Budway taking peculiarly crazy stances on behalf of the VTL -- for example, I resigned from the board AFTER Budway took the senseless and moronic public statement that he and the VTL were opposed to the high school football team travelling to a different state to play in an ESPN broadcast game, in spite of the fact that ESPN was picking up the tab. It was a classic "Why does Budway hate the high school?" moment inspired by his friendship with school board critic Norm Lupo. I later resigned from the League itself after Budway. without getting approval of the VTL board, sued the school board in the name of the VTL for violating the Sunshine Law and Public Records Law. It was determined by Judge Robert Bennett that the infraction was so minor that the school board did not have to correct any prior votes or actions, although attorneys fees were awarded to Andrea Mogensen, attorney for the VTL in the case. The only thing that the VTL got out of the lawsuit was a promise that the board wouldn't do it again and a reputation that Budway and the VTL hated the high school and its students. This, in turn, caused Ted Koszarski, Ali Hicks, and Tom Brener to immediately resign from the VTL board.]

Patten and his friends soon became busy with the fruitless task of electing Happer, Lang, and Zavodnyik. Now and then, several of them would drop in on the monthly VTL meetings. One of them objected to the two Young Professionals who were sitting in on meetings to become acquainted with VTL. [I have no idea what he is talking about or who Budway thinks my so-called friends are in this context. I was unaware of any Young Professionals attending as I was not attending during the time Budway says I was, but I would hardly have objected. Hell, I once invited Thor Trammell to the meetings and later suggested to him that he take a run at city council.]

Another, a member of the Chamber, accused the Young Professionals of being spies for the Chamber. [So the VACC is accusing itself of spying on itself and the VTL? WTF? Does Budway's retirement package include psych benefits? The VTL has always had open meetings. How one could spy by attending an open meeting is beyond me. Budway used to accuse John Simmonds of spying on the VTL when Simmonds would attend the open meetings, so go figure.] It became obvious that they were restive and spoiling for action in future. [Those voices in your head again, Gary? They're real. The whole world really is out to get you. Green monsters from space, too]

By the end of the November elections, they approached Herb, who had stopped attending either VTL or Council meetings, and was looking dragged out and drained. Nevertheless, they approached him with the idea of taking over the VTL, or, if that were not possible, forming a new organization. And this they eventually managed to do. [Other way around -- Levine approached us because he had had it up to his eyebrows with "the schmuck." Moreover, it was Levine who threatened Budway with legal action if Budway did not resign from the VTL presidency.]

Now that John has achieved his ambition of taking over a VTL of sorts, he has accused Rosemary (the VTL Secretary) and me of stealing $500 from VTL funds. [No, I accused you of stating that you were going to pocket the funds, because you did say that in front of plenty of witnesses.] This is ludicrous. During the 2009 Council elections, we each donated money to the VTL/PAC to pay for ads in favor of Bennett and Koszarski, as there was little in the PAC. A few of the ads were not run in the proper order, and the Herald Tribune refunded $500 of what we had paid in. Later, we shut down the PAC and left the money in the VTL bank account for future use. [You took PAC money and did what? Are you freakin' kidding me? You reported it? No? Why not? Do you have any idea what you just admitted to, Budway? You tokk PAC money, transferred it to the VTL account, then wrote checks to yourself and Vauzanges? Have you lost your mind? No, nothing funny going on here, folks, honest, we're just re-imagining campaign financing laws the Christine O'Donnell way. Yo, Gary: if you ever wanted proof that you are a complete and total dumbass, it is in the above paragraph. How's that foot taste?]

No ads were run in 2010, as by then the VTL was non-political, no dues were coming in, and it was obvious that the VTL was a dead duck. I took my $250 and gave it to the Salvation Army for Thanksgiving dinners for Venice residents, and delivered the receipt to Sun Newspapers. After some thought, Rosemary has decided to donate her $250 to Our Mothers House, a charity sponsored by the Archdiocese of Venice. [The plain fact is that Budway stated in front of Herb Levine, Mike Gelormino, Jim Leis, myself, and several others that he was going to gut the treasury of the VTL and pocket the money, this without any board in place to authorize or negate such a gift. Levine told him to go ahead, it'd be a cheap way to get rid of him. I laughed and agreed. There was never any talk of filing a criminal complaint, Budway is just being nutty paranoid. We just wanted him to go. Now Budway is changing his story -- now he says he gave the money away. Whatever.]

