I want to forewarn you that this editorial runs a bit long but is well worth reading.
Former Village Manager Ted Yates filed a lawsuit against the village in May of 2024. His lawsuit claims he was “terminated” July 6, 2023 and is entitled to severance pay and other remuneration for being “terminated without cause.”
Last week the Village scheduled an executive session to discuss litigation strategy for the lawsuit. This is the third strategy session since the lawsuit was filed by Yates in May of 2024.
Here are the facts:
Former Manager Yates was not “terminated” as his lawsuit claims. On July 17, 2023, the Village Council voted not to “renew” the contract which then expired on August 1st, 2023 at the end of its initial term. There’s a big difference between expiring and “wrongful termination.”
Yates was present at all Village Council meetings until the end of July 2024. He was seen on camera, in his manager’s seat, including Thursday, July 27, the very last meeting prior to the expiration of his contract. August 1st was the following Monday.
The lawsuit erroneously claims Yates was “terminated” on July 6th. Yates’ filings also state as “undisputed fact” that the Village therefore prevented him from finishing the initial term of his contract by 24 days. That is demonstrably wrong.
The July 27 video of a Council meeting, with Yates sitting next to Attorney John Quick is worth a thousand words.
I believe the Village should have filed a simple motion for summary judgment over a year and half ago to end the case.
Many experts feel the Village would have prevailed and the lawsuit would have been dismissed in favor of the Village. Instead, we continued to push this down the road and head to trial at the expense of taxpayers.
While I understand that there are no guarantees, wouldn’t our lawyers and officials at least try to cut off the lawyers’ hours and expenses at the earliest possible moment – that is, just two or three months after the filing of the lawsuit that is based on public meetings and a written document?
It is approaching 3 years since the Yates contract ended and was not renewed.
I ask, not the first time, who is managing the lawyers and the nearly $1million in legal costs we pay each year?
The answer: The Village Manager, our General Counsel (GC), under the auspices of the Village Council, appears to supervise himself.
Is it a conflict to have Weiss Serota representing the Village and overseeing the insurance litigator who is another Weiss Serota attorney? Our GC should not have a possible self-interest by overseeing an attorney from his own firm. It gives a poor appearance and creates a possible conflict.
Perhaps they’re content that the Village has reached the $100,000 threshold and no longer has the litigation bills covered by insurance.
I have long held that the Village should employ their own in-house general counsel (GC) instead of contracting with Weiss Serota or any other firm.
Our current GC has expertise in municipal government and has served us well in this area. I submit that it is time to take back control of our own destiny with a lawyer totally responsible to the Council and residents.
I spent almost 40 years dealing with litigations of all types – both criminal and civil – and lawyers of all shapes and sizes.
My take:
Not all lawyers have the same expertise.
The cheapest per hour is not always the cheapest overall.
Certainly, the one monitoring expenses should not also benefit from a higher bill.
But after racking up legal expenses, the Village may now want to sweep it away – once again not complying with the legal requirements for a closed-door executive session held on April 7.
The Village attorney must advise the entity at a public meeting that he desires advice concerning the litigation. F.S. 286.011 (8) (a).
At 4 pm last Tuesday, April 7, the Village had an unnoticed “public” meeting. At that meeting the attorney advised that he wished to hold an executive meeting as soon as possible after 4 pm April 7 as required by F.S. 286.011 (a).
The litigation strategy meeting according to F.S. 286.011 (d) shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement of the litigation strategy session.
The Village noticed the litigation strategy meeting but not the public meeting at 4 pm. But then it seems rules are made to be broken here in the Village.
The Village insurance company has informed the Village that we have reached our $100,000 aggregate cost limit for this Yates litigation combined with a Mark Gregg lawsuit. We, the taxpayers, will have to deal with any future litigation costs. See email from insurance company.
And in an odd move, which only heightens my concerns for lack of transparency – the Village contends that the insurance policy that had previously paid to defend these two lawsuits had to be redacted before it could be produced due to confidential information.
A Village insurance policy with confidential information? Really? Never heard of this procedure unless it contains Secret or Top Secret information. We paid for this insurance, where is the contract?
We remain in the dark as to whether the lawsuit will be settled now that the funds are depleted and it is on our dime. The Yates trial is currently scheduled to begin May 7.
My view: The Village should not settle with Yates – they should go to court. Yates should pay Village legal costs if the Village prevails as expected.
This borders on a frivolous lawsuit.
Yours, Tom
