Expert believes city violated Sunshine Law

An expert knowledgeable about the state Sunshine Law believes that the city of Marco Island has violated the law.

In an e-mail dated Sept. 26, 2005, Marco Island City Councilor Mike Minozzi stated to City Manager Bill Moss that “I am concerned that all these messages back and forth may potentially be a conflict with the Sunshine Laws.”

Photo by Ed Bania, Eagle staff

In an e-mail dated Sept. 26, 2005, Marco Island City Councilor Mike Minozzi stated to City Manager Bill Moss that “I am concerned that all these messages back and forth may potentially be a conflict with the Sunshine Laws.”

"What's problematic is there seems to be a discussion after a public meeting amongst city councilmen about public business," Adria Harper, director of the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee, told the Marco Eagle on Friday.

Discussion between two or more members of a public board is subject to the Sunshine Law. The law requires that discussions about public business should be saved for a public meeting.

Harper added that the rules specifically require that meetings are noticed, minutes are taken and the public be allowed to participate. She noted that citizen participation is a critical item of the law.

Marco Island resident "Butch" Neylon gave fellow resident Ray Beaufort a copy of an e-mail last year that was sent by former Marco Island City Councilor John Arceri to Marco Island City Manager Bill Moss in September, 2005. Beaufort and Neylon suspected a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Neylon filed a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act last month with the city for e-mails sent by councilors from August through October of 2005.

Neylon said City Clerk Laura Litzan replied that the city would have to pay an information technology person to write a routine to sort the e-mails out from other e-mails. Neylon paid the city $140 when he recieved the e-mails.

"It was damning — the collusion between Arceri and Moss and (Rony) Joel and everybody else joined in," Neylon said. "It was clear that this was born out of deceit."

Harper read the e-mails — dated from Aug. 2, 2005 to Sept. 27, 2005 — at the request of the Eagle.

In an e-mail dated Sept. 26, Councilor Mike Minozzi stated to Moss that "I am concerned that all these messages back and forth may potentially be a conflict with the Sunshine Laws. I was under the impression that the council would retrain from these type of messages and discuss the subjects at the council meetings in the open. I hesitate to 'jump into' this discussion, but I will mention two things and if they must be made public, please do so."

The e-mail continues and discusses the payment of notes, bonds, revenue, impact and sewer fees regarding the city's water and sewer systems.

Harper said that other portions of the e-mails "stood out for me."

One was a message from Arceri to Moss on Aug. 1, 2005, regarding wastewater and master meter issues. After Arceri made five points to Moss, the councilor stated, "Despite all of the above subsidy issues, we are still considering assessing master meter condos only 75 percent of what all other customers pay for a base charge. Bill, this could be sent to council for information. You will have to figure out an answer to the reason we are not including hotels and commercial at this time."

Another e-mail was dated Aug. 4, 2005, from Arceri to Moss and Marco Island Public Works Director Rony Joel.

"Note the attached request from (former Naples Daily News reporter) Bill Bruce," Arceri stated. "This could be an excellent opportunity for us to demonstrate the 'make-up' work we have to do as a result of FWS' (Florida Water Service) lack of planning and maintenance in the years prior to our takeover of the sewer system as one reason for the high sewer assessment costs."

In the last paragraph of the e-mail, Arceri stated, "FWS doesn't exist so putting some deserved blame on them makes sense for our own justification."

In another e-mail to Moss and Joel dated Aug. 4, 2005, Arceri discussed the city's wastewater system.

"Parts are over 30 years of age nearing the end of their useful lives," Arceri quoted from a November, 2004 report. "Some 2.5 mgd (million gallons a day) of the plant is 33 years old and the remaining 1 mgd is 15 years old. Failure to adequately replace parts as they aged has also burdened us."

He also quotes from the report that most of the city's pump stations can't meet accepted standards or are inoperable.

Near the end of the e-mail, Arceri stated, "The only issue we need to be careful of is 'how much of this did we know when we bought the system and should we have better prepared for it?' "

Another e-mail, dated Sept. 26, 2005, from Arceri to Moss and Joel caught Harper's eye.

"Just an after thought on the issue of needing a workshop to 'discuss' the sewer assessment methodology," Arceri stated. "A better approach would be to sit with each council person, individually, and explain the general approach we discussed and then show them the details of the cost estimates to support the conclusions. In an open forum there will be hundreds of questions and suggestions, each with their own agenda that will greatly increase confusion and anxiety. There is no, and cannot be, any perfectly fair way of doing this. It is just too imperfect a process (with all costs and revenues being lumped together, with the asset purchase being lumped together, etc). What you have developed is more than adequate."

In an e-mail dated Aug. 16, 2005, Arceri responded to an e-mail from then council chairwoman Vickie Kelber regarding water rates charged to condominiums.

Another e-mail dated Sept. 25, 2005 from council member Terri DiSciullo, who is currently the council's chairwoman, was sent to Moss and the six other councilors. The message discusses the cost of improving or expanding the wastewater treatment plant.

"The problem with having a discussion through e-mail is that it thwarts the public's ability to participate in public business," Harper noted.

Attorney Sam Gold of Naples said Florida law also prohibits councilors from using the city manager or other officials as a conduit to avoid the Sunshine Law. He added the Office of the Attorney General has said that the law tries to prevent circumventing by evasive means.

Unknowing violations of the law carry civil penalties of up to $500, according to Gold. He said fines and imprisonment for up to 60 days can be imposed on a person who knowingly violates the law.

When contacted Friday for comment, Marco Island City Attorney Rich Yovanovich asked to see the e-mails. He said Saturday he couldn't comment on the allegation that the law was violated without doing an investigation into the messages.

"However, all decisions made by the city council were made at properly advertised public meetings," Yovanovich stated. "Therefore, even if a violation occured and I am not saying one did, the violation was cured by the city council publicly discussing the matter and voting after the public discussion."

"If a court determines that there was a Sunshine Law violation, then any decision that came forth from that discussion is void," Harper said.

She added the city could have a "cure meeting" in which the same people committing the violation have the same discussion in a public forum, thereby meeting the Sunshine Laws.

"It's requiring that you reenact what happened before but under the Sunshine Law," she said.

The council members in office at the time and responsible for the violation would have to go through the same motions.

If someone suspects a violation of the Sunshine Law, Harper suggested that they go to the local office of the Florida State Attorney. Staff at the office are authorized to investigate both criminal and non-criminal infractions of the law.

Another option is to speak to a private civil attorney.

The third is to go to the Office of Attorney General in Tallahassee. Harper noted that the office has a free open government mediation program. In this care, the mediation would be between the complainant and Marco Island city officials and the city attorney.

"It's an issue of critical importance that is occurring through e-mails and not a meeting," Harper said. "There were decisions made that citizens are unhappy about and they didn't have an opportunity to participate."

Neylon, Beaufort and other citizens have balked at connecting to the city's $135 million Septic Tank Replacement Program (STRP) and expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Neylon noted that city officials were stating many different cost estimates for the STRP and special assessments during 2005 and 2006. He and Beaufort asked the city again under the Freedom of Information Act for all other e-mails sent by city councilors during the two years.

"That was two weeks ago," Neylon said Friday. "The sort routine was already written. I have been jacked around."

He added there are 14 e-mails between himself and Litzan requesting the records.

Harper said any public agency has to provide access to public records unless a specific statutory exemption applies. Citizens should request in writing what, if any, specific statutory exemptions apply to the requested records.

"There is no exemption for e-mails," Harper added. "Even if there were an exemption to a certain record, the public agency can only black out that part of the record and has to provide the rest."

Beaufort believes the city is "sanitizing" the rest of the requested records.

Neylon said Litzan estimated that the request would cost close to $3,000. Harper said the amount seems unreasonable. She added that officials can charge a fee of 15 cents per page of a copy of a record.

"A public agency cannot charge to inspect a public record," Harper said. "You have to assume that when they ask $3,000, they are charging an extensive use fee."

