More City Approved Slander

We are treated to yet another slander by this city manager – a slander that has been approved by the city council.

So let’s see if we got the story straight: the city manager received an anonymous email claiming that a citizen has violated the law, and then makes it a public document, thereby perpetrating an unsubstantiated accusation by an anonymous source, with no retraction or admonition from the city council. Does this summarize the events correctly?

Try this one on for size city manager: if you become aware of a crime, like when someone like yourself intimidates voters, you are to forward that information immediately to the police department since presumably they have more sense than you and therefore would investigate the matter in a guarded way so as to ensure that the stupid little annoying rule some of us follow called innocent until proven guilty is adhered to.

Questions – that will never be answered:

• Will the city manager under a FOIA request identify the source of original email?
• If the city manager received an identical email, but quoting the voters intimidation section of the Voting Rights Act and a sentence “Bill Moss is in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act”, would the city manager have forwarded that email to the city council, the city attorney, the city clerk and thereby made it public?
• Is the city council going to continue its policy of silence when city employees besmirch and slander the citizens that don’t agree with them?

And some wonder why people are leaving the island.

=====================================================

Here it is - the trail as made public by the city manager:

> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bill Moss
> >To: terridisciullo@comcast.net;
> >mminozzi@comcast.net ;
> >wdtrotter@earthlink.net ;
> >friartuck3725@cs.com ;
> >Councilmanforcht@comcast.net;
> >CharlesKiester@comcast.net;
> >Rob@popoffs.com
> >Cc: Laura Litzan ;
> >ryovanovich@gcjlaw.com
> >Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:15 AM
> >Subject: Fwd: FW: Recall Violation!!!!!!!
> >
> >Bill Moss
> >City Manager
> >bmoss@cityofmarcoisland.com
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >
> > Monday, November 27, 2006 8:13:32 AM
> >FYI
> >-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> >From: dedovic <dedovic77@yahoo.com>
> >To: fljchelp@comcast.net
> >Subject: Recall Violation!!!!!!!
> >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:51:35 +0000
> >
> >Roger Hall is in clear violation of the state recall statute. I have copied
> >the relevant section from Section 100.361 below.
> >
> >(7) OFFENSES RELATING TO PETITIONS.--No person shall impersonate another,
> >purposely write his or her name or residence falsely in the signing of any
> >petition for recall or forge any name thereto, or sign any paper with
> >knowledge that he or she is not a qualified elector of the municipality. No
> >expenditures for campaigning for or against an officer being recalled shall
> >be made until the date on which the recall election is to be held is
> >publicly announced. The committee and the officer being recalled shall be
> >subject to chapter 106. No person shall employ or pay another to accept
> >employment or payment for circulating or witnessing a recall petition. Any
> >person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed
> >guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree and shall, upon conviction, be
> >punished as provided by law.
> >
> >No date for the election has been announced so it appears that he is in
> >violation of a misdemeanor of the second degree. This appeal for fund
> >raising may conflict with state law prohibiting campaigning (and raising
> >and spending raised money) on a recall campaign. Please make sure this
> >information gets into the hands of councilor Minozzi, Tucker and Trotters
> >attorney.

Entertainment Value

MEMORANDUM

March 7, 2006

TO: FILE

FROM: A. William Moss, City Manager

RE: Veterans Community Park as Staging and Storage Area

______________________________________________________________________

On February 21, 2006 City Council requested that staff review and present alternatives
to mitigate problems associated with the use of Veterans Community Park as an
equipment staging and material storage area for the reconstruction of North and South
Collier Boulevard. Staff presented several alternatives and City Council developed the
following consensus on March 6, 2006:

SITE C

Site C is a portion of the park on Elkcam Circle West and along the waterway and it is
immediately adjacent to Joy Circle. The material will be removed by March 20th. Fence
will be moved and the site will be regraded to its former condition.

