‘Blatant Collusion’ Question Frays City-Chamber Relationship

‘Blatant Collusion’ Question Frays City-Chamber Relationship

‘Blatant Collusion’ Question Frays City-Chamber Relationship

by Anne Mooney / February 12, 2021

The Commission met Feb. 11 to discuss the deteriorating relationship between the City of Winter Park and the Winter Park Chamber of Commerce. The special meeting was necessary because a public meeting is the only way Commissioners can speak with one another to air opinions and exchange views.

At issue was a question posed at the Chamber-sponsored Feb. 5 debate between mayoral candidates that accused Commissioners of “blatant collusion” on a vote on the Henderson Hotel project, a vote that never took place.

Loaded Question

The debate question in its entirety reads as follows.

“It was dismaying to see the members of the city commission blatantly colluding to spike the Henderson project, which was approved by P&Z [Planning & Zoning] and was supported by the residents of Winter Park three to one over those opposing the project. As mayor, how would you ensure the commission enacts the wishes of the majority of WP residents, not just the agenda of an entitled few?”

Anderson campaign & Chamber issue joint statement

After a tense exchange between Chamber President Betsy Gardner Eckbert and mayoral candidate former Commissioner Phil Anderson about the propriety of the question, the Anderson campaign and the Chamber issued a joint statement that the two parties had “come to terms with the matter and look forward to placing it behind us in an effort to bring our community together.”

While that might have taken care of the issue for the Chamber and the Anderson campaign, the question was still circulating digitally through the community and the integrity of the sitting Commissioners continued to be impugned.

Commissioners want an apology

Commissioners Todd Weaver, Marty Sullivan and Sheila DeCiccio met in person Thursday afternoon to discuss the matter. Commissioner Carolyn Cooper participated remotely by phone later in the meeting. Mayor Leary was absent.

Commissioners expressed their desire to mend the rift between the Chamber and the Commission and to find an easier, more productive way to work together, while acknowledging that the missions of the Commission and the Chamber differ in several important respects.

Commission & Chamber Board should meet – soon

Commissioners agreed that a meeting between the Commission and the Chamber Board of Directors to address the issue should be scheduled as soon as possible. Commissioners also made clear an apology for the “blatant collusion” question was in order and would go a long way to calm troubled waters.

Allegations of collusion are defamatory

“That question was reviewed and allowed by the Chamber,” said Commissioner Sheila DeCiccio. “Such spurious and toxic allegations are, at their worst, defamation per se; and at the least, they are highly unprofessional and inappropriate. They have no place in a political debate.”

“Therefore,” DeCiccio continued, “the Chamber is complicit in staging the question, and the Commissioners deserve an apology for the baseless, false implication of collusion. Indeed, the people of Winter Park deserve an apology for having their Commissioners impugned.”

What obligation did Chamber have to vet debate questions?

Representing the Chamber was attorney Derek Bruce, who stated that he had advised Ms. Gardner-Eckbert not to speak and that he would speak on behalf of the Chamber.

‘Secret’ or ‘Brazen’?

Derek Bruce kicked off his remarks by noting that collusion is defined as a ‘secret agreement for fraudulent or unlawful purposes,’ but that the word blatant refers to something that is ‘brazenly obvious.’ He continued round the barn to explain that if a thing is blatant [obvious], it can’t really be collusion [secret]. Mr. Bruce conceded that reasonable people could disagree whether that question was appropriate, but he went on to dismiss it as “just two words in a question,” and not worth all the time and resources being spent on it.

No apology from the Chamber

When DeCiccio’s asked, “Is it your position that the Chamber has no responsibility to offer the Commission an apology for the question?” Bruce stated he had “not been authorized to issue an apology at this time.” When DeCiccio followed up with, “Is it your position that the Chamber has no responsibility to vet the questions in the debate?” Bruce avoided answering the question.

‘Hot Mic’ Moment

At this point, Vice-mayor Carolyn Cooper joined the meeting remotely by phone to object to the way the meeting was going, to the amount of time that had been allotted to Mr. Bruce, and to Mr. Bruce’s refusal to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the “blatant collusion” question. Cooper, who broke into the conversation with the word ‘stupid’ later clarified that her interjection was intentional.

“Of course there was a problem with it,” said Cooper. “The question as presented accused this Commission of an illegal act. . . . The League of Women Voters has been doing [debates] for years, and they are very diligent about making sure no inappropriate questions are asked. I believe the Chamber has the same responsibility.“

City Attorney supports defamation claim, confirms question is not ‘protected speech’

At Cooper’s request, City Attorney Kurt Ardeman stated that he felt Commissioner DeCiccio’s recitation of the law was correct. “The law is pretty clear,” said Ardeman, “that when a writer publishes a defamatory falsehood with the knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false, it is a defamatory statement. Now, you each are elected officials, and the bar is high; however as individuals you are protected against defamatory speech.”

Ardeman advised Commissioners to pursue meeting with the Chamber Board of Directors to reach some resolution and, if possible, to avoid any more back-and-forth between lawyers.

Commissioner Weaver asked Mr. Bruce if the Chamber would take down the debate video that was, at that time, playing on a continuous loop at the Mayflower. Mr. Bruce explained the video had been uploaded to Facebook and he didn’t know if it could be edited or taken down.

As of this writing the debate video is featured prominently on the Chamber website with the disclaimer, “The moderated portion of this forum includes questions from the public, and the views expressed by the public do not reflect the views of the Chamber of Commerce.” The disclaimer makes no promise of impartiality nor does it include an apology.

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

Special Commission Meeting Called Over Chamber Flap

Special Commission Meeting Called Over Chamber Flap

Special Commission Meeting Called Over Chamber Flap

1:00 p.m. — Thursday, February 11, 2021

by Anne Mooney / February 9, 2021

After cancelling the February 10 regular Commission meeting, because there would not be a three-member quorum physically present, a Special Meeting of the Commission has been scheduled for Thursday, February 11 at 1:00 pm at the WP Community Center at 721 New England Avenue. Virtual meeting attendance is also available by clicking https://cityofwinterpark.org/government/live-broadcasts/

This will be a Special Commission meeting. Commissioners can vote to take action, and public comment will be taken.

The Commission will discuss events from the February 5 debate between mayoral candidates at the Winter Park Chamber of Commerce and whether to take action.

Loaded Question

At issue is the final debate question posed to the candidates, in which Commissioners were accused of collusion:

“It was dismaying to see the members of the city commission blatantly colluding to spike the Henderson project, which was approved by P&Z [Planning & Zoning] and was supported by the residents of Winter Park three to one over those opposing the project. As mayor, how would you ensure the commission enacts the wishes of the majority of WP residents, not just the agenda of an entitled few?”

Mayoral candidate Mayor Phil Anderson expressed his own dismay at the content of the question and stated his objection to the decision to air the question to Chamber President Betsy Gardner Eckbert.

After a brief burst of social media activity, each with its own version of events, the Anderson campaign and the WP Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors issued the following joint statement.

Joint statement issued by WP Chamber and Anderson Campaign

“Following an unfortunate incident at the Winter Park Chamber of Commerce Mayoral Candidate Forum this past Friday, The Chamber and Phil Anderson’s campaign have come to terms with the matter and look forward to placing it behind us in an effort to bring our community together. The Chamber thanks Mr. Anderson and Ms. Sprinkel, the two mayoral candidates, for participating in the Forum.”

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

In Answer to ‘A Letter to Winter Park Residents’

In Answer to ‘A Letter to Winter Park Residents’

In Answer to ‘A Letter to Winter Park Residents’

Editor's Note: Articles written by citizens reflect their own opinions and not the views of the Winter Park Voice.  

Guest Columnist Peter Gottfried / February 2, 2021

Peter Weldon, a former Commissioner, recently wrote to “fellow Winter Park Residents” outlining his opposition to Phil Anderson’s candidacy for Mayor.  Mr. Weldon, as many of you know, ran for City Commission three times. He was elected to one term 2016-2019. He lost in 2008 to Phil Anderson, and again in 2019 to Todd Weaver.