If Mr. Patten still believes me guilty of a felony and can talk some law enforcement agency into coming to my home to take me away, I would remind him that I retired from the Michigan Department of Corrections as Corrections Supervisor, still have my own handcuffs, and officers won’t have to bring any with them since they can use mine! Everyone who knows me knows I am truthful to the point of being blunt, and neither Rosemary nor I need the $250 we supposedly stole. However, given the ill-mannered, vindictive, and ignorant anonymous letters posted on John’s blog, I guess we shouldn't’t be overly surprised at such a calumny given the usual conversational tone of the web site. [Calumny? That dog-eared thesaurus is getting a workout. Again, without authorization of a non-existent board, Budway admits that he pocketed the money. What he did with it after I called him out on it is irrelevant -- that money had no business being routed through his personal account.]

Now that the old VTL is no more, the Venice Neighborhoods Coalition, which was folded into the VTL as a Committee when Sue Lang, its founder, was elected to Council, has been taken over by Gulf Coast Residents. It is my hope that the new and improved VTL is successful, and can approach the City’s problems with thought, consideration, and room for a differing point of view. [Translation: Budway hopes that everyone who abandoned him, which included the entire board and membership of the VTL, dies in a fire] Its organizers claim that some will join them, but some have disputed the claim. I wish the best for those who do join, although I find it unbelievable that someone other than a Venice taxpayer will become its President, regardless of his political connections. Herb was adamant that members of the VTL be Venice citizens, although others were always invited to attend meetings and offer suggestions. [Herb was adamant about no such thing -- long term vice president under Herb, Ray Lesko, was a Nokomis resident.]

I wish to thank the Gondolier for allowing me a Guest Column to answer Mr. Patten’s charges. In conclusion, I would like to add that if an officer under my command had submitted such windy ramblings to me, I would have sent him off to Night School to learn how to write a well-organized Column without invective, fabrications, and slanderous commentary. [As Herb said in his last words to you, "Don't go away mad, Gary, just go away." Thanks for playing, now here's a copy of our home game.]

Gary Budway
1953 Settlement Road
Venice, Fl. 34285
941-488-7614

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

2010-12-20T07:39:00.037-05:00

.
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.

According to the city's Human Resources department, Giles had not made it in to city hall to collect information from them prior to writing his article.

Had Giles simply inserted the phrase, "According to a news story that appeared in the Herald-Tribune, ..." which would have been the ethical and honest thing to do, he would have been OK. He didn't, though, thus taking credit for portions of research, including mistakes, done by the Herald-Trib's Davis.

Here's the "unknown" candidates that the Gondo claimed had put in their resumes (gentlemen, start your Google searches). Their former and present positions, as stated below, are taken from the documents on file at city hall and have not been verified.

Wayne Bennett -- currently resides in Clifton Park, NY, formerly employed by the Schenectady PD and, later, the New York State Police. (*)

H. Randall Dilling -- former chief of Miami Springs (Florida) PD; Dilling didn't send a resume, rather he sent a letter of interest asking that it be kept confidential, apparently unaware that his letter would automatically become a public record.

Stan Duncan -- Sarasota Police Department.

Terry Lewis -- North Port Police Department.

Chuck Lesaltato -- now a bailiff, formerly the Sarasota Sheriff's public information officer.

Paul Redecha -- was with NYPD from 1968 - 1990, now teaches police cadets at Manatee Technical Institute in Lakewood Ranch.

William (Bill) Tokajer -- Bradenton Police Department.

All of this info was available last Friday morning at city hall to anyone who came in and asked. As of city hall's closing on Friday at 4:00 pm, Giles had not made it in to city hall gather the info required to write his story.

Correction Addendum, 12/21/10, 9:00 AM
(*) Bennett sent an email on late Monday to correct an error in the above story: "Just wanted to bring to your attention one clarification in my current and former employment record as it is reversed in today's article. I was employed as a New York State Trooper for 39 years, retiring as the Superintendent in 2007. At the time of my retirement, the State Police consisted of 5,400 sworn Troopers and 1,100 support personnel. I then continued my professional career as the Commissioner of Public Safety for the City of Schenectady, New York, in May 2007, and remain in that capacity overseeing the operations of both the city police and fire departments. Schenectady is a city of approximately 62,000 inhabitants and has a 166 member police department and a 117 member fire department."

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

2010-12-10T10:39:00.013-05:00

.
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.

Curiously, that's the same accusation that was leveled at Michael Frassetti by senior police officials when I first started asking questions some two years ago about why he was fired. Frassetti had been accused of wilfully destroying electronic police data, but was exonerated at an arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator in that hearing, Sarasota attorney Edwin Ford, wrote in his ruling that the police department and the city attorney's office were "overly zealous" in the case presented against Frassetti (see these YouTube videos of Anderson's closing arguments). Ford also wrote that the VPD's investigation as conducted by Lt. Mike Rose was "seriously flawed."