The City had ordered several thousand feet of plastic pipe with the intent to store the
pipe on Site C. Alternate storage sites for the pipe include:

• Two lots on Bald Eagle Drive;
• A 0.8 acre site that the City purchased on Elkcam Circle;
• A 4.5-acre site on CR 92 (Aviary Adult Living Facility).

Options to sod or plant trees on Site C will be considered.

SITE B

Site B is along Elkcam Circle West. There is an existing six-foot high screen fence.
This site will be used as a construction management complex. Vehicles and trailers will
be at the site. Valves, fire hydrants, small diameter pipe, and yard drains, will be
relocated to another unspecified site. The fuel storage facility will be relocated to
another site yet to be determined. The site will not be used for the storage of gravels,
soils, asphalt, recycled materials, etc. This site will be used until December 2007.

THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND


SITE A

Site A is located behind Site B and primarily along Park Avenue with a small section
fronting Elkcam Circle West. The site is currently used for the storage of asphalt,
crushed concrete, and soil. The site will continue to be used until the end of December
2006. Most of the existing material at the site should be used by the end of Phase I
(December 2006). At the en

Security of Asbestos Site

The City of Marco Island has installed a high-tech, complete, super-sophisticated fool-proof security measure to guard from anyone entering the asbestos-saturated lot.

Presumably the air-tight security measure was installed to prevent errant trespassers, lost tourists looking for the beach, co-conspirators in the asbestos-planting gang, owls, and dogs from entering the lot and thereby becoming contaminated or planting more asbestos.

Please review the video for a complete look. The static on the video is due to electromagnetic interference – presumably coming from the listening devices installed nearby.



Enjoy.

POP - Update!

By Russ Colombo
Chairman, Preserve Our Paradise

Marco Islanders:

As Chairman of the political action committee "Preserve Our Paradise" (POP), I'd like to respond briefly to recent inquiries.

History: You may recall that last August POP obtained some two thousand signed petitions requesting the electorate vote on a proposed city charter amendment. If approved by the voters, that amendment would require a city manager's job performance to be approved by the people every few years in order for that city manager to remain employed. City Council disliked the idea of city manager accountability to the voters and, led by Councilmen Glenn Tucker and Mike Minozzi, they invented a ridiculously unsupportable reason to stop the issue from going to the voters. Their claim was that POP hadn't named a minimum of five committee members.

They blatantly ignored the fact that the city charter DOES NOT MANDATE THIS. For obvious as well as economic reasons, POP chose not to go to court (Judge Martin recently addressed the influence of long-time lawyer Tucker in our judicial system). Instead, POP, voluntarily filed the names of all Board members, and is ready to recirculate the petitions to you.

Now, as a courtesy to Marco Islanders, as well as to the current Roger Hall recall-effort, POP has decided to maintain a low profile for the time being. It is felt that, whenever possible, we Marco Islanders should deal with one major issue at a time. POP feels that the effort to recall Councilmen Tucker, Minozzi and Trotter deserves the fully concentrated attention of the people. Accordingly, POP will remain respectfully in the background until such time as it is felt our re-emergence will not significantly distract our fellow Marcoites.

POP appreciates the loyal interest shown by so many inquiries. In contrast with the current city council, POP intends to honor the two thousand Marco Island petitioners who lawfully asked to vote on improving our city charter but were wrongfully denied.

For Some of Us

"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Cooper Union Address
New York, New York
February 27, 1860

(author unbeknownst & irrelevant to those other than Some of Us)

Important Documents - Abestos Removal

The following documents should be of interest to anyone following this farce.

Email Authored by City Manager
Email - where the City Manager alleges that citizens are once again violating the law.

Mediation Agreement
Mediation Agreement between City of Marco Island/Quality Enterprises and CARES.

Cares General Release

Cares Letter of Support

Memorandum of Understanding
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Marco Island and Collier County. Note the clause "County shall assume no responsibility for the transport of the asbestos contaminated soil/materials."

The City of Marco Island City Council and City Manager are assuming the liability for this exercise sans the written approval from the EPA and OSHA as specified in the agreements.

