So Readers May Stay Informed...

In her continuing effort to throw, uh, "stuff" at the proverbial wall hoping something, anything, eventually sticks, PAR's lawyer recently sent a letter to attorney Richard Harrison claiming additional violations of the Sunshine law by his client. The following is the text of Mr. Harrison's response to PAR's lawyer regarding her assertions. As you can see the letter was copied to all concerned parties and it is herewith copied to you:

May 11, 1020

Valerie A. Fernandez, Esq.
1411 Mantua Ave.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
fernandezvalerie7@gmail.com

Re: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus

Dear Ms. Fernandez:

Thank you for your email dated May 7, 2010, and for your gratuitous lecture on the requirements of Florida’s Sunshine Law. You have amply demonstrated the inherent wisdom in that old adage about the value of free advice.

While nobody in the City of Anna Maria should at this point harbor any illusions about the lengths to which you and your client, PAR, will apparently go to achieve the end you desire without regard to the requirements of the law or the wishes of the community, your latest effort is, I’m afraid, somewhat less than compelling. In fact, let us consider the myriad ways in which your recent attempt at intimidation is fundamentally, patently and shockingly incorrect both legally and logically.

First, you will really need to decide whether you think Commissioner Stoltzfus’ letters of which you complain are “one way memos” or are, rather, “attempting to solicit a response from Commissioner Quam.” Simple logic would dictate that both propositions cannot simultaneous be true, at least not any more than a “One Way” traffic sign can be said to “solicit” drivers to travel in the contraindicated direction.

Second, the records of the City reflect that the City Attorney, Mr. Dye, as recently as the January 14, 2010, City Commission/Planning & Zoning Board Worksession addressed this issue specifically in response to a query from Commissioner Quam. According to the minutes of that worksession, “City Attorney Dye informed that one-way emails were legal under the Sunshine Law.” There is no meaningful distinction between an email communication and a letter or a posting on a blog. There is ample support for the proposition that such one way communications do not violate the Sunshine Law and there is no authority to indicate that such communications do violate the law. To be sure, Commissioner Stoltzfus is entitled to rely in good faith on the legal advice of the City Attorney notwithstanding your different view of matters.

With respect to a blog posting in particular, the very Attorney General Opinion you cite in your letter states categorically that “the mere posting of a position does not implicate the Sunshine Law.” Although that opinion goes on to opine that “subsequent postings by other commission members on the subject of the initial posting could be construed as a response which would be subject to the statute,” that does not in any way lead to the conclusion that the original post is or was in violation of the Sunshine Law. More to the point, none of the posts of which you complain had received any comments or responses online as of the date of your email; indeed, no such comments or responses appear as of the date of this letter.

Third, to the extent that you suggest that the Sunshine Law in any way impedes Commissioner Stoltzfus from communicating with members of the City’s Planning & Zoning Board, you are mistaken. The Sunshine Law applies only to meeting of two or more members of the same board or collegial body. See Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority, 461 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1984). You will also want to refer specifically to Attorney General Opinion 87-34, in which the Attorney General concluded that the Sunshine Law did not apply to a meeting between a city commission member and a member of that city’s appointed planning and zoning board.

Fourth, the implication that it is in any way improper for Commissioner Stoltzfus to state unilaterally his views on matters affecting or of interest to the City and its residents because (a) some residents might agree with him and then (b) having decided that they agree with him, might attempt to get other city officials to agree as well, is just bizarre. Under this very odd rationale, no elected official could ever publish a guest editorial in the local newspaper on a topic of current concern to his constituents for fear that a reader of the editorial might (a) agree and then (b) contact his other elected officials to try to convince them of the soundness of his newfound position. If this is legally correct, of course, then hundreds of newspapers statewide are aiding and abetting such violations on a regular basis, as such editorials by elected officials appear with quite some regularity. As much as I would greatly appreciate the delicious irony of a conclusion that would make the media a part of a vast conspiracy to violate the Sunshine Law, I’m afraid it just isn’t so. For the same reasons, it is not inappropriate for an elected official to attend a meeting of a civic organization, say a local Kiwanis Club, and state his or her views on any matter of current concern locally. Your position, taken to its logical terminus, would prohibit an elected official from ever speaking to even a single citizen about any topic of concern in the community, lest that citizen find that he agrees and then attempt to convince others, including other elected officials, likewise. The absurdity of this position should be readily apparent.