Frassetti was ordered to be reinstated, given nearly a year's back pay, plus the city had to pay for his wife's birthing medical bills as the city had dropped medical coverage on Frassetti and his family after the wrongful firing.

Venice Florida! dot com was the only media outlet that followed the Frassetti case, that covered the investigation, and that attended the subsequent hearing where Frassetti was ordered to be reinstated (LINK - pops in new window).

Serianni's complaint also accuses Turner and interim Police Chief Dave Dunaway of committing criminal acts in their pursuit of a way to silence the whistle-blowing cop.

Bear in mind that during his investigation of then-Police Chief Julie Williams, Turner interviewed some 50 VPD officers and employees, several of whom have told me that their complaints went far beyond informing Turner of wrongdoings by Williams.

Officers that have spoken to me have stated that accusations of wrongdoing and retaliation have been leveled against Dunaway, Captain Tom McNulty, Lt. Mike Rose, and Lt. Eric Hill -- virtually the entire current leadership at the VPD.

Venice Florida! dot com started a furor by asking for those notes, especially since the call for releasing the notes has since been echoed by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Venice Gondolier, and even newly-elected mayor, John Holic.

Turner, in turn, is fighting every which way he can to avoid turning those notes over to the media, notes that, I am told, would validate most of Serianni's allegations and cast a bad light on the current interim police chief, Dave Dunaway.

Of interest and possibly a factor in this argument is the fact that Dunaway's wife, Bonnie Dunaway, is the legal secretary for City Attorney Bob Anderson and has been in that position for a number of years. So far, Anderson has been backing Turner's decision to withhold the interview notes from the public, stating the notes are not public records.

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

2010-12-08T14:45:00.021-05:00

.
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.

Gary Budway resigned under threat of legal action by former board members, including Herb Levine, for a number of reasons, including the fact that he was not legally the President as he has held no annual elections during his two years at the helm. Additionally, he has been unable to form a quorum since July of this year as all but one of his board members have resigned in protest over various illegal and unethical actions that Budway had taken as the VTL's self-appointed dictator.

For the past six months, the VTL was Budway and Rosemary Vauzanges and nobody else.

The VTL's bylaws, as they existed under Budway and Levine's leadership, called for a minimum of eight board members to a maximum of fifteen, with six board members needed to have a quorum at a League meeting. Under Budway, the VTL had two board members in total.

Board elections are held annually in July, with board members serving two-year terms and the President serving a one-year term, elected by the Board of Directors from current active board members.

Budway was appointed President when Levine stepped down in late 2008, and, in true Il Duce fashion, he subsequently suspended elections in 2009 and 2010, thus Budway's term as President expired in July of 2009 and the organization technically has had no legal leader since then. Despite that, Budway claimed himself as President for an indeterminate period without ever calling for an election.

According to notes taken by Gelormino, who has attended every meeting since July of this year, Budway held meetings, conducted business, authorized spending, all under the watch of two board members -- himself and Vauzanges.

That's not only against the rules, but in the case of making ANY disbursements of money, that's illegal, especially when no bookkeeping was being done.

At the October VTL meeting, which Levine, Gelormino, and I attended, Budway stated that there was approximately $500 in the treasury and that he would be pocketing it in the event of the VTL's demise.

It was at that meeting that Levine, Gelormino, and myself all demanded Budway's resignation under threat of legal action aimed at Budway personally.

At the December meeting, Budway stated that he had received notification from the State of Florida that the non-profit status of the VTL was in jeopardy as he had not filed some of the required paperwork necessary to maintain that status. I do not pretend to understand the problem fully at this time, but Budway, when questioned, was not only unwilling to elaborate but became downright hostile to former VTL bookkeeper Ali Hicks. Budway stated that he had already closed down the corporation of the VTL with the state as, in his words at the final meeting, this would "avoid having to pay back taxes" that the organization may end up owing as a result of his mismanagement.

Budway acknowledged that the organization had kept no financial records of donations and what was done with the donation money, as the VTL had been running without a bookkeeper. When asked if he would turn over the checking statements so that we could clean the mess up, he replied, "Hell, no." So we don't (and won't) know who gave money or what Budway has done with it. Given the fact that Budway stated he was going to pocket any remaining funds, it comes as no surprise that he would refuse to turn over any checking statements to the new organization, even referring to us in the Gondo as "flakes" for asking the question.