It is further suggested that parties other than the ones that have perpetuated this problem perform and supervise the process.

Opportunity for Change

Elections in democratic societies are the best venue by which to effect change. And by definition, it is also the means by which to affirm that no change is needed.

Why Changes Come About
As evidenced by the recent national elections, the majority “spoke” by proclaiming that a change was needed. While we can debate into eternity the merits of the rationale for the outcome, and even if any meaningful or intelligent change will ever come to fruition by such an outcome, the fact of the matter is that a change was made. The swell of dissatisfaction with national policies on the war, on illegal immigration, on national security, and on a host of other issues was vetted and vented via an election.

Here on Marco Island we are experiencing a microcosm of the national scene. There is a considerable swell of dissatisfaction with the direction and policies our elected officials have implemented and are following.

An important point deriving from the national election experience that all residents of Marco Island should consider is that the process for change was afforded. Namely, the question as to whether policies and directions should be altered was answered via voting.

Regardless of where one stands on the equity of the STRP, on the mishandling of the asbestos, and on other issues, consider that – as with the national election – the optimum process by which to vet and vent these issues is by voting. By affording a venue for voting, all sides can decide if the present leadership and management of the City are acceptable – or not.

Denying the Opportunity for Change
By disallowing a venue for voting, no one – literally no one – will know if the majority agree or disagree with present policies. And just because the majority agreed with the stated policies of the council members when they were candidates, does not mean that the majority agree with the implemented policies of the council members now that they are in office.

Those that claim that such an argument is irrelevant given that council members are elected for a predetermined term in office (seemingly irrespective of what they do), should consider the law. There is a legal process by which those terms can be shortened – it’s called a recall. This legal process is used to bring the disputed issues to the citizens for their evaluation and thereby determine if the council members should be removed.

An Aside
The City council members who are the subject to the recall missed a golden opportunity. They should have welcomed the recall vote as affirming their affinity to democratic principles and thereby providing an opportunity for the citizens to unequivocally proclaim agreement with their policies. Such a miscue speaks volumes as to their vision, insight, motives and genuine dedication to the community. Regardless, one trusts that the citizens of Marco Island won’t pass up yet again the same golden opportunity.

We Need Change
Clearly, we need change. There is an asbestos-contaminated field on the island. The contamination was caused by a City contractor. The City had been repeatedly warned about the problem and chose to criticize the messengers and not the people who put the asbestos in the field. The tax assessment for implementing the STRP is inequitable to all citizens. The City again chose to besmirch the messengers and not address the inequity to the point of litigation.

All of these facts are … facts.

All of these problems came to fruition because of the actions by the council members being recalled. These predicaments were encouraged and allowed to fester by the same council members to the point of becoming the serious problems they are today.

Summary
As with the national election, some may not agree with the electoral outcome, but what is undeniable is that the majority spoke and therefore mandated an alternative approach to the nation’s daunting issues.

Marco Island residents should mandate a change via the recall initiative so as to bring an alternative approach to our daunting issues.

Marco Island Ostriches Unaware of Important Findings

Yes, there are such beasts on the island. And no, they are not owls that have genetically mutated due to ingesting, breathing or absorbing asbestos. Where you can find these beasts will become evident as the latest study on an issue near and dear to the hearts of all Marco Island residents is described.

The Bad News
The November 2006 issue of Business 2.0 reports the Top 10 real estate markets in the country. Based on myriad factors from a study conducted by Moody’s Economy.com, the magazine reports “The Best Places To (Still) Invest” with the byline “… there are some great opportunities out there …” The study derived a rating of projected gain in home prices over the next five years.

Of the top ten places, three are in Florida. And not only are they in Florida, but they come in at the first, second and fourth places. The projected gain in home prices in the next five years for these three Florida cities are 72% for Panama City, 64% for Daytona Beach and 59% for Lakeland!

Why Is This Bad News?
Because this report is yet again another serious study using empirical data disproving the myths and hysterics of Marco Island’s real estate industry and its loyal cliques.