That fee can only be charged when the nature of the request requires extensive clerical assistance, according to Harper. She added that the fee still has to be based on the actual cost incurred. Overhead costs, such as electrical lighting to do the job, cannot be charged.

Harper recommended that Neylon first ask the city for a detailed breakdown of the estimate and request a copy of their policy on public records requests and fees.

The First Amendment Foundation was established more than 20 years ago as a non-profit 501-C3 to protect and advance open government in Florida through the application of the Public Records and Sunshine laws. Harper noted that the staff of the foundation is highly experienced in both laws.

The foundation can be reached by calling 800-337-3518 or by visiting itsr Web site at www.floridafaf.org.

© 2007 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 54

rogerhall59 writes:

Thank you Eagle and Ed Bania for an excellent investigative article. It now appears that the whole STRP was and is based on a criminal enterprise and the actions of the council and CM rendered the subsequent approvals invalid. I hope the existing council has enough integrity to put a stop to this $135,000,000 unlawfully promoted program and review the entire matter. If they fail to meet their obligations I am sure there are many citizens that will do their job for them. It is time for this council to start representing the citizens without the citizens having to go to court to force them to do so. May we have some leadership please? Roger Hall

MarcoMan writes:

The Attorney General has ruled that ....that the use of a memorandum by a city commissioner to provide information to the commission on a particular subject, with no response from or interaction among the commissioners allowed prior to a public meeting on this subject, would not violate s. 286.011, F.S.

Further, the Attorney General has stated that the e-mail communication of factual background information from one city council member to other council members is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying. However, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law. Just because to councilors email information, if it was after the law has been passed and openly discussed in a public meeting then IT DOES NOT VIOLATE SUNSHINE!

Also, while may be not the best policy, if the council emailed back and forth...OK! Shame on them. However, their decisions were discussed many times in an open forum, called a CITY COUNCIL MEETING!

But the people doing this know this! They just continue to try anything they can to make problems on Marco! Shame on YOU! I am sure there are other communities NORTH that welcome your attention to details, your cracker jack law degrees, your mail order engineering and environmental scientist degrees, and your computer generated civic policy certificates.

It certainly should not surprise anyone that Mr. Bania, who is embedded with these very people continues his onsided reporting, but that seems to be what the Eagle wants!

SHAME ON YOU!

rogerhall59 writes:

Dear Marco Man, It would seem that you consider yourself an expert in the field, more knowledgeabe on the subject matter than the Director of the First Amendment Foundation. I am sure our other para legal, Bill Moss will weigh in with his expert opinion. The bottom line is that this matter will be subject to major review with major consequences for any violators of the statue. I wonder if you have enough confidence in your expertise to indemnify the councilmen and Mr. Moss from their possible future exposure to legal claims resulting from costs to the city and its citizens for any malfeasance that may have been committed.

You would have some credibility if you had the courage to at least sign your name.

Roger Hall

ejburger writes:

Gasping for their last breath. How can you compliment Bania on a well-researched article when it is so blatantly one-sided? There is no proof of any wrongdoing only an opinion from a representative at the First Amendment Foundation, a liberal organization started and funded by newspapers! Why not get the "evidence" to the states attorney? Who are you going to contact next, the ACLU? This is yet another feeble attempt to gain some momentum with the help of Ed Bania. Sorry folks, no such luck here.

Lolala writes:

Thank you Mr. Bania and the Eagle. You both deserve recognition for your professional investigation and reporting of the facts. One third of our citizens have known for a long time that these criminals have been trying to bilk us and that they never told us the why or wherefore. Now we know that they established the STRP in secret because they knew it could not be justified. They committed these crimes with the deliberate intent to decieve us. Minozzi actually admits as much in one of his emails to Moss! John Arceri actually coaches his City Manager on how to win over fellow Council Members! He then takes it one step further and implys that some of his fellow Council members are too ignorent to get it as a group so hit them up individully. If that doesn show intent I don't know what does. Let's get this investigation started. If it goes to trial, ask for a jury trial, we already know how our judges will rule. Send the evidence to the appropriate authority for investigation. That would not be Marco Island's Chief of Police because he is supervised by one of the potential subjects. 135 million dollar cost for a project that should have only cost a third as much. That amount of money alone invites investigation. Moss should offer his resignation immediately or be fired. Those Council members that participated in this secrecy need to resign as well. The City should order the City Attorney to start action to collect all lost money from previous and current officials that initiated this project and participated in the attempt to decieve us immediately. Cleaning up this mess will cost Marco Island a bundle and these officials should not be allowed to get away with it. Hit them in their pockets to teach future Council members that they must obey the law and respect the citizens they are sworn to serve. Service does not give one the right to take advantage of those you serve.

jwputnam writes:

Mr. Burger,

You must live on another planet. Read the emails. It doesn't take any professional to interpret the words. I think that the general public will get the idea.

You and your friends simply amaze me. If I were a member of CM,I would be afraid to walk the beach. If I were Arceri, I would hide.

dougenman writes:

When one realizes that this many possible violations occurred in a 90 day time frame one can only wonder what the looking at the last three years of emails will turn up!

Doug Enman

samuelmorey writes:

Marcoman, you do not have the courage of your conviction (pun intended) to state your name at the end of your diatribe. The tone of your message leads me to suspect John Arceri or Tarik Ayasun. Step out in to the sunshine (another pun intended) so we can "see" your face.

Ken Allen

sunalsorises writes:

You have got to be kidding! This group is too vicious and unpredictable for people to expose themselves. Next thing you know you'll be telling them to be afraid to walk the beach as Putnam has threatened Celebrate Marco members. (Putnam (see above): "If I were a member of CM,I would be afraid to walk the beach. If I were Arceri, I would hide." You lose all your overblown and personal attacks and expect individuals to id themselves? I don't think so.
This article was completely irresponsible. Where is one quotation from any of the accused?
It appears that Bania is making the news again with his completely biased and exagerated story. Where is the quotation from the so called expert saying the City violated the Sunshine law? Bania added this bit of drama as a cheap tabloid headline grabbing piece of trash reporting. The Eagle has hit a new low. I am calling to quit delivery.

EdFoster writes:

Dear Sunny,

Was it not at a Celebrate Marco meeting that someone shouted out "shoot 'em all" referring to CARES supporters? I still sign my blog entries. Where's your backbone?

Ed Foster

bbyrone46 writes:

sunalsorises, the quotations are in the evidence. These perps wrote the very words being used against them. The emails will be used to prove a case against them. You want them to submit to interviews and further incriminate themselves? Some supporter you are. It is time to pay the piper, allegations have proven to be true and factual. We need some resignations so that our city can move forward. Talk to your friends and give them comfort, they need it now more than ever. Advise them to stand up and do their duty to their family and community, tell them to resign.

karenglaub writes:

The revelations of these emails simply confirm what many of us have suspected for some time. Collusion between Moss and some councilors has been obvious and now we see proof of it. This from a city manager who was touted as someone having high credentials yet doesn't seem to understand the "sunshine law"? What are the excuses going to be this time from the council? How many lawyers will they hire and how many of our tax dollars will be spent to protect him this time? Thanks Butch for digging this up. I'm outraged that they have the nerve to ask $3000. for copies of emails, and even disgusted by the attack on the Eagle and Ed Bania for reporting the facts. The truth hurts doesn't it?

jwputnam writes:

It behooves ALL of us to attend tomorrow night's council meeting. I would hope that the citizens of Marco are now ready to show great nterest in the goings on. It is truly time for the people to express their will. Their presence alone will speak out. No reason to be unruly, although it is difficult when those in charge have committed crimes against us. Maybe Tucker will finally resign for lying to us and admitting it. Maybe Terri and Mike the Magnificent will resign for Sunshine violations. Attend and see.

valnmario writes:

http://brechner.jou.ufl.edu/counties/...

please check out the above link.
put them in the clink!