Budway claimed that the leftover money was a recent "loan" made by himself, however with no quorum of board members ever able to vote to take out any loans (seeing as there was no bookkeeper, it's a sure bet that there is no loan paperwork existing that was ever dated, signed, and notarized by the lender and accepting board members), any VTL money that came from Budway would legally be a donation, not a loan.

Thus any monetary take-back would, in all likelihood, be considered an act of theft. Not bad for a retired sworn law enforcement officer.

Additionally, Budway refused to turn over membership info to the new organization as, in his words, "The Taxpayers League is dead and it needs to stay dead," which is straight out of South Park's Eric Cartman: "It's my ball and I'm taking it home. I hate you guys, I hate you guys, I hate you guys."

It is almost as though Budway has become yet another Dan Boone hand-puppet.

Budway's final words to Levine: "I'm keeping the money."

Levine's final words to Budway, as Budway was walking out of the still-ongoing meeting: "Don't go away mad..."

Budway had left before Levine could finish the sentence. Levine and I looked at each other and burst out laughing.

Levine's attitude about Budway and the money? "Let him keep it. We're getting rid of him cheap."

The two men would never meet again. Budway subsequently boycotted Levine's funeral and memorial services.

It is interesting to note that despite Budway's use of Levine's death to give self-promoting false praise in the Gondolier's obituary article, Budway did not even make a condolence call or send a sympathy card to the Levine family, not in his name, nor in the name of the VTL. It was an insult that did not go unnoticed by Herb's survivors. Again, very classy, but typical Budway behavior.

In actuality, Budway did us a huge favor by closing the corporation -- it causes Budway and Vauzanges to be solely responsible for their own lack of stewardship with no way to point the finger of blame at anyone else.

The new organization, to be known as the Venice Taxpayers [League] until after board elections in July of 2011, when we will refile as the Venice Taxpayers League, is being started as a new corporation with a new Federal EIN number. This will protect us from liability resulting from Budway's illegal actions.

Then there's this fictional history of the VTL -- it wasn't always a combative organization. That's just simply not true: the VTL was started by Finn Caspersen because Caspersen was accusing the city of ripping off residents with bogus numbers on their water bills. Caspersen had previously tried unsuccessfully to get the city's billing department to change their evil ways. Caspersen was angry -- angry enough to start a protest organization designed to point the finger of accusation at officials who were fiddling with the city's books.

While ex-mayor Dean Calamaras now praises Finn Caspersen, in reality, the two men apparently hated each other. Years back I remember researching and reading a number of articles and documents that referenced some heated arguments between the two men. IIRC, Calamaras thought Caspersen was a busy-body, while Caspersen once referred to Calamaras as a dullard.

So I don't know what kind of imaginary roots Budway claims he was trying to return the organization to, but they weren't any roots that ever existed in this dimension or on this planet.

Here's yet another fine example of Giles and Budway just making stuff up. From Giles' article: "Budway said he couldn’t turn the organization over to Gelormino because he isn’t a city of Venice resident, a VTL criterion."

Heh?

"Membership in this organization shall be open to all concerned citizens of the City of Venice and the surrounding areas who support the purposes and statements in Article II." -- VTL's bylaws, Article III (1).

It was Levine's final stated wish that the VTL be resurrected and that Budway be ousted for his gross mismanagement, this as stated by Levine to myself, Mike Gelormino, Herb's widow, Shirley, and his children. Levine left the duty to Gelormino and myself to rebuild the organization, and we promised him and his family that we would.

That immediately caused a spark of fear to blow out into wild, near hallucinogenic paranoia on the part of both Greg Giles and Gary Budway. Fear and loathing in the Gondo's front office.

And so the demons flew. We are all suddenly in bat country. Giles' article, full of misleading information designed to demean the future of the VT[L] as well as Levine's legacy, caused a very upset Shirley Levine to call me this morning to ask what she had done wrong -- Why was the Gondo trashing her dead husband's name? Why were Gelormino and I breaking our promise?

To Shirley, I can only assure: we're not. The VT[L] will be resurrected and will hopefully continue to fulfill the very vision that Herb Levine (and Finn Caspersen) had for it. The old board is back and membership is already growing. That, apparently, scares the bejeebers out of Giles, Budway, the Gondo, and the CQG, hence the post-mortem attack on Levine.

I love it. It tells me that we're not even fully armed and loaded yet and the attacks against the resident citizens of Venice have already started. These bastards are already terrified. In the morning, in the evening: Ain't we got fun?

The VT[L]'s interim board, pending board elections, is: Mike Gelormino, President; John Patten, Vice President; Alice Hicks, Treasurer; Earl Quandt, Director; Thedeus Koszarski, Director; Jim Leis, Director.