It is also unwelcome news because it shows that Marco doesn’t have studies supporting our economic trend while it relies on myths and suppositions.

In case you have missed them, here are some of the most popular Marco Island urban legends:

• “The real estate market is collapsing everywhere and hence that is why the real estate market has collapsed on Marco.” Not only is it not collapsing “everywhere”, but it’s not even collapsing in Florida. The exact opposite is true.
• “Hurricanes scared people away from buying/investing.” Really? And the above noted Florida cities are hurricane proof?
• “Interest rates are too high.” Doesn’t seem to be bothering anybody else.
• “The war and the elections.” Doesn’t seem to be bothering anybody else.
• “The malcontents on the island are stirring up trouble.” If societal evolution or economic progress is thwarted by angry citizens, New York City would be a vacant lot.

So What Is Going On?
The answer is found in 8th grade economics. If there is too much supply, prices drop.

And why is there too much supply? Because people are selling or wanting to sell faster than people are buying or wanting to buy.

And why are people acting this way?

How about unbridled growth? How about the cost of living becoming unbearable? How about because the City is moving away from a mixed economy/society of complimenting tourism, long term vacationers, retirees and middle class young families to an economy beholden to tourism and the business special interests that drive it to the detriment of everyone else? How about the wanton collapse and negation of the social infrastructure for the middle class? How about a government that besmirches and sues its citizens? How about a government that treats the existence of a toxic substance as the neurosis of a few malcontents?

Can This Be True?
Don’t take the word of a proven analyst. Consider these quotes – from the very same article that detailed the present real estate boom:

As related to Panama City, there is a footnote:

“Caution: Local politicians, notoriously cozy with builders, have green-lighted several master-plan communities for future development. If supply gets out of hand, prices will fall.”

And the coup de grâce: The article also notes where not to buy:

“Southwest Florida: A typical home goes for $500,000, and prices rose 25% last year. A local economy with a thin base – retirees – can’t sustain the heat.”

Are the analysts that derived this study and conclusion geniuses or fortune tellers? No, they merely used what has recently occurred in our area.

The Fix
It is unlikely that the novelty of Marco Island will ever return. The reason for such pessimism comes from how governmental and business leaders act and say.

These self-proclaimed soothsayers continually proclaim that since the unfettered growth of the past was the catalyst for Marco Island’s boom, unfettered growth has to work now. And because it’s not working, then it must be due to something else – a la the myths noted above.

But such thinking is irrational on its face. Every system has a tipping point, you can’t stretch a muscle beyond its limits, you can’t put ten pounds of sugar in a five pound bag, and nothing lasts forever.

Can things be turned around? Yes, though to do so would first require acknowledging the actual factors that influence our economy.

Summary
Can you now recognize the ostriches on the island?

SECOND PHASE OF RECALL PROCESS

Note: This post is a public service announcement on an issue that is very important to all citizens of Marco Island.

We are pleased to announce that the Supervisor of Elections has certified the signatures on the initial recall petitions of more than 1,500 of your fellow citizens. We have successfully started the recall process for Councilors Tucker, Minozzi and Trotter.

The councilmen have presented their defense. The original charges along with their defensive statements make up this final petition.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FINAL PETITION

Marco voters now have the opportunity to sign this new enclosed petition for the second phase. We must collect signed petitions from 2,100 voters. A self addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

By law, we have a restricted time period allowed to collect these petitions. It is important, therefore, for you to respond as soon as possible in order for your petition to count.
Once we have signed petitions from 2,100 voters, these petitions will again be certified by the county Board of Elections. Once certified, our RECALL will be deemed successful and a circuit court judge will set a date for an island wide election. We will then have a voice in the future of Marco Island.

As chairman of the RECALL committee, I respectfully ask that you give the enclosed petition your prompt attention and approval. If you would like to donate to offset some of the legal fees and costs of circulating this petition we are incurring, your support would be appreciated.