Eagleeye writes:

The lawsuit was futile. The appeal will be laughed out of court. And the Sunshine Law will be the last straw the malcontents can grasp as they go down, down, down.

bbyrone46 writes:

Eagleey, I don't think your thoughts are correct this time. The evidence I have seen clearly reveal that Arceri, Kelber and Minozzi fully understood what constituted a violation of Florida Sunshine laws. Sequential emails written within a day of that showing reveal their actual participation with Moss as a particpant and active spectator. To knowingly particiapate in a violation is far more serious then accidently doing so. Unfortunately, I think this may be the real thing this time.

EdFoster writes:

Lest anyone doubt that councilors understand the Sunshine Law, a communication from Chairwoman Vickie Kelber to me in November 2005 outlining the requirements of the law is pasted below. This communication arose because of my complaint that the City was usurping the workshop that CARES itself had suggested and was in the midst of arranging with MICA. Ms. Kelber was stating that she couldn't speak for "government" because of the Sunshine Law so I should just bug off and get lost. The pertinent part is the third paragraph.

Ed Foster

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: Vickie Kelber <councilwomankelber@comcast.net>
To: C-A-R-E-S@comcast.net
Cc: Glenn Tucker <friartuck3725@cs.com>, William Trotter <wdtrotter@earthlink.net>, Ruth <marcocivic@earthlink.net>, Jeannette Patterson <law@peganet.com>, E. Moss <bmoss@cityofmarcoisland.com>, Mike Minozzi <mminozzi@comcast.net>, Terri DiSciullo <terri626@juno.com>, John Arceri <arcmi@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wastewater Management Workshop
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:14:53 +0000

Dear Mr. Foster:

I have listened to the tape of the Oct. 17th meeting. There was no
inquiry from you regarding who you should work with to set up a
workshop, nor any indication that you would be involved in setting it
up.

As I noted in my previous email, there was extensive discussion a t the
Oct. 17th meeting regarding who would be invited to the workshop and it
was very clear that Mr. Moss was directed by Council to set it up.

I cannot speak for "government" regarding what "government" would agree
to regarding this workshop. As you may or may not be aware, Council
can only discuss business when in a public meeting. For council
members to discuss business outside of a public meeting is a violation
of the Government in the Sunshine law. For anyone to act as a liaison
among Council members to solicit individual opinions regarding this is
also a violation of the Government in the Sunshine Law. Although other
council members have been sent copies of our email correspondence, the
copies are for their information only. For any of them to respond with
an opinion regarding what "government" would agree to would also be a
violation of the Government in the Sunshine Law.

Vickie Kelber
Chair
Marco Island City Council

valnmario writes:

Marco Island HOME RULE excludes council and staff from the sunshine laws.

valnmario writes:

Does anyone know how to bake a cake with a file in it?
thanx,
M. Minozzi

lauralbi1 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

lauralbi1 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Lolala writes:

Is someone saying inflamatory things again? tsk, tsk. Why can't we be more positive? The majority of Marco Island simply wants to clean up their government. That is a positive goal and one that will benefit all of us. Any governemt that makes policy in secret is working against us and should never be supported. There is very real evidence that Minozzi, a Council member knowlingly violated the States Sunshine Law. He did so even after he had cautioned others to work in the sunshine. This is serious stuff and should not be tolorated by any citizen that cares about open government.

rcbauburn writes:

Hope to see a large group at the meeting this evening. They need to know that what happened is a travesty against the citizens of Marco.

lowus writes:

Valnmario raise an intresting question. What if Moss has somehow voided sunshine laws on Marco? This would normally be a s----- question but Moss has already thumbed his nose at state law in favor of home rule.

15yearsmarco writes:

If home rule applies to the sunshine laws Marco may as well be it's own county.

