RECALL COMMITTEE RESPONDS TO CELEBRATE MARCO ARTICLE

The article in Wednesday’s Eagle regarding Celebrate Marco is so fraught with false statements that it is hard to know where to begin. It is clear that the pro development old guard has circled the wagons and turned City Hall into a campaign headquarters to defeat the recall. It is both inappropriate and unlawful for Councilwoman DiScillio, the city manager, and the city attorney to be campaigning against the recall from their official positions. The law is quite clear in this matter and the Chairwoman’s prepared statement to the press with legal opinions provided by the city attorney is a clear violation.

Mr. Yovanovich, the city attorney, takes this abuse one step further with his involvement with the distortions propagated by “Celebrate Marco”. The most deplorable is the claim by this group that “The signers of the petition make themselves liable to be able to have the dollars retracted from them for the city successfully defending those three councilors. Nobody knows that.” That is a despicable falsehood designed to intimidate the voters from signing the petition.

The case of “Ferrara v. Caves” the appellate court found that the recall committee and its chair could not be held responsible for attorney fees advanced on behalf of the elected officials.

The appellate court held:

To interpret the law otherwise is to chill the constitutional and statutory privilege belonging to Florida electors to attempt to bring about the recall of elected municipal officials." Ferrara v. Caves, 475 So. 2d 1295, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). The above case is binding precedent.

The law is clear:
Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited;

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as that person may choose, or for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any office at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

(5) Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084.

We are very upset over this possibly illegal attempt to intimidate the voters of Marco Island.

In a further distortion both Chairwoman DiSciullo, Bill Moss, Yovanovich quote a 2000 decision regarding Malfeasance. What they don’t quote is the controlling February 10, 2006 decision (Thompson v. Napotnik) in which the fifth district appellate court found in favor of the recall committee on the basis “No requirement is set forth in Florida’s recall statute mandating that the recall petition allege a claim of malfeasance based on some alleged criminal conduct.” Contrary to the misleading representations that have been made by Mr. Moss, Council chair DiSciullo, and the city council, this allegation does not have to be based on a criminal act. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that “the sufficiency of the charges for the recall of a public officer to cause the voters to require his removal is a political question to be determined by the people”.

There are so many distorted statements about the STRP that it is hard to know where to begin other than to direct the reader to www.earnmarco.com for a complete presentation of the facts. There you can see these councilmen in steaming video making their contradictory statements at various council meetings. You will also see the real numbers which reveal that the people on the septic tanks are being forced to pay $38,000,000, $6,500 each, to build a sewer treatment plant that will provide the capacity for an additional 18,000 homes or 25,000 hotel rooms.

In recognition that this response will be given a limited amount of space, I will let the above misrepresentations reflect the credibility of the entire article rather than refute the issues point by point.

Councilwoman DiSciullo’s motion at last Monday night’s council meeting raises the abuse of power by this council to a new level. At the last council meeting, the council presented councilmen Tucker, Trotter and Minozzi with an open check book, paid for by the taxpayers, to pay for all their reasonable attorney fees and expenses in their defense of the recall effort, win or lose. When asked what reasonable legal fees were, Councilman Tucker said as much as $500 per hour. There was no qualification as to the expense authorization that Councilman Tucker inserted into the motion. Does this mean that he gets paid his hourly rate for time lost? Can these men fly to Tampa, rent cars, and stay in hotels in search of their $500 per hour blue chip attorneys at the tax payer’s expense?

The Florida statutes are clear; a recalled councilman that successfully defends his position is entitled to request reimbursement for his legal fees and costs after the fact. There isn’t any case law that an unsuccessful councilman was granted reimbursement. There isn’t any case law that they are entitled to expenses which are quite different than costs. There isn’t any case law that supports the incurring of legal fees on the taxpayer’s behalf before a petition is even filed.

The remaining issue that I would like to address is the ongoing war between the citizens and the city council. I don’t think any of us have ever witnessed a council that has so little respect and moral authority to govern.

I didn’t create this problem. I didn’t have anything to do with the council’s support of Mr. Tucker’s and Mr. Moss’s hoax that they perpetrated on the voters and the FDEP for five months. Vice councilor Tucker’s statement that the asbestos contamination was made to look worse by people or persons unknown and they had photographic evidence to prove it was not true. The fact that the voters were outraged when Mr. Tucker finally admitted that he didn’t have any photographic evidence is not my fault. The complicity of Mr. Minozzi and Mr. Trotter in support of this ongoing misstatement is not the result of anything I did. How can you trust councilmen that will make or support false statements? The fact that they were part of an attempt to cover up a major asbestos contamination that impacted the health of thousands on this island is reprehensible.

The bottom line is that we have a very pro development council that is willing to ignore the law, as demonstrated above, distort, misrepresent and do anything they can to push through their pro development agenda before they lose power. The voters would like to stop everything, clean up the mess they’ve made, and enjoy the Marco Island they thought they had moved to. These councilmen know they will go down in resounding defeat if they have to face the voters.

At the end of the day, this question will be decided by the voters, not the courts. These councilmen are using our checkbook to finance their attempt to hide behind the court system in order to protect their part time, $6,000 per year jobs. I had intended to finance this recall personally. It is clear that these men will use the city’s check book to force the recall committee into a costly court battle that I can’t afford. I have spent my own funds on this effort but now I need help. I am therefore retracting my earlier commitment not to accept contributions.

Roger Hall
Chairman Recall Committee
Marco Island