If you have any questions regarding these petitions or need additional copies they can be downloaded at www.earnmarco.com or you can call the RECALL HOTLINE AT 394-5557

Thank you for your time,
Roger Hall

Signing Instructions: You must be a registered voter in the City of Marco Island to vote. Your precinct number is on the mailing label on the front of the envelope.Please note that each page is a vote for one councilor whose name appears in the text. Every signature/vote must be witnessed. Anyone (spouse, friend or neighbor) may witness your signature.

Political ad by Roger Hall, 1260 Osprey Court, Marco Island, FL 34145

On the Stupidity of the Civility Resolution

Is the above title uncivil? If so, according to whom?

So is the treacherous ground the City Council is treading. For over two centuries speech of almost all forms has been protected as a constitutional right, as an inalienable right, as a civil right. The courts, even despite their inappropriate activism, have consistently sided with protecting almost all manner of speech – even speech that most of us would find offensive.

Civility Resolutions are Antithetical to Democracy
The basic tenets of a democracy are founded on open, encouraged, discourses and debates. These free exchanges of ideas – free of government intervention and restriction – are an explicit outlet of our human nature that implicitly fosters democracy. As we become informed by evaluating all perspectives, we make a choice – we vote. Open debate is one of the oldest means by which humanity can interact civilly.

Do exchanges of ideas and debates become heated? Do these debates become unruly? Of course. Does that make them uncivil to the point that they should be regulated or otherwise restricted? Of course not.

The alternative to open discourse and debate (regardless how unruly or heated they become) is true incivility. We have witnessed the brutal effects of past and present forms of government that squelch speech. Note that in these regimes speech is squelched according to what the government claims is uncivil - to them. As these regimes have repeatedly demonstrated, the alternative to open forms of expression is not pretty – it’s lethal. Therefore it is only in those societies where speech is restricted by dictum and fiat where incivility reigns.

And herein lies where the seriousness of such a resolution exists. When government starts defining what acceptable speech is, the government enters into the netherworld of opinions and biases, not to say that it starts acting illegally. In essence, the government ceases to be a form of democracy and starts becoming a censorship.

Federalism
Forcing and even defining civility is wrong and contrary to the foundation of our form of government.

Consider Alexander Hamilton’s words (Federalist Papers) in preparing the republic for what was to come: “A torrent of malignant passions will be let loose”. These “passions”, of all varieties, were forms of expressions that neither Hamilton nor the other authors of the Federalist Papers opposed.

And as to forcing civility, Hamilton speaks to us: “For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”

Exactly.

Implied Civility Enforcement via the Democratic Process
By definition, and by implication, civility is one of the intended outcomes of a democracy. One interesting inherent feature of a democracy is that it auto-censors. Namely, it automatically, sans the force of government, promotes civility. How?

A senator calls soldiers stupid and uneducated. Is such a statement uncivil? Many would think so. Is it illegal? No. Should it be censored or otherwise restricted by the civility police? No. Will the senator’s presidential bid ever come to fruition? A near certainty of no. Neat how this democracy thing works.

Consider this statement: “The President marked the half-way post on the road to the sewers.” Is it uncivil? Of course – equating a president with a sewer (no pun intended as related to Marco Island) is uncivil and offensive. Did anyone complain? No – not even President Abraham Lincoln when these words were directed towards him and widely spread due to the popularity of the words’ author – H.L. Mencken.

Summary
It should serve as a reminder that the success of the American experiment in constitutional democracy is owed predominantly to the open uncensored and even uncivil (whatever that means) debate. As implied in the famous position of the country’s greatest poet, civil disobedience is a duty. Some interpret disobedience as uncivil, though it clearly is not – it’s a duty.

Consider the opposite. Fidel Castro is fond of saying “People can say anything they want – as long as I agree with it.” Try living in that environment for a while (few do).

