Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Cities vs. county suit will go to trial

A circuit judge rejects the county's request for dismissal and sets an Oct. 20 trial date.

By WILL VAN SANT
Published September 26, 2006

A lawsuit brought by 21 Pinellas municipalities seeking to block possible changes to the county charter will move forward after a judge on Monday denied the county's request for a dismissal.

Circuit Judge Robert Beach set a trial date of Oct. 20.

Voters are scheduled to decide on the proposed charter amendments Nov. 7. But if Beach sides with the municipalities in their suit, the charter changes could be struck from the ballot.

"That's of paramount importance," said Tarpon Springs Commissioner Peter Dalacos, who attended the hearing in St. Petersburg. "The county wants to keep throwing all these delays in."

Early in the hearing, county attorneys asked Beach to recuse himself. They argued that the judge might have prejudiced public opinion with comments made when he recently sided with the municipalities and rejected the often lengthy mediation sought by the county.

Nope, I'm staying, the judge told them.

County attorneys then asked for a stay of his order rejecting mediation, and again the judge said no.

"I want to be fair," Beach said when trying to get reluctant county attorneys to help him name a date for a final hearing, "but I want this matter concluded before the election."

The cities oppose proposed charter amendments that would curb their ability to annex land and eliminate a never-invoked charter provision that allows municipalities to opt out of certain kinds of countywide rules and regulations when their voters reject them.

The cities claim that the charter changes give the county broader authority than state law allows, that the ballot language crafted is unclear and that Florida's Sunshine Law was violated when the changes were developed.

Two members of the review commission that came up with the proposals voted by telephone during a public hearing on the measures. And the group's chairman aided in fine-tuning some of the ballot language after public hearings were held.

Lawyers for the county tried to convince Beach that the cities had failed to show how the proposed changes conflicted with state law.

As a result, they claimed that voters should have the ultimate say over whether the changes are adopted.

They also pointed to state attorney general opinions that permit members of public bodies to attend meetings and vote by telephone and charter language that could be read as allowing final changes to the ballot questions after public hearings take place.

Lawyers for the cities, however, had their own interpretation of the language and case law. Ultimately, they were able to persuade Beach to keep the legal rumble on track for a decisive showdown.

The judge was careful, however, to make plain that he was not deciding the validity of any of the charges that the cities made in their lawsuit, only that they deserve a full hearing.

County attorneys declined to comment on Beach's decision.

Will Van Sant can be reached at van sant@sptimes.com or 727 445-4166.

[Last modified September 26, 2006, 01:12:15]