Finally, let me remind you that irrespective of how often you repeat the claim that Commissioner Stoltzfus has violated the Sunshine Law “by holding electronic meetings” and by “using evasive devices,” simply saying it – even saying it over and over – does not make it so. Your accusations have not been proven in any court of law, are untrue and are defamatory per se. Since you elected to distribute your email containing these false statements of fact to a number of other persons, you may be liable to Commissioner Stoltzfus for damages for libel and defamation. In light of the civil claim for damages that Commissioner Stoltzfus may now have against you and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.4137, demand is hereby made upon you to disclose the name and coverage of each known provider of liability insurance covering you and which does or may provide coverage for all or any portion of any such claim and to forward this request to each such insurer to enable it to furnish the information required to be provided by the referenced statute.

Very truly yours,

ALLEN DELL, P.A.



Richard A. Harrison

Board Certified in City, County &
Local Government Law

Copy via email to:
Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus, amcommstoltzfus@cityofannamaria.com
Commission Chairperson John Quam, amcommquam@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Charles “Chuck” H. Webb, amcommwebb@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Jo Ann Mattick, amcommmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Dale Woodland, amcommwoodland@cityofannamaria.com
Bob Barlow, ampzbarlow@cityofannamaria.com
Margaret Jenkins, ampzjenkins@cityofannamaria.com
Sandy Mattick, ampzmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Frank Pytel, ampzpytel@cityofannamaria.com
Randall Stover, ampzstover@cityofannamaria.com
Mike Yetter, ampzyetter@cityofannamaria.com
City Clerk Alice Baird, CMC, amclerk@cityofannamaria.com
City Attorney Jim Dye, amattorney@cityofannamaria.com and jdye@dyefirm.com
Mayor Fran Barford, ammayor@cityofannamaria.com

SOUND FAMILIAR?

Developers Poor-Mouth While Pumping Millions Into Denying People’s Right To Vote
Published Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:00 am
by Florida Hometown Democracy

The real estate speculators’ latest online video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 is a dramatic piece of work, courtesy of skilled political spinners, and it is designed to scare people away from getting their right to vote. Let’s pull back the curtain.It features Annie Fleeting, who claims that regulation has dashed her dreams of building a resort on St. Pete Beach. There are lots of scary-looking images of abandoned lots and graffiti.The truth is that when Fleeting and her developer-husband Robert announced they were going to construct high rises on the beachfront several years ago, local residents demanded input.A familiar Florida battle began: existing residents tried to hold onto their quality of life while speculators spread money and political influence around, trying to make more money off million-dollar views.Developers created a so-called “citizen’s group” called “Save Our Little Village.” “Save Our Little Village” was shepherded by Cornerstone Solutions, a political consultant group run by lobbyists for the National Association of Homebuilders and the Florida Association of Homebuilders.Campaign contribution reports show that “Save Our Little Village” was financed by developers and resort companies. To get people in St. Pete Beach to swallow more high rises, “Save Our Little Village” proposed ballot initiatives to change the town’s plan to allow more development. Then the developer-backed “Save Our Little Village” sued the city.So, the land-use situation that is highlighted in this misleading video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 was created by developers, for developers.“It’s ludicrous for developers to make a video that blames the failure of this high rise project on our Constitutional Amendment, which hasn’t even passed,” said Florida Hometown Democracy founder Lesley Blackner. “The developers are really rattled that people might actually get the chance to vote and interfere with their sweet deals. They will say anything at this point.”Why can’t Annie and Robert Fleeting (who own and operate other condo projects) build their resort hotel on St. Pete Beach? Because developers all over Florida overbuilt, over-borrowed, and sent the economy into a spiral of foreclosures and empty buildings.But that hasn’t stopped the developers and their friends from coming up with the big bucks – Since 2007, developers and their friends in the Sprawl Machine have raised $6,050,584 million (Floridians for Smarter Growth PAC, Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Save Our Constitution PACs) to try to defeat Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 – $1.4 million of that since January alone.