The next Venice Taxpayers [League] meeting will be on Monday, January 3, 1:30 PM at City Hall. Come one and all to see an historic rebirth.

-- John Patten, interim Vice President, Venice Taxpayers [League]

Jeffy Gates' moist pants

2010-10-29T10:04:00.009-04:00

.
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.

-----------------------------------------------
TO: Jeff Gates, all recipents of Jeff Gates earlier email
FROM: John Patten
SUBJECT: Jeffy Gates' moist pants
DATE: 10/29/10 09:52 EST

First off, Jeffy, you really shouldn't be using the city servers for political purposes. That's kind of a no-no. It's an ethical thing: you know, seperating political business from public business, using government resources and the government's dime to promote your wife.

Secondly, the Florida Commission on Ethics has a very limited jurisdiction and what you are hallucinating as a cause for a complaint is well outside of their jurisdiction. Call them up -- they'll let you talk to one of their lawyers for free. It's a service they provide. When you do, you will discover that you are full of crap.

Speaking of full of crap, you might want to take a look at this:
Jeffrey Gates denies that wife Jeanette is named in lawsuits
http://www.veniceflorida.com/messageboard/_disc2/00002a6e.htm

Thirdly, if you think that this current council is the source of all division in this town, how do you explain things like Herb Levine getting arrested for disagreeing with a city manager:
http://www.veniceflorida.com/features/meninplaid.htm

Big lawsuit came out of that one caused by your new good friends, the CQG and their meat puppets. It did create jobs, though: Levine remodeled his entire house at the expense of the city, ex-mayor Dean Calamaras, and ex-police chief Joe Slapp.

I, too, long for the return of the good ole days. I want to get arrested at a city council meeting so I can start my retirement fund at the city's expense.

Jeff: Go sit in the corner and watch and learn while the grownups continue the political debate. As a newbie youngster, you are peeing all over your own leg and shoe.

Have a nice day. Good luck with all those lawsuits against you and your wife.

-- John Patten

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

--ORIGINAL MESSAGE--
FROM: Jeffrey Gates
TO: [all city council members and city manager via city email system, most current city candidates, various reporters]
SUBJECT: Fwd: Marshall Happer
DATE: 10/28/10 23:41 EST

To those concerned,

I have attended no less than five candidate forums along with hundreds of others and witnessed Marshal Happer explain his "special interest" definition as acceptance of money from outside sources mainly the CQG. Happer was very specific to say this group was designed and controlled by the Boone Law firm for the purpose of political favoritism. Happer stated that anyone accepting this money would be biased in their decision, and the Boone Law Firm (Jeff Boone)stood financial gain from these land use cases. He stated he opposed the acceptance of money from the CQG as special interest favoritism, and the money was tainted. He stated he would stand against the Boone Law Firm (and those they represent) to oppose changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Happer's statements and convictions leave him unable to render a fair and balanced opinion of any land use presentation by the Boone Law Firm. The Florida Code of Ethics requires those who have conflict of interest to recuse themselves from discussion and voting on such issues.

Marshal Happer's public statements as mayoral candidate, if elected, will require him to leave the dais anytime the Boone Law firm presents a case as he has admitted prejudice against the firm before any presentation has been made without regard to the situation or the landowner being represented. This prejudice will yield his position as mayor useless to the citizens of Venice as the revised Comprehensive Plan will be disputed by those who have lost property rights through reduced density's on a frequent basis.

Jeffrey Gates

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

--ORIGINAL MESSAGE--
FROM: Jeffrey Gates
TO: TO: [all city council members and city manager via city email system, most current city candidates, various reporters]
SUBJECT: Happer comment
DATE: 10/29/10 07:42 EST

To those concerned,

Email support will confirm my earlier statements regarding Happer's position against the Boone Law Firm. I am not alone in what I heard. The facts indicate an ethical conflict between fair decisions from Marshal Happer and anything presented to council by the Boone Law Firm. This support along with my letter will be forward the board of ethics if Happer is elected and he chooses to participate in any discussion or vote on any Boone related issue.

This type of "special interest" attitude and "hidden agenda" is the very reason this community has been divided by our previous mayor and supporting council. Marshal and all others have professed their "love of Venice" and the need to keep it that way. The Boone's have more than 100 years of combined land use experience in the city we all love. Their footprint is everywhere in this city and none should be more deserving of an undisputed "job well done". Happer has lived in this city four (4) years and has a "footprint" of his own. His proposed actions will further divide this city's population much like Mayor Martin did.