Questionable arguments

In his recent letter, Mr. Weldon seeks to lay what he sees as the current Commission’s shortcomings at Phil Anderson’s door and to question Anderson’s character in the process. These questionable arguments deserve closer examination.

First, Weldon claims, “the actions of Commission members Weaver, Sullivan and DeCiccio bring Phil Anderson’s judgment into question.” If you think about that even for a minute, you’ll realize it’s a bit of a stretch.

Weldon’s assertions

Mr. Weldon wants you to believe that the current Commission . . .

  1. Voted to increase the property tax rate 11.5%.”

FALSE:  The tax rate (millage) did not change in 2021 and has not changed for 13 years.

  1. “Voted to “rescind” the Orange Avenue Overlay, changing our Comprehensive Plan in violation of our laws, resulting in legal action against the city (case number: 2020-CA-004388-O).ci”

MISLEADING:  Absolutely no laws were violated. In fact, the judge recently granted the City’s motion to dismiss the Orange Avenue Overlay developers’ lawsuits against the City.

  1. “Spent several hundred thousand dollars for consultants for additional Orange Avenue traffic studies and to plan a design they (the Commission) like for the City owned Progress Point property on Orange Avenue. Their plan has no professional planning input, and they offer no strategic justification for it, nor clarify who they expect will pay for implementation (you?).”

MISLEADING:  This statement is very misleading.  Professional planning input has been provided at every step through contracts to professional architectural and engineering firms; in addition, many professionals have donated their time, free of cost, to advise the Commissioners during their many work sessions.

  1. “Commissioners Sullivan and DeCiccio recently voted to spend $2,800,000 from our emergency reserves outside the annual budget process with no planning and they tried to hide the expense by “borrowing” the money from our water and sewer emergency reserves.”

MISLEADING: This is again misleading. First, there was no attempt to ‘hide’ the expense, it was openly discussed and had the support of Mayor Leary. The funds the current commission plans to borrow will be replenished with funds made available from soon-to-be retired bonds for the Public Safety Building. There is some irony in the fact that Weldon supports a mayoral candidate who gave $1million of taxpayer money to the Dr. Phillips Center for the Arts as a “donation.”  No other City in central Florida, except the center’s home city of Orlando, gave a penny.

  1. “Insisted on a “back yard chicken” ordinance. Do you want chickens in your neighborhood?”

TRUE: The chicken ordinance was limited to 25 permits on a limited two-year trial basis.  So far, two permits have been granted, a third application is still pending, but as yet, we still have no chickens. As a self-proclaimed property rights guy, Mr. Weldon might have been expected to support such a measure. Backyard chickens are already approved in Orange County, Maitland and Orlando, and all three jurisdictions report no problems so far.

  1. “Voted to diminish our city’s sovereignty by committing Winter Park’s support to an unaccountable state mandated planning agency.”

FALSE:  This regional planning initiative does not in any way affect our sovereignty. It is a Memorandum of Understanding with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. It requires no City funding, only cooperative planning efforts. Considering we have approximately 1,000 new residents coming into central Florida every week, why wouldn’t it be prudent to ask for regional planning assistance, especially if it is free?  Wouldn’t we want to be a part of the regional planning that directly affects our traffic, roads and water resources?

  1. They are now considering spending millions of dollars to buy land on Fairbanks to ‘improve traffic’ without having any idea whether traffic will improve or not.”

MISLEADING:  This from the same person who voted to sell City-owned land that was adjacent not only to Fairbanks Avenue but also to Martin Luther King Park.  We all know Fairbanks traffic needs improvement, and professional traffic engineering firms are actively assisting the current Commission in their planning efforts.

 

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

Get Ready, Get Set . . . to Go VOTE

Get Ready, Get Set . . . to Go VOTE

Get Ready, Get Set . . . to Go VOTE

by Anne Mooney / February 1, 2020

The Winter Park mayoral election is March 9. This year’s easy – the mayoral race is the only item on the ballot. All you need to do is cast one vote, either for Phil Anderson or for Sarah Sprinkel.

Voter information is available online at ocfelections.com. You can make sure you are registered, request a Vote by Mail ballot, track the status of your Vote by Mail ballot or locate your polling place if you’d rather vote in person on election day. Did I mention election day is March 9?

Here are some other important dates.

Deadline for Voter Registration: February 8.

Last day to mail Vote by Mail Ballots: March 1.

Dates of Early Voting: March 1 – March 5, at the Supervisor of Elections office ONLY.

Important to note, there will be no early voting at the Winter Park Public Library this year. To vote early in person, you must go to the Elections Office at 119 W. Kaley Ave., Orlando FL 32806.

All ballots must be physically present in the Elections Office no later than 7:00 p.m. March 9.

Post marks don’t count.

If you have any questions, it’s easy to find someone with a pulse at 407-836-8683 (Vote by Mail phone line) or at the General number 407-836-2070.

REMEMBER:  VOTE MARCH 9!

 

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

In Answer to ‘A Letter to Winter Park Residents’

City Funding Decisions – Let’s Set the Record Straight

City Funding Decisions – Let’s Set the Record Straight

Editor's Note: Articles written by citizens reflect their own opinions and not the views of the Winter Park Voice.  

Guest Columnist Dr. Katherine Lee Johnson / January 31, 2021

In his latest missive to Winter Parkers, former Commissioner Peter Weldon chides members of the current Commission for redirecting funds to repair City parks.

If we are going to start casting aspersions on Commissioners who direct City funding to specific purposes, then we need to start looking at how and when this policy started. It began in 2015, when Mayor Steve Leary and Sarah Sprinkel, the Vice mayor at the time, committed $1 million from the Municipal Utility budget to support a non-Winter Park charity.

For those who may not recall, Mayor Leary committed the City of Winter Park to a $100,000 annual donation for the Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center (DPAC) for ten years. This action occurred in 2015 when I served as the Chair of the Utility Advisory Board (UAB).

The UAB members were gravely concerned about the long-term ramifications of his decision. When the City purchased the utility from Florida Power & Light (now Duke Energy), the infrastructure was in disrepair and badly needed service and upgrades. During my tenure on the UAB, we focused our energies on the need for new equipment and began implementing utility undergrounding to improve overall system reliability.

In 2015, thanks to staff’s careful management, the Utility had a surplus in its annual budget. As stewards of this utility, the UAB wanted to use those funds to pay for additional operations and badly-needed maintenance. More fundamentally, we wanted these ratepayer dollars used for the utility, to benefit the ratepayers, rather than having it siphoned off to an out-of-town charity.

When I voiced my concerns at a Commission meeting that this approach could set a dangerous precedent, Vice-mayor Sprinkel publicly reprimanded me in an open meeting for wanting to share this information with the utility ratepayers.

For the past 30 years, I have worked as a consultant with utility companies to establish and evaluate energy efficiency programs—and so I am well-versed in the long-term consequences when utility funds are redirected for political purposes. It happened in several jurisdictions as early as 2010 (see link: Governors Raiding Utility Funds), and I certainly didn’t want this to happen in Winter Park. I worried the DPAC donation could set a dangerous precedent.

Isn’t it ironic that Weldon now supports donating $1 million from Winter Park ratepayers to support a charity in Orlando, but bristles when Commissioners allot funding for City parks and playing fields that will directly benefit the residents of Winter Park?

Let’s set the record straight. Ms. Sprinkel has always supported redirecting funds for whatever political purposes the Commission deems appropriate. If we are going to revisit previous Commission funding decisions, let’s be sure we air all of the facts.

Dr. Katherine Lee Johnson is President, Johnson Consulting Group. She served as UAB Member and Chair (2010-2016; Chair 2013-2016).

Rollins College, The Crummer School, MBA 1990

University of Southern Queensland, Australia, Ph.D., Organizational Change & Strategy 2010

www.johnsonconsults.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kjohnsonconsults/

 

To comment or read comments from others, click here →