Imagine the day when...

The column below, by Julie Hauserman, appeared in the Sunday, May 9, Perspective section of the St. Petersburg Times. I am sending it to two entities: Those that govern one of the smallest political parcels in America--The City of Anna Maria--and to the guy who heads up the largest, Mr. Obama.

The reasons are simple: 1 ) Our City Commission recently voted NOT to support the county's appeal to prohibit drilling close to our coast; and 2) Mr. Obama has succumbed to lean in the same direction.

All I ask of either is, after you read the column below, get your butt to Bean Point at sunset. Yes, Mr. President, you too. While there: Imagine the day, maybe soon, when you won't be able to walk barefoot on our beach; The day the gulls and terns and pelicans and sandpipers are only a memory; The day  the sea oats are memorialised at the Mote Marine Laboratory; The day the toxic fumes reduced our bit of paradise to a ghost town; The day you wished the tourist traffic was bumper to bumper once again!

The Thing About Irony Is It Ain’t Always Funny

By Bill Yanger

Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.



Good morning.

Mornin’ buddy.

Hey hand me that sports page, the Rays won again. What’re you reading?

Oh, you know, all this oily crap about those folks who keep trying to mess up what makes this little part of the world so special.

I know exactly what you mean. Everything seems rosy when slick Big Money pats us on the back and tells us how good they are at protecting our golden goose. We’ve heard it all, you know, like, “Trust us. We are different. We got specialists.”

Right, and “It’ll never happen here.” That’s a good one.

Or, I love the “We are making life better for everyone” angle. That one always nets a few napping politicians to pose with ‘em for a photo op or two.

…and a vote or two to get things done.

For sure. They cozy up to government and Very Important People, contribute to big splashy causes, get the newspapers to make ‘em look like Mother Teresa reincarnated. They buy pretty ads and websites with salty red sunsets over gin clear water. They build one here and then one there. Someone’ll complain but instead of listening, Big Money just calls ‘em bad guys and clips the lawyers off their leashes to go gnaw on some fresh meat for a while.

And then they just keep building the damn things anyway.

Exactly. All our brittle natural beauty and precious resources being bounced like rubber balls by the Big Money magicians at the Cash-It-In Circus who just give a crooked grin and say, “Trust us, it’ll be okay. We know what we’re doing.”

Then one of those rubber balls bursts and all they got to say is, “Well shoot, it was supposed to bounce.” And while the rest of us mop up the mess, they slither over to the next honey hole, tap it and suck it dry too.

Yep, I am madder ‘n hell at those damn oil companies ruining our Gulf! And just before tarpon season!

Huh? What the heck are you talking about?

The oil spill. You know, the rig explosion out in The Gulf of Mexico? Crude oil killing fish and birds and working its way across to our sacred Bean Point right over there any day now.

Ohhhhh, my lord…I thought you were talking about Pine Avenue. Pretty funny.

Hmmm, I see your point. But it ain’t funny, dude. It ain't funny at all.

Guess you’re right. See you tomorrow.

Yeah, tomorrow.

©-2010- William L. Yanger

Parking on Spring, Magnolia, Tarpon, . . .

Chairman Quam, et al.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.

Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.

Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.

Parallel Parking vs. our Comp Plan

Chairman Quam,
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.

At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.

There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?

If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.

There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.

Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.

Thanks for listening.

Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner

JIM CONOLY RESIGNS FROM P & Z EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

This, I am sure, will not come as a surprise to all of us who have witnessed PAR and their lawyers treatment of Mr Conoly over the last six weeks. The intimidation was not even subtle and it was sad and painful to watch. His resignation is a great loss to the City but it speaks highly to his integrity. So who does Mayor Barford put in next - Michael Coleman?