Avenger writes:

Fascinating—it was standing-room only in the City Council meeting tonight. Several citizens addressed the sunshine violation issue during public comment. Council started on their consent agenda; Chuck Kiester proposed a moratorium of the STRP until allegations about sunshine violations are resolved. Ted Forcht seconded it; proposal failed 5-2 (no surprise there!). Then Glenn Tucker proposed that the meeting be adjourned; his protégé Rob Popoff seconded, and another 5-2 vote ended the meeting around 6:35. So no city business was conducted tonight; what were they afraid of, that an investigation might actually occur?!

rcbauburn writes:

There better be an investigation. Let them feel the pain the way we feel the pain without ever having a say in this whole sewer fiasco. Deciding the STRP behind closed doors is a slap in our faces.
If they can't stand the heat, they should get out of the fire.

lowus writes:

me see a storm on the horizon

gators910 writes:

ITS TIME FOR A NEW START ON THE ISLAND..A STORM IS BREWING AND THINGS ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER...

stopthedestructionofmarco writes:

had the misprivledge to attend tonights city council meeting. Oh my God, this government has lost its city. Talk about "its my ball and I'm leaving".
The speakers who defended our city should be commended, it was back to school for those councillors-the 5 of them including Moss looked like Lilly Tomlin in that big chair as they sat there in shock. Let the investigations begin.

Avenger writes:

Correction to my previous post—a friend sitting closer to the front at the City Council meeting said the adjournment vote was 4-3, with Trotter joining Kiester and Forcht to vote against adjourning.

jwputnam writes:

I overheard Rob Popoff tell a citizen that the council smelled alcohol in the room and that is why they adjourned. Interesting. I didn't even know there was a party! What bunk.

stopthedestructionofmarco writes:

I smell alcohol at every council meeting, except for those where Mr. Tucker is not in attendance.

rcbauburn writes:

I overheard Popoff tell someone that he doesn't need to put up with that schtuff for $6,000 per year.....
The audience was NOT unruly, but most were concerned with the apparent violations of the Sunshine Laws. Most council members did not like what they were hearing and that is why the fast adjournment.

stopthedestructionofmarco writes:

When Poppoff accepted all that cash from Tucker and the RNC for his campaign didn't he realize 'there was gonna be some payback' down the road and things were going to get nasty. Rob, sleep in the bed you make.

EdFoster writes:

A portion of an e-mail that I sent to Council Chair DiSciullo a few days ago:

This City cannot govern itself under this Council with Moss as City Manager. I strongly suggest that the Council fire Moss on Monday and then resign as a group to protect what little is left of its integrity. Ask the Governor to appoint a Special Master pro tempore to govern the City and maintain basic services (by which I mean Police, Fire, Water and Sewage) until a new council is elected and appoints a new City Manager. I believe this is possible under the state constitution. Any councilor who wishes to serve again and thinks he or she can be elected is free to run again but the extent of their term of office cannot exceed that which they would have had under the existing regime. During the time that the Special Master is in control, all unnecessary work must cease ... that means all construction not having an immediate effect on public welfare. If a street collapses, you fix it. If a sewer main collapses, you fix it, but short of that or similar disasters you stop construction.

I'm serious!

Ed

After tonight's fiasco where we witnessed our government refusing to conduct City business and scurrying from a wrathful electorate to hide in a hole, I suggest that my recommendation is more appropriate than ever. We have no government on Marco Island and it is about time that which purports to be a government realize that fact and resign.

Ed Foster

lauralbi1 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

lauralbi1 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

jwputnam writes:

Ed, you are such a loyalist.

Tell me, what do you think of Arceri's comments about hiding the cost of the FWS? How about his other comments about how to fool the people?

EdFoster writes:

Mr. Issler:

We all know that in this country people are considered innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Of course, it's up to the courts to decide whether the law was broken. That's so obvious that it needn't be dwelled upon in a newspaper article that suggests a law may have been violated.

Adria Harper's e-mail is a simple attempt to go "on record" reiterating the obvious to protect the First Amendment Foundation from any possible charge that they have "ruled" that the councilors have violated the Sunshine Law.