The people of Venice have a choice between two candidates that have shown their support of our community by offering a portion of their lives to get Venice on a path of healing from the wounds of previous council, Happer is not one of them. These candidates have also supported this community by no less than twenty years of taxes, and residency in our town. They bring open minded yet very different ideas of the forward direction for our town, and they don't support any continuation of the "Martin years". The citizens of Venice must choose carefully.

Jeffrey Gates

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

2010-10-28T10:20:00.010-04:00

.
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."

Bellehumeur stated this morning by phone that he never received any such letter and that the so-called letter was a major point of contention in his civil case against A.G. Edwards.

Bellehumeur said he met with Holic prior to Christensen's firing. Bellehumeur stated he brought along a wealth of materials documenting how he and his wife had been scammed. Bellehumeur stated that Holic was amazed, both at the amount of documentation and the extent of the scam as uncovered by Bellehumeur.

"Holic was useless, we could never get any information or help from him after that," Bellehumeur said.

When asked if he ever received one of the letters that Holic claims he sent out to all investors, Bellehumeur was adament: "No. They said that in court, but they never could prove that they actually sent one to me. I never received one. Maybe he [Holic] thought that since I came to him, he didn't need to send one to me."

The Bellehumeurs eventually went to law enforcement with their complaint, something that Holic apparently never did. Holic claims that he turned the matter over to A.G. Edwards' legal department That's a good move if you want to cover your corporate liabilities, however it turned out to be a not-so-good move in covering clients' liabilities, as the Bellehumeurs had to fight Holic's office tooth and nail in court to get their stolen money back.

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

2010-10-27T08:47:00.008-04:00

.
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.

To: John Holic
From: John Patten
Date: October 27, 2010
Subject: FYI on the formation of the CQG

In an email dated October 25, John Holic wrote the following:

"Accusation: In Happer’s October 23 e-mail he states: 'Citizens for Quality Government (CQG) is a political action committee founded in 2000 by the Boone law firm. A more accurate name would be a small group of wealthy good ole boys for an overly development friendly City Council.’
Fact: Numerous CQG members have told me that the Boone Law Firm did not found CQG so Mr. Happer’s statement is a lie. The organization’s recognized founder was retired businessman and community activist the late Jack Meyerhoff. The Boone Law Firm merely filed the paperwork."

Attached as a PDF (9 pages, pops in new window), you will find the formation papers of the CQG from the year 2000. Curiously absent is ANY mention of Jack Meyerhoff.

Then-mayor Merle Graser is fronted to be the lead, but anyone who knows or remembers Merle knows that he never lifted a finger when it came to political stuff. He barely had a 50% attendance rate at council due to golf and travel engagements. Also of note is that in the formation papers and letters, Boone keeps referring to the group as "our" or "we," avoiding stating that the CQG is merely a client.

There were no illusions at the time of these events and I remember them well. Boone was heading this baby up, and he made no attempt to hide the fact.

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

2010-07-06T12:20:00.010-04:00

.
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.

Also, the recommended alternative will be available July 9th and the more detailed report will be formally considered by Council on July 27th.

Awww jeez. This one is destined to haunt Isaac for the rest of his career here.

Top drawer work, there, Isaac. While you're at it, why not head down to the Herald-Trib and drop a bag of dog crap on Editor Victor Hull's desk? Don't worry, that won't piss the paper off any more than this email will.

Apparently, nobody told you that part of your job might involve interacting with the public, and that it kind of behooves you if that interaction left a positive impact on the public and in the media. Even if nobody told you about that, well, you probably should have been able to intuitively deduce it.

When it comes to basic public information, telling the media to go f**k itself rather than verify a piece of information that you have already given out to others, which is exactly what you are saying that you did here... well, that's probably not the best approach.

Sorry, Isaac, but it now officially sucks to be you.

Unbe-frickin-lievable.

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

2010-07-01T17:14:00.016-04:00

.
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.

In case you missed it, my original story, which included all of the numbers breakdowns and the rest of the data that the FOP still doesn't want released, can be found (clicky--->) here. (<---clicky)

Originally, the vote was intendeed to be a support structure for the beleagured and increasingly confused Chief Julie Williams, but fearful that putting her name on the ballot might cause Venice to get sucked through a black hole into an improbabilty vortex, they changed the wording so that over a third of the votes would be cast by people supporting themselves.

The ballot read, "Do you support the VPD administration?" To which anyone with the rank of Master Patrolman First Class and above would automatically say, "Yeah, I like me just fine."

Then came the vote and results, which were just a tad better than disastrous for Williams.