The lack of civility may be uncomfortable and even offensive at times. Attempts to regulate uncivil speech, or even define it, or promote just civil speech is not appropriate for a democracy. Uncomfortable, yes. Needs to be regulated – please no, as such an action invites repercussions far worse than being uncomfortable.

And Lastly
The news is good. A heartfelt congratulations, appreciation and admiration for Council Chairperson DiSciullo for pulling this ill-conceived referendum. To Mrs. DiSciullo – democracy is a great thing, especially to those of us that are here because we lost it. Democracy is also uncomfortable, and as you contemplate the flak that surely you have received, may you feel comfortable in the knowledge that democracy is what you have just solidified.

Considerations on the Unity Referendum

A Bit of History
One of the most profound and effective efforts at “unity” was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established by the transitional authorities of a post-apartheid South Africa. Its stated mandate was "... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation." In more practical terms, the commission served to put a horrid past in the past as a precursor to nursing a social, economic and judicial reconstruction.

The premise of the reconciliation was a well understood purpose in unity. As the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995 elucidated: “… the Constitution states that the pursuit of national unity, the well-being of all South African citizens and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society.”

There have been similar efforts in other countries that have transitioned from atrocity-centered societies to democracy-styled governments. Two such examples are the former Soviet Union via “glasnost” and Germany’s post-Nazi era via “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” – literally meaning “coming to terms with the past”. These two efforts also envisioned unity as their goal.

Although historians continue to debate the effectiveness of such efforts, the motivation for these gut-wrenching exercises in humanism was clear – an effort to put the past behind and move forward in the spirit of unity. What is also clear is how they functioned. As a precursor to any meaningful reconciliation, offenses had to be first acknowledged and then forgiveness had to be requested.

Philosophical Questions
Do you really want to be united? Would you want to be united in common with people that are contemptuous of your values, your race, your beliefs, your ethnicity, your faith?

Namely, what purpose does it serve to proclaim unity with your neighbor because you both love Marco Island, but that same neighbor wants you shot because you both disagree on another issue?

Is compromising one’s values for the sake of unity a virtue?

Onto Marco Island
Unless the unity notion proposed by the favored political committee is a tax-payer funded political stunt, then it would behoove the City Council to consider the mechanics of effective and proven unity efforts.

Without a constitutional amendment (the U.S. Constitution does not legislate anything of the kind - actually quite the contrary), unity can not be legislated. That leaves it up to the will of the people in the community if they want to be united. And since it is a virtual certainty that not everyone wants to be united, then one should question the effort since unity means “all”.

Perhaps there is another way to approach what is in essence a volunteer effort with the “force” of government – for after all, a City Council produced resolution carries the force of government.

How about if the City Council were to look at the above noted world-renown unity efforts and follow the very same processes? If the City Council is going to go through the trouble, time, expense and expend the opportunity cost, why not take the path that has already been proven effective?

Every effort in this regard followed the same roadmap: admit to transgressions, ask for forgiveness, receive absolution, and then and only then can there be unity.

The City of Marco Island City Council Sponsored Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Each citizen is encouraged to speak openly and without fear of retribution. Each citizen is encouraged to detail all of the transgressions committed against any and all interests of Marco Island, its businesses and its citizens. After which, the Commission will absolve the citizen.

When all citizens are done, then each business and every business interest will do the same.

How do we start? How about if the City Council leads by example? Since good leadership is leadership that leads by example, first to appear before the Reconciliation Commission should be the City Council members, followed by the city manager, then the city lawyer and all city employees.

When all is said and done, we acknowledge the past, put it behind us, and move forward in unity.

And heck, you never know: Desmod Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Willem deKlerk (S. Africa) and Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet Union) all received the Nobel Peace Price in part for their efforts in their respective reconciliation and unity efforts – so maybe there will be a Nobel Peace Price for Councilperson DiSciullo for encouraging such an altruistic idea.