Parallel Parking on Pine

Chairman Quam,

I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?

I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.

I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.

Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up for Florida from 1000 Friends of Florida

Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up


As is often the case, the just completed session proved to be a mixed bag for Florida's growth management advocates. The legislature failed to reauthorize the Florida Department of Community Affairs, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year. In the final hours of the session, legislation failed that would have removed the artificial cap from the allocation of affordable housing dollars in the state. And 1000 Friends could not find sponsors for its "citizen bill of rights" amendments.

There were a few positive notes. In these challenging economic times, the final budget included $15 million for Florida Forever and at least another $10 million for Everglades restoration. The budget also included the same funding for DCA as in 2009 which, given the current economy, is a positive note. 1000 Friends, DCA and others successfully held off a number of damaging bills and amendments that among other things would have promoted inappropriate exemptions from transportation concurrency and weakened urban service boundaries.

As always, your calls made a difference, helping to secure funding for Florida Forever and halting numerous damaging planning amendments. We sincerely appreciate your support and will provide a more detailed update on the 2010 session shortly.

DCA Reauthorization and Funding--Despite many calls, letters and editorials calling for it, the Florida Department of Community Affairs was not reauthorized this session, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year and making it more vulnerable to elimination, dismantlement, funding cutbacks and/or excessive political pressure over the coming year. While the Senate passed SB 282 reauthorizing the agency, the House refused to take this bill up. However, the agency's budget was kept at the same level as last year.

Concurrency Exemptions--This damaging legislation failed to pass. Intended to address some problems associated with 2009's SB 360, SB 1742 would have created an exemption from concurrency for "transit oriented development," even when the development had no provisions for transit. 1000 Friends opposed these provisions and we also worked with DCA to make sure they were not added to a permitting bill, SB 1126, in the final hours of the session.

Callery Judge--1000 Friends helped block a number of damaging amendments that were proposed in the final days of the session. These included amendments to HB 7099 to weaken Palm Beach County's urban service boundary and require local governments to create "transportation backlog authorities" to exempt development from transportation concurrency with the intent of benefitting the Callery Judge property in Palm Beach County.

Citizen Planning Bill of Rights--1000 Friends offered amendment language but were unable to secure a sponsor. The Florida League of Cities did have a bill that included the mandatory neighborhood planning meeting requirement, but HB 733 never got out of its first committee meeting.

Florida Forever--The Florida Forever Coalition's hard work resulted in the approved budget including $15 million for Florida Forever, and another $10 million for Everglades restoration. An additional $40 million is possible for Everglades restoration if Congress awards Florida some additional Medicaid dollars which would allow for a budget shift of other monies.

Affordable Housing-- HB 665 did not pass, at least in part because of an attempt to put the damaging Callery Judge amendments there as well. HB 665 included provisions to end the artificial cap on distributions of the fund. This was a major setback, as the legislation seemed likely to pass until the final hours of the session.

Oil Spill

Mote Marine is taking registration for those who would like to help in the event the oil reaches our shores.
The address is www.mote.org

.....LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE

Janet Aubrey’s email of 12th February 2010 was posted on the blog earlier this week. Close examination of this email is revealing to say the least and the correspondence raises many questions. What is particularly disturbing is that it is Ms Aubrey who has spearheaded the group against Commissioner Stoltzfus. In fact it was her husband who was the very first person to stand up and demand an investigation into the breaking of Sunshine Laws and it is Ms Aubrey who is working with Mr Carter who has stated ’This is also about the Sunshine laws and being transparent in government.’ Mr Stoltzfus emails have been out in the open for all to see for many weeks now. Aside from an enthusiasm to do his job properly and ensure that codes are followed he has been found guilty of nothing despite a public lynching by our local press. In a twist of fate this one email alone by Ms Aubrey implies that she is doing the very things she has accused Commissioner Stoltzfus of ie acting as a conduit and particpating in a shadow government. If the Islander newspaper whose ‘staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story‘ (see a previous post on the blog) are true to their word then this email better get front page coverage next week. It is alarming that they have chosen to ignore something they have had knowledge of for many weeks, instead choosing to print Ms Aubrey's attacks on Commissioner Stoltzfus and the Sun newspaper even giving her a guest editorial!