After I published the numbers along with a breakdown of the voters, one FOP supporter of Williams went spastic on the LEOAffairs message board:

"The latest vote conducted by the FOP has already been released to JP? really? can you respect the union and your fellow union members for one second. I know that you read blogs so I figured this is the best way to inform you. Stop given [sic] information, especially wrong information....
...I just can't see where your going with all this, complaining about all the shadiness that happens across the hall, then you sneak around your fellow officers?????? your just as guilty as the administration that you curse daily."

The writer went on to emphasize that he was not trying to bully or make threats (so that would be a welcome change in tactics, then), but that unhappy coppers at the VPD need to shut up.

Interestingly and tellingly, that post from a Williams supporter included an offhand admission that there is "shadiness that happens across the hall" (i.e., - in the admin wing of the VPD building), as though everyone in the department knows it and agrees about it, a remarkably different stance than that taken by Williams and City Manager Isaac Turner.

Then, finally, came this press release, which stated absolutely nothing:

Press release from Venice Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 57 regarding recent confidence vote. Disseminate as necessary and please keep original wording.
--Kristen Long, Lodge 57 Secretary

Press Release:
On June 10, 2010 through June 11, 2010, The Fraternal Order of Police Venice Lodge #57, which is the Fraternal Organization representing The Venice Police Department, conducted a " Vote of Confidence " of its administration. By a majority vote, the members of The Fraternal Order of Police Venice Lodge #57 voted confidence in its administration. This vote assures the residents and visitors of Venice that the Venice Police Department is a unified agency and as always, will serve and protect its community to the best of its ability.
-- Joseph R. McGee, President, Fraternal Order of Police Venice Lodge #57

If you are looking for anything substantive in the press release, forget it. It isn't there because the FOP didn't want it there and they assumed that everyone in the media are idiots who cannot see what info is missing.

What the leadership of the FOP doesn't understand about a vote of confidence -- you never, ever do one unless you know for sure the results will be unanimous. Just a simple majority, even a two-thirds, means there is a sizable minority that has no faith whatsoever in the subject of the vote. It tells the world that yes indeed, there is trouble.

Just the fact that there needed to be a vote of confidence in the eyes of the vote organizers spells trouble. It means the vote organizers know there is a serious perception of trouble, so the purpose of the vote is to show that there really is no trouble. If you can't prove that unanimously, you've just put an axe into the back of the person you were trying to save.

Even then, a vote of confidence is a tricky gamble. The last three times that city council called for a vote of confidence, the subjects of those votes received unanimous approval, then were gone within months, with the exception of ex-city manager George Hunt -- it took a little over a year to escort his carcass to the city line after council told the world how wonderful he was.

The Gondo will cite the press release and rave about Williams' fine management skills, but don't look for anyone else to be as dopey as Brooky Browne and six out of seven city council members

(I kinda hate to admit it, but I'm really beginning to like Emilio Carlesimo).

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

2010-06-26T08:33:00.010-04:00

(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)?

In answer to the second question, if indeed Rose actually had been given permission, it could only have been one of three people giving Rose permission, as Rose is a lieutenant and there are only three people in the department with a higher rank: Captain Tom McNulty, Captain Dave Dunaway, and Chief Williams. Since Williams insists it was someone other than her, that leaves McNulty or Dunaway. Neither of those two are in any hurry to do a mea culpa and fall on the sword that Williams has handed to them -- in fact, both of them have created a wall of silence in response to any citizen or media inquiries.

So far, the department is claiming no paperwork exists to support Williams' version of events, this in response to numerous public records requests by this web site and by the Herald-Tribune.

As to how much double dipping? According to documents leaked to Venice Florida! dot com and the Herald-Tribune, the answer is quite a lot. A huge amount.

Several officers working together started compiling a partial list of times that Rose left the city on city time to work at his store. This list shows that during a four-month period ending in February of this year, Rose left the city nearly every day he was on duty to attend to his store, often for as long as two to three hours a day, sometimes as many as three times during the same day.

At this point, I have no idea how to calculate the amount of money that the City of Venice was paying to secretly pick up the tab on Mahi Mac's Bait Shop's staff time, but from the partial list I have, it looks like it's a hell of a lot. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot of missing money that Chief Williams hasn't investigated and that Captain Tom McNulty OR Captain Dave Dunaway has given away as a freebie to Rose and his fledgling business.

The list was compiled using a variety of methods, and includes CAD numbers (computer dispatch) where Rose had radioed in that he would be out of city limits on personal errands.

Rather than investigate Rose, the department's initial reaction was to remove access to the CAD database from police cars, thus preventing any further tracking of Rose's time away from the department. Unfortunately, that also removed a wealth of investigative data that officers in the field need, info that could very well save a cop's life, like how many times police have been called to a given address on domestic violence complaints, e.g.

NOTE: Access to the CAD database has just recently been reinstalled on some police vehicles as a result of a software upgrade from the police department's software vendor, HTE.

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

2010-06-24T09:35:00.015-04:00

.
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.

From a legal perspective, if even a portion of Wilson's allegations are true, criminal investigations by the FDLE should be warranted.

From a PR perspective, this opens up a political nightmare, not only for Williams, but for her staunch supporters, like outgoing Mayor Ed Martin and City Manager Isaac Turner.

Example: after laying out a preliminary case for the VPD being a hostile work environment, Wilson writes, "...it is our contention that Chief Williams was untruthful to Commissioner Carlesimo when, on May 25th, she stated that no officer had been told that he or she could not make a request for or had been denied written documentation, or had been admonished or disciplined for making a public records request. As you will see from the attached portion (page 2 of [Serianni's] Annual Performance Appraisal), he is being criticized for precisely this very thing when he is admonished under [the Communications and Interactions headings] for public records requests."

A copy of one of the offending pages was previously published on Venice Florida! dot com and can be seen here (PDF file). Moreover, a bored-looking council was apprised of Williams' false statements by this writer on the same date, May 25. City manager Isaac Turner would later refer to my observations as "a rant" and claimed he could not understand what I was talking about.

Included in the document is a timeline written by Serianni stretching back to 2006. The timeline clearly shows a number of practices routinely adopted by the department to cover up wrongdoing by police officers and supervisors favored by Williams and acts of retaliation (over 100 internal investigations within a three-year period, e.g.) on the part of Williams and her staff upon any officers who might object.

City Attorney Bob Anderson has issued a memo dated June 18, stating that he needs to schedule a meeting with Williams, Turner, and Human Resources Director Alan Bullock to "formulate an appropriate response... and to develop a future course of action."

Anderson had previously ordered Williams to back down on several ongoing actions against Serianni, agreeing with Serianni's attorney that Williams is severely violating the set of state statutes known as The Police Officer's Bill of Rights.

...this story is developing...

In other news, Venice Florida! dot com is investigating allegations of racist and homophobic practices within the police department with regards to promotions and job assignments. When approached by this writer with some of the preliminary evidence, City Manager Isaac Turner kicked me out of his office stating he didn't want to hear it and implied that somehow I was racist for investigating allegations of racism.

...this story is also developing...

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

2010-06-22T05:57:00.004-04:00

.
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?

Yeah, well, that would be Officer Frascatore (actually, now former officer). Looks like he wasn't so weepy after all. In fact, one might even refer to him as disgruntled, although Williams insisted that there was only one disgruntled officer in the department, an officer she referred to as "despicable" in the Herald-Tribune a month or two back.

Ya think maybe Williams was fibbing about that whole tear in the eye story? Cuz that story now has the smell of pure Grade-A government inspected and stamped bull-sheeeeeee-it.

If I'm reading Frascatore's email correctly, he's stating that Williams stated that she has the bathrooms at VPD bugged. Now here you have a sworn officer of the law accusing in writing another sworn officer of the law of admitting to a crime (you can't bug bathrooms EVER and you can't audio tape without either the subject's knowledge or a court order UNLESS it is part of an ongoing CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, and it's usually best to get a court order even then).

I would like to point out that this screams of requiring some kind of investigation, something besides the typical asking of Williams, "Did you do this?"

Oh, back to you, Lori: I asked last week for records about Turner's knowledge of the Mike Rose thingie, never got a response. So I'd still like that info (see my email of last week). So there's that, then copies of whatever Frascatore is asking for, and I'm probably going to ask in the next day or so to see all of Kim Hackett's requests that she has made in the past four weeks (I don't want to see what you have provided her with, I want to see the requests that she has made -- the emails from her asking you for stuff).

Oh, and Julie, since you are getting a copy of this:

(sorry, but I have always wanted to do that)

Wow. It's like George Hunt and Marty Black are both back in office. I haven't seen this much ducking and weaving since Dean Calamaras stated I was the worst thing that ever happened to Venice, then had to resign a week later in the media backlash aftermath.

In the morning, in the evening, ain't we got fun?

Ciao, baby.

-- John Patten
-- Venice Florida! dot com
-- www.venfl.com
-- (941) 525-0289

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

2010-06-21T12:22:00.004-04:00

.
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

2010-06-13T11:45:00.012-04:00

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

2010-05-27T15:32:00.011-04:00

.
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

2010-05-24T14:27:00.011-04:00

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

2010-05-20T07:30:00.004-04:00

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

2010-05-05T16:07:00.005-04:00

.
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.