2 Free Waters in Miro Beach: Boaters Inc. versus City Government.20 The city commissioners of Miro...

Transcribed Image Text:

2 Free Waters in Miro Beach: Boaters Inc. versus City Government.20 The city commissioners of Miro Beach pro- posed limits on boaters who anchor offshore in waterfront areas of the St. Lucinda River adjoining the city. Residents had complained of pollution from the live-aboard boaters. The parking lot of boats created an unsightly view. The city based its proposed ordinance on research done by the staff. The staff did not hold graduate degrees in either public or business administration, and it was not known if staff members were competent to conduct research. The staff re- quested a proposal from a team of local university professors who had conducted similar work in the past. The research cost was $10,000. After receiving the proposal, the staff chose to do the work itself and not expend resources for the project. Through an unidentified source, the professors later leamed their proposal contained enough information to guide the city's staff and suggested data collection areas that might provide information that could justify the boaters' claims. Based on the staff's one-time survey of waterfront litter, "pump-out" samples, and a weekly frequency count of boats, an ordinance was drafted and a public workshop was held. Shortly after, a group of concemed boat owners formed Boaters Inc., an association to promote boating, raise funds, and lobby the commission. The group's claims were that the boaters (1) weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued infitrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized pressure, the city attormey hired a private investigator (P) to with public record requests. The clerks reported that some With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penelized because the commission's fact finding was flawed. this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city's grant applications in order to "blackmall the city Into dropping plans to regulate the boaters." The Pl posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization's sponsor while helpino with mallings. Despite the Pl's inability to corroborate the city attomey's theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization's principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police o organizations, generaly performs background investigations.) The Pl was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information-"studies and all related documents containing the word 'boat." Falling to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000. The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization's principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attomey, the PI, and the PI's firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages. a What are the most prudent decisions the city can make about its responsibilities to itself and others? b What are the implications of those decisions even If there Is no violation of law or regulation? The High Coot 2 Free Waters in Miro Beach: Boaters Inc. versus City Government.20 The city commissioners of Miro Beach pro- posed limits on boaters who anchor offshore in waterfront areas of the St. Lucinda River adjoining the city. Residents had complained of pollution from the live-aboard boaters. The parking lot of boats created an unsightly view. The city based its proposed ordinance on research done by the staff. The staff did not hold graduate degrees in either public or business administration, and it was not known if staff members were competent to conduct research. The staff re- quested a proposal from a team of local university professors who had conducted similar work in the past. The research cost was $10,000. After receiving the proposal, the staff chose to do the work itself and not expend resources for the project. Through an unidentified source, the professors later leamed their proposal contained enough information to guide the city's staff and suggested data collection areas that might provide information that could justify the boaters' claims. Based on the staff's one-time survey of waterfront litter, "pump-out" samples, and a weekly frequency count of boats, an ordinance was drafted and a public workshop was held. Shortly after, a group of concemed boat owners formed Boaters Inc., an association to promote boating, raise funds, and lobby the commission. The group's claims were that the boaters (1) weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued infitrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized pressure, the city attormey hired a private investigator (P) to with public record requests. The clerks reported that some With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penelized because the commission's fact finding was flawed. this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city's grant applications in order to "blackmall the city Into dropping plans to regulate the boaters." The Pl posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization's sponsor while helpino with mallings. Despite the Pl's inability to corroborate the city attomey's theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization's principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police o organizations, generaly performs background investigations.) The Pl was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information-"studies and all related documents containing the word 'boat." Falling to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000. The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization's principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attomey, the PI, and the PI's firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages. a What are the most prudent decisions the city can make about its responsibilities to itself and others? b What are the implications of those decisions even If there Is no violation of law or regulation? The High Coot 2 Free Waters in Miro Beach: Boaters Inc. versus City Government.20 The city commissioners of Miro Beach pro- posed limits on boaters who anchor offshore in waterfront areas of the St. Lucinda River adjoining the city. Residents had complained of pollution from the live-aboard boaters. The parking lot of boats created an unsightly view. The city based its proposed ordinance on research done by the staff. The staff did not hold graduate degrees in either public or business administration, and it was not known if staff members were competent to conduct research. The staff re- quested a proposal from a team of local university professors who had conducted similar work in the past. The research cost was $10,000. After receiving the proposal, the staff chose to do the work itself and not expend resources for the project. Through an unidentified source, the professors later leamed their proposal contained enough information to guide the city's staff and suggested data collection areas that might provide information that could justify the boaters' claims. Based on the staff's one-time survey of waterfront litter, "pump-out" samples, and a weekly frequency count of boats, an ordinance was drafted and a public workshop was held. Shortly after, a group of concemed boat owners formed Boaters Inc., an association to promote boating, raise funds, and lobby the commission. The group's claims were that the boaters (1) weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued infitrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized pressure, the city attormey hired a private investigator (P) to with public record requests. The clerks reported that some With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penelized because the commission's fact finding was flawed. this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city's grant applications in order to "blackmall the city Into dropping plans to regulate the boaters." The Pl posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization's sponsor while helpino with mallings. Despite the Pl's inability to corroborate the city attomey's theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization's principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police o organizations, generaly performs background investigations.) The Pl was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information-"studies and all related documents containing the word 'boat." Falling to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000. The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization's principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attomey, the PI, and the PI's firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages. a What are the most prudent decisions the city can make about its responsibilities to itself and others? b What are the implications of those decisions even If there Is no violation of law or regulation? The High Coot 2 Free Waters in Miro Beach: Boaters Inc. versus City Government.20 The city commissioners of Miro Beach pro- posed limits on boaters who anchor offshore in waterfront areas of the St. Lucinda River adjoining the city. Residents had complained of pollution from the live-aboard boaters. The parking lot of boats created an unsightly view. The city based its proposed ordinance on research done by the staff. The staff did not hold graduate degrees in either public or business administration, and it was not known if staff members were competent to conduct research. The staff re- quested a proposal from a team of local university professors who had conducted similar work in the past. The research cost was $10,000. After receiving the proposal, the staff chose to do the work itself and not expend resources for the project. Through an unidentified source, the professors later leamed their proposal contained enough information to guide the city's staff and suggested data collection areas that might provide information that could justify the boaters' claims. Based on the staff's one-time survey of waterfront litter, "pump-out" samples, and a weekly frequency count of boats, an ordinance was drafted and a public workshop was held. Shortly after, a group of concemed boat owners formed Boaters Inc., an association to promote boating, raise funds, and lobby the commission. The group's claims were that the boaters (1) weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued infitrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized pressure, the city attormey hired a private investigator (P) to with public record requests. The clerks reported that some With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penelized because the commission's fact finding was flawed. this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city's grant applications in order to "blackmall the city Into dropping plans to regulate the boaters." The Pl posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization's sponsor while helpino with mallings. Despite the Pl's inability to corroborate the city attomey's theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization's principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police o organizations, generaly performs background investigations.) The Pl was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information-"studies and all related documents containing the word 'boat." Falling to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000. The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization's principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attomey, the PI, and the PI's firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages. a What are the most prudent decisions the city can make about its responsibilities to itself and others? b What are the implications of those decisions even If there Is no violation of law or regulation? The High Coot

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

aThe city can make wise decision by consulting the boaters co... View the full answer