Resolution Submitted to City Council

RESOLUTION 06-
A RESOLUTION TO RESTORE TAX DOLLARS TO
THE MARCO ISLAND TREASURY

WHEREAS, The City of Marco Island receives most of it’s funding from taxing It’s residents; and

WHEREAS, The City of Marco Island has contract 05-006 with Quality Enterprises USA, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, Said Contract under Article 13.1 provides for indemnification of the City of Marco Island from said Contractor for all suits and actions including attorneys fees and all costs associated with any action brought against the City as a result of this contract; and

WHEREAS, Said Contract under Article 14 provides that Contractor will comply with, at it’s own expense, with all federal, state and local laws, codes, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements applicable to the Project; and

WHEREAS, Said Contract under Article 29, USE OF PREMISES, said Contractor shall assume full responsibility for any damage to any such land or area, or to the owner of occupant thereof, or any land or areas contiguous thereto resulting from the performance of the work; and

WHEREAS, The City of Marco has expended $175,471 as of September 1, 2006 in cleanup and legal costs for the removal of asbestos from Site-C of the future veterans park.

WHEREAS, The City Council of The City of Marco Island ratified the mediation agreement between C.A.R.E.S., Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., and The City of Marco Island wherein the City agreed to pursue Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. to collect the above sum.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Marco Island Florida, that the City will immediately file a claim with Quality Enterprises insurance carrier to recover the above mentioned sum, and heretofore enforce all articles of the contract and have the Contractor pay all costs for any subsequent cleanup of asbestos contamination on Marco Island as a result of the Contractors performance under said contract.

Proposed in open and regular session by the City Council of the City of Marco Island this 6th Day of November 2006.

ATTEST:
______________________________________
Laura Litzan; City Clerk


CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA

By:____________________________________
Terri DiSciullo: Council Chairperson


Approved as to Form:

______________________________________
Richard D. Yavonavich: City Attorney

Open Letter to the City Council

By Byron Erickson

A civility resolution for Marco Island has been proposed by Council Chair DiSciullo. A resolution designed to henceforth end incivility, encourage only free and open civil discourse and respect for the opinions of others and the restoration of public decorum. Although I believe her motives are well intentioned, they are not grounded in good will and may cause more harm to our community than good.

The genesis of this resolution comes from a letter Celebrate Marco sent to the City Council. Celebrate Marco was established to ensure that the voice of real estate, chamber of commerce and cooperate interests be heard on Marco Island. Celebrate Marco hides behind good works to promote a political agenda which is to counter grass root s organizations that are attempting to promote the will of our residents. The board of Celebrate Marco includes two former Council members responsible for many of the root causes of our city disharmony and divisiveness.

Councilwoman DiSciullo has stated in support of her resolution that sometimes all you need is a realization of what's going on. I suggest that M s. DiSciullo does not realize what Celebrate Marco is really up to. I suggest the real motive behind Celebrate Marco's promotion of this initiative is to obtain a City sponsored platform to further promote its political agenda. The so called unity petit ion would be the first realization of their goal. CM board member John Arceri admits to this while promoting the unity petition as a document intended to overlap with the second round of petitions to recall Councilman Minozzi, Trotter and Tucker. This is clearly an effort to campaign on the behalf of targeted officials. This city's promotion and participation in that effort would be in violation of election laws.

I also suggest that it would be more useful for the Council to adopt a resolution to get to the root causes of the incivility, acrimonious tone and controversial issues currently plaguing our City. This could be accomplished with a simple workshop in which Council members could examine the origins of the problems confronting our city and commit to positively work to heal our island by making real attempts to correct those causes.

If the Chairwoman earnestly seeks ideas to make good resolutions designed to improve acrimony, she should ask for citizen input and not be fooled into doing the bidding of clever politicians like John Arceri and Mr. Lazarus. Ms. DiSciullo should beware of any proposal from Celebrate Marco; they have members that have encouraged the shooting of those who oppose them.

Proposing a resolution whose genesis comes from controversial political action committee like Celebrate Marco is clearly choosing sides and can only lead to more acrimony. City Council's approval of such a resolution would be a disservice to our City and our Community.