Crescent City recall could cost city $6K

Subhead

Commission set to vote on legal defense, special election funding

Image
  • Crescent City Commissioner Cynthia Burton is the target of a recall petition underway. Last month, she filed an injunction to ask a judge to rule on whether the petition could legally go forward. (Palatka Daily News file)
    Crescent City Commissioner Cynthia Burton is the target of a recall petition underway. Last month, she filed an injunction to ask a judge to rule on whether the petition could legally go forward. (Palatka Daily News file)
Body

No matter the outcome of a Crescent City recall effort underway, city residents could be footing the bill.

Late last year, a group of South Putnam residents collected enough signatures to reach the next step in an effort to recall City Commissioner Cynthia Burton. The recall committee is attempting to collect the 151 legally required signatures to spur a special election for the commission seat Burton now holds. Last month, Burton filed suit to ask a judge to dismiss the petition and the committee has been fighting back in court documents against Burton’s request.

Meanwhile, the city appears to be trying to plan for outcomes.

If a special election is spurred by a successful recall effort, the city would have to pay approximately $3,000 to $4,000, the cost of the Putnam County Supervisor of Elections Office conducting an off-calendar election, according to the elections office and city documents. And this Wednesday, during the city’s regular commission meeting, commissioners are expected to vote on whether or not the city will foot that bill, as well as Commissioner Cynthia Burton's legal bill to defend herself against the recall effort.

The meeting is set to take place beginning at 6 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall, 3 Summit St., Crescent City.

 

The costs

City documents show City Manager Charles Rudd is asking the commission to approve the use of $2,000 from the city's legal fund and $4,000 from the city's General Fund reserves to cover both the anticipated expenses of a special election, as well as Burton's legal fees.

"In a previous recall effort of former Commissioner Judith West, the City Commission authorized approximately $2,600 for her legal expenses,"  Rudd wrote in the agenda item. "There was no resulting recall election so there were no costs to the city for a special election."

Based on history, Rudd states in the document, the city estimates allocating $3,000 for Burton's defense and another $3,000 if a judge finds the recall charges warranted.

Also attached to the agenda is a 1989 Advisory Legal Opinion from then-Attorney General Robert Butterworth that states, "A city council member is entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable attorney fees incurred by the council member in challenging and seeking declaratory relief against a recall petition".

The advisory opinion, issued to the City of Sebastian at the time, stated that the city was "under an obligation to pay such fees" if the public officer is defending a suit or misconduct charges that arose while the official was performing public duties and while serving a public purpose.

The group organizing the effort to oust Burton, Recall Crescent City Florida, has claimed in public documents that Burton, along with several other city officials, violated the state’s Government in the Sunshine Law when they voted to draft an ordinance abolishing the now-defunct city police department during a meeting held virtually. The final vote to abolish the department came later at a meeting that was physically open to the public.

An earlier effort based on this argument failed when the group aimed to recall West. At the time, West had filed a similar injunction request to the courts. Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Janesk’s order on May 5, 2021 basically declared that the petition to recall West contained “legally insufficient ground” to move forward.

The meeting at the center of both recall petitions was live-streamed on YouTube Jan. 14, 2021. Interested parties could comment on the video feed during the streaming and, as of this week, those comments were still viewable on the City of Crescent City, Florida YouTube page. Residents also had the opportunity to call the city during the meeting to ask questions on public record.

 

The suit

 

Court documents show Burton filed a complaint last month to ask a judge to throw out the recall petition “based on legally insufficient factual allegations.”

Craig Oates, listed as the chair of Recall Crescent City Florida is listed as defendant.  

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed January 9 in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Putnam County By attorney Meagan Logan of Douglas & Douglas Law, states that the recall petition is based on legally insufficient grounds.

In the complaint, Logan writes that the Sunshine Law does not require "that members of public be permitted to physically attend meetings in person" only that the law requires that public meetings be "open to the public at all times."

Oates claims, in court documents filed by attorney Mark Randazza of Tampa-based Randazza Legal Group, that “Burton does not wish to face the democratic process.”

“(Burton) may disagree with respect to the grounds for a recall,” Oates states in an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for an Injunction, “She has recourse for that - the marketplace of ideas and Florida’s recall statutes. However, instead of trying to win in the marketplace of ideas, she seeks to prevent discussion of her suitability for office.”

Oates argues, in defense of the allegations of malfeasance, that while the pandemic may have made virtual government meetings possible, the governor’s executive order allowing for virtual meetings had expired Nov. 1, 2020. 

Oates, in the documents, asked Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Janesk to deny Burton’s request for an injunction, dismiss the complaint and award Oates attorney’s fees.

Burton also claims in her complaint that while she has now served one-fourth of her term — the length of time required to file a recall petition — she had only been in office for a little over three months at the time of the Jan. 14, 2021 meeting and “could not have been the subject of a recall.”  

Oates calls Burton’s timeliness argument “frivolous.”

“Burton’s request for an injunction stretches this statute beyond credulity,” Oates defense states, “arguing that an elected official is immune from recall based upon any conduct occurring within the one-fourth term. This is clearly not what the statute states and logically does not make any sense.”

Burton also claims that since the recall committee handed the petition to the Supervisor of Elections Office, rather than the city clerk, the committee violated procedure.

“That argument likewise holds no water,” Oates states, adding that receipt of the petitions was formally accepted by the county elections office and that the definition in the state statute is a “ministerial function.”

Attempts to reach Oates by phone were unsuccessful as of publication time.

Burton, in a phone interview Monday, said she feels the “timeliness” argument is not frivolous at all. Burton said voters in Crescent City have every right to recall her, but questions why the committee waited more than two years.

“To me, that doesn’t make sense,” said Burton.  

A hearing has been set for 2:30 p.m. April 6 at the Putnam County Courthouse, 410 St. Johns Ave., in Palatka.