Ed, I'm afraid you're grasping at straws here and straws won't keep your boat afloat but thank you for having the backbone to sign your posting.

Ed Foster

lauralbi1 writes:

All I did was post an e-mail sent to Mr. Bania.

By the way, the vote to close the meeting was 6-1
Ed Issler

lauralbi1 writes:

I am so comfortable that it isn't even funny. You all keep using the terms like citizens and electorate. What you want all of us to forget is that the majority of the citizens and the electorate have spoken and elected the Coucil that currently govern us. The majority and the electorate are not you, but you make up a portion of it (a minority at that).

The next City Council meeting will be held without the benefit of Public attendance, if there is a repeat of what happened last night. The Council will vote the way it feels it should on issues before it, with or without our presence. That is our fantastic Democracy in action.

So, all the other fodder that you would bring up is irrelevant. The Courts have already determined much of what you contend is wrong, and found you to be wrong. I am comfortable with Democracy as my form of Government. There is no place for Anarchy, especially when it is sponsored by what is proven to be a minority of the electorate.
Ed Issler

bbyrone46 writes:

Mr. Issler, you cannot publish another person's email without their consent. What country did you originate from? Also, your description of the next Council meeting would again be a clear violation of government working in the shade. Policy must be discussed between two or more elected officials in a public meeting. You watched the majority last night. Next meeting will have even more people attending, arrive early or the Chief might not let you in.

jwputnam writes:

I hate the prospect of having to defend Mr. Issler, but in all fairness, I do not know why his remarks above were removed. I did not find them offensive. He simply posted an email that was also civil. I did interpret the email quite differently as did Mr. Foster. (I do wonder how he obtained that email, I admit.)

Mr. Issler, we are not anarchists. Please be a little more careful with your words. None of us have strayed beyond the bounds of democracy. None of us has committed a crime against the state (the people), although crimes appear to have been committed against us. This is our opinion and I believe that it is wel founded.

When you get Tucker to apologize for lying to the citizens, maybe I'll applaud you. Then you can start on Arceri, but that will be MUCH more difficult. There is larceny in that soul!

John Putnam

jwputnam writes:

It is more interesting to me as to how Mr. Issler obtained that email. I would doubt that it is illegal to post it no matter how it was obtained, but perhaps not particulary ethical. I have been guilty of re-posting others emails as well, but they were already on the net.

lauralbi1 writes:

I find it total hypocritical that the Eagle is stifling Freedom of Speech by removing the e-mail from Adria Harper to Mr. Bania. It was copied to the publisher of the Eagle. I guess the Eagle and Mr. Bania have now become entangled in a Freedom of the Press issue by deleting the e-mail.
At the minimum, Mr. Bania and/or the Eagle should print the e-mail or a retraction of the Headline itself as a result of the e-mail.
Ed Issler

jwputnam writes:

Mr Issler,

As usual, you evade the question. How did you get a copy of that email?

While you are at it, could you please provide us all with the name of the university from which you received the engineering degrees that you profess ot have? I am just curious. What are your credentials?

strike3 writes:

Mr. Issler believes that the council voting and making decisions without the citizens being in attendance is "fantastic Democracy".........He and Castro would get along great.

stopthedestructionofmarco writes:

Anyone hear of a higher up at the Eagle getting account info on bloggers and giving it to her husband and Celebrate Marco freinds?
If true could we start a class-action?

lauralbi1 writes:

You know, there are many of you that have responded above that, in my opinion, are much too paranoid. Hopefully there is some rational people looking at all this to realize that there is no basis for a lawsuit over Sunshine Violations, as they are legally stated. Or, we, as citizens, could go to Court again, spend a lot of our money, and prove it. Everyone is so concerned about the e-mail to Mr. Bania, when, in fact, there have been other postings that have shared much more confidential information that violated people's privacy. Everyone always seems to be so set on getting at the entire story, and yet in this case, you are more concerned as to how the truth was obtained. I knew I felt better when I was avoiding this site, and guess I nedd to once again avoid sharing opinions and information.
Ed Issler

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features