Nothing in any of the emails suggests that Commissioner Woodland asked Ms Aubrey to convey information to Commissioner Stoltzfus. Ms Aubrey on the other hand should not be sharing the results of her meetings with Commissioner Woodland nor conveying details of her conversations with him regarding policy and planning. The quotations below taken from the email and shown in red show that she is doing just that and therefore acting as a conduit which is a violation of the Sunshine Laws. She has also accused Commissioner Stoltzfus of running a shadow government. The quotations below appear to demonstrate that the Aubrey’s themselves are involved in a ‘shadow government’ but more worrying is how deep that shadow government runs within our City and how many have a vested financial interest in the outcome. For context it should be noted that both Janet and Gene Aubrey work for PAR and the Thrashers.


'I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately'


'He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality'


'Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners'


'Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR'


'Dale and I think an initiative to invest'


'You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us'

'being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation '

' a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City '


'I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis'


'coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it '

AN UPDATE ON THE HOSPITALS' LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The Hospitals' letter was posted on the blog on Saturday 24th April. The editor of the Islander, Bonner Joy, has responded to their letter. a copy of which is printed below. Richard Harrison, Commissioner Stoltzfus attorney, has in turn responded to Ms Joy.

First Bonner Joy's response to the Hospitals:

We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."

With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.

This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Bonner Joy
The Islander newspaper

Attorney Richard Harrison's response to Ms Joy:

Bonner Joy and The Islander Staff:

As you all know, I represent Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus. I recently learned of your response to a reader in which you claim that the Commissioner has not responded to your inquiries or provided access to his attorney, i.e., me. Specifically, you wrote as follows:

We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.

Perhaps your standard of reporting is different than that employed by the journalistic organizations with which I am familiar. Your reporter, Rick Catlin, wrote at least two articles in which he claimed that his “efforts” to reach me for comment were unsuccessful. As far as I am aware, those “efforts” did not include more than one phone message left for me. They certainly did not include, until after the hearing held on April 21, any attempt to reach me via email (you’ve heard of email, right?). They did not include any follow up telephone calls. So your “efforts” were, frankly, not much of an effort.

Your claim is particularly ridiculous in light of the fact that, well, I am not exactly difficult to reach. In something less than 30 seconds on Google (you’ve heard of that, too, right?), anybody looking to reach me could find my firm’s website with all pertinent contact information. If that isn’t sufficient, a similarly brief effort would turn up the Florida Bar’s website and its “Lawyer Locator” feature which would, again, lead you to me rather readily. And if you expended, say, five or ten minutes on that Google thingy you would quickly realize that I make myself freely available to the media to discuss any matters in which I am involved.

Oh yeah . . . speaking of your “efforts” . . . if you wanted some comment from me or Commissioner Stoltzfus it might have occurred to you to actually come talk to me at the hearing in Bradenton last week. I was there outside the courtroom for at least 30 minutes before the hearing started and for several minutes after it was over. There were also several breaks in the proceedings during which anybody seeking information or comment could have asked for it. So apparently The Islander’s “efforts” to reach people for comment do not include the extreme tactic of, well, actually asking them any questions during the relevant events.

As it happens, Mr. Catlin did finally take the extraordinary step of emailing me last week (but not until after the hearing) and I have responded to every email from him since then and also spoken to him via telephone. I will continue to make myself available to all media to address the matters involving Commissioner Stoltzfus, as I have from the moment I became involved on his behalf.

So if your readers feel, as some of them apparently do, that The Islander’s reporting has been anything less than unbiased let’s be clear – that is not because we have rebuffed or thwarted your “efforts” to obtain information about the pending proceedings. Stop lying to your readers and start doing some actual reporting.