Recall Reality and The Rule Of Law. Stay Informed Here...

Before you are beset by the inevitable barrage of local headlines screaming "Stoltzfus Stifled!" and Recallers dancing in the streets snorting "Nyah, nyah nah nyah nyah! Victory!" please, please, take a quiet moment in your busy day to actually read Judge Nicholas' Order HERE merely denying Mr. Sotltzfus' request for an emergency determination of the legitimacy of the Recall Petition. There is no nyah nyah victory here, only a delayed decision. And, perhaps, delayed justice.

Richard Harrison, Mr. Stoltzfus' lawyer, correctly points out HERE in a statement released today that this is a "matter of fundamental due process" and has understandably filed an expedited appeal to the 2nd District Court. One expects that the court will give the appeal speedy and due consideration. In the meantime, a thoughtful reading of the appealed order indicates that Judge Nicholas did not say Mr. Stoltzfus is not entitled to the result he seeks. Judge Nicholas merely says he is not prepared to render a decision as to that result NOW and that it is "appropriate for the court to determine the legal sufficiency of the grounds contained in the petition for recall once the recall process (is) completed, but prior to the election itself." In other words, once the next round of signatures (15% of registered voters this time) along with the Stoltzfus defense statement is certified. Of course, as Judge Nicholas significantly points out, that is only IF that next round of signatures is certified.

So, as you can see, Judge Nicholas only addresses the request for an expedited ruling on the merits of the case, not the merits themselves. It's a nuance but a very important nuance and one the local media will predictably ignore in favor of its tried and true tabloidian tunnel vision. The judge sums it up quite clearly in his last paragraph by essentially telling us "Hey, what's the hurry here? The law gives Mr. Stoltzfus plenty of opportunity to make his case once the recall folks have made theirs. I'll take a look at it then." And when he does, if he does, he will be bound by precedent to heed the words of former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead:

"We agree that the public policy underlying the [recall statute] does not mandate that officials who have been duly elected to their positions of responsibility should have to face an extraordinary recall election with every vote they cast or statement they make. As pointed out by Justice McFarland in Unger v. Horn, 240 Kan. 740, 732 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1987), “voters may be angry with an elected official over how he or she voted on a controversial issue, the firing of a public employee upon taking office, how the officer behaved at some function, or a hundred other reasons - none of which is a valid ground for recall under [the applicable recall statute].” (emphasis added) Garvin v. Jerome, 767 So. 2d. 1190 (Fla. 2000).

Yes, ultimately, the rule of law will determine whether a fractional but intrusive minority of citizens can cloak themselves in the robes of a judge and exert the powers of a jury on a fellow citizen neither accused nor convicted of the violation of any law. Justice delayed is not always justice denied. Sometimes it just takes a while to get there.

All the best.

Bill Yanger

Sun Op Ed

The effort to recall me as City of Anna Maria Commissioner has nothing to do with Sunshine Laws, which I have not broken, or public records disclosure laws, with which I’ve fully complied. This is about intimidation. It seems I’ve stepped on the tail of a very large dog.
Our City is divided. To oversimplify, on one side are those who approve of the recent developments on Pine Avenue; on the other side, those who disapprove.
I am among those who disapprove.
What is it we find objectionable? The answer is simple. The rules are being ignored.
It’s supposed to work like this: you’re a developer with a vision, financing, and a business plan. You find a location that accommodates your vision and you build that vision. If your assumptions are correct, your enterprise succeeds. If not, it fails. It’s the American way.
It’s a little different here in Anna Maria. Here a group of developers who has stated publicly this is the biggest project they’ve ever attempted, has a vision. Their vision doesn’t quite fit with our regulations. Rather than taking their vision to somewhere more compatible, they have chosen to stay here and make it fit. Instead of adjusting their vision to fit the regulations, they’ve expended considerable effort getting the regulations changed. Until recently, the City has mostly accommodated them. The City struck the owner/occupancy language in the ROR, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, made a few setback mistakes, but most importantly, approved non-compliant parking configurations.
Since I was elected, a majority of Commissioners has agreed the parking configurations on recently approved site plans are unsafe. P&Z and the Commission have begun making language changes to ensure those “back-out across the sidewalk into pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic” parking configurations are prohibited in future development.
Why all the fuss about a parking regulation? Because forcing developers to design safe, compliant parking shrinks the space available for their buildings. They’re crying foul and claiming we’ve devalued their properties. Our City Attorney disagrees. He has stated unequivocally the City is within its rights to make the changes in regulation it deems necessary for public safety or other appropriate reasons.
The developers have lost one battle, but instead of adjusting their vision, they’ve simply changed their strategy. Now it’s: if we can’t win on message, we’ll attack the messenger. The same cast of characters who opposed my election is now asking for my recall.
Why? Because I make policy decisions based on principle, not profit. Unlike many of them, I have no conflicts of interest and absolutely nothing to gain monetarily from the decisions I make as a Commissioner. I’m a businessman who has built a career working within the considerable restrictions of federal, state, and municipal regulations. I expect those who wish to do business within our City to work within the same type of restrictions.
I’ve learned much as a Commissioner. Certainly I could have been more restrained in some of my word choices. But I call things like I see them. The worst I can be accused of is indiscreet commentary. I’ve broken no laws.
If you believe the issues at stake here are Sunshine Laws or public records or indiscreet language, you’ve been deceived. This is about the losers of a recent election boldly attempting to negate the will of the majority. This is about discouraging good people from getting too involved. This is about accomplishing through lawyers what my opponents were unable to achieve at the ballot box.
Anna Maria is once again at a watershed moment in its history. If the residents of this town want to see a hundred more conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians added to our main street, more over-sized “old Florida cottages on steroids” crammed into lots, or meandering sidewalks and empty storefronts, they can recall me and they may get their wish.
But if the residents of Anna Maria want the vision of our Comprehensive Plan put forth as their vision, with “the single-family residential character of the City of Anna Maria . . . maintained and protected,” and if they want a Commissioner willing to hold the line on accommodating ill-conceived development, they can refuse to support this recall petition and I’ll continue to serve the City and the residents to the best of my ability.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner