City won’t budge on settlement offer to Grapski, Canney

Commissioners in Alachua turned down an offer to settle a public records case for nearly half of what the plaintiffs claim were the total attorneys fees and costs.

According to court documents, political activist Charles Grapski and Alachua resident Michael Canney incurred expenses of almost $200,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in a 2006 public records case.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that the City of Alachua violated public records and open meeting laws when it refused to turn over minutes from a 2006 post-election meeting to Grapski and Canney.

The City of Alachua informally offered to settle with Grapski and Canney for $30,000 to cover the reported $200,000 in legal fees and costs.  Alachua Commissioners met in an executive session, commonly known as a shade meeting, to discuss its legal strategy in handling the case.  Although those meetings are not immediately open to the public, action taken by the commission is.

Commissioner Ben Boukari made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gary Hardacre, to deny the offer made by Grapski and Canney to settle the case for $100,000.  The commission unanimously approved that step and also gave the authority for City Attorney Marian Rush to place a formal counteroffer of $30,000 in the court’s file, if it was appropriate to do so based on the court’s position.

While Grapski and Canney walked away with a big win for the city’s initial refusal to turn over unapproved meeting minutes, that was not the only component of their case. University of Florida law professor Joe Little argued on behalf of his clients that it was illegal for the commission to approve minutes via a consent agenda, but the appellate court disagreed and did not rule in favor of Grapski and Canney on that point. 

The court opined in favor of Grapski and Canney when it reversed the Dec. 2008 decision by Circuit Court Judge Robert E. Roundtree Jr. that since the requested minutes had been provided by the City before the original case was filed, that part of the case was moot.  The appellate court ruled that just because the minutes were eventually provided did not mean a violation of public records laws had not occurred.