Answer.pdf

7/28/2019 Answer.pdf

1/8

Electronically F iled 0 4 I 02/20 1 3 I 0 : 3 5 :20 AM ET

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE F'IRST JUDICIAL DISTRICTIN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

MAREN L. DEWEESE, in her officialcapacity as City Councilwoman for theCity of Pensacola, and in her individualcapacity as citizen and taxpayer of theCity of Pensacola,Plaintiff,

v.ASHTON J. HAYWARD, in his officialcapacity as Mayor of the City of Pensacola,a Florida municipal corporation, andRICHARD BARKER, JR., in his officialcapacity as Chief Financial Officer of theCity of Pensacola,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 2012-CA'2898DIVISION: K

S.ryFP

ANSWERCOME NOW the Defendants, Ashton J. Hayward, in his official capacity as

Mayor of the City of Pensacola, and Richard Barker, Jr. in his official capacity as ChiefFinancial Officer of the City of Pensacola, by and through their undersigned attorney, andanswer the allegations of the complaint filed herein as follows:

1. Admitted.2. It is admitted that Ms. DeWeese served as a msmber of the City Council ofpensacola at the time of the filing of this complaint. The remaining allegations of this

paragraph are denied.3. Admitted.


2/8

4. Admitted.5. Admitted.6. Admitted.7. Admitted.8. Admitted.9. Admitted.10. It is admitted that the City Council has the power to legislate for the City by

adopting ordinances and resolutions in the best interest of all citizens of the City. Theremaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

11. Admitted.12. Denied.13. It is admitted that the Mayor has the power of veto described. It is further

admitted that the Mayor may veto any "line item" in accordance with Section a.01 (10) ofthe City Charter. It is further admitted that any veto may be overridden by an affirmativevote of at least six (6) Council Members. The remaining allegations of this paragraph aredenied.

14. Admitted.15. Admitted.16. It is admitted that the budget of the City of Pensacola of expenditures

pursuant to that budget must comply with applicable Florida law and the provisions of theCharter of the City of Pensacola. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.


3/8

17. It is admitted that the procedures for the adoption of ordinances andregulations for the City of Pensacola must comply with applicable Florida law and theprovisions of the Charter of the City of Pensacola. The remaining allegations of thisparagraph are denied.

18. Admitted.D. It is admitted that the Pensacola City Council passed two (2) amendments

to Resolutions No. 40-IZ prior to adopting the amended resolution. The remainingallegations of this paragraph are denied.

20. It is admitted that the Pensacola City Council passed two (2) amendmentsto Resolutions No. 40-IZ prior to adopting the amended resolution. The remainingallegations of this paragraph are denied.

2L. It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 reducedthe Mayor's Advertising Line Item as described in Exhibit "B." The remainingallegations of this paragraph are denied.

ZZ. It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 reducedTechnology Resources as described in Exhibit "B." The remaining allegations of thisparagraph are denied.

23. It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-Lzincreased City Council professional Services as described in Exhibit "B." The remainingallegations of this paragraph are denied.

24. It is admitted that the City Council acted as described in Exhibit "B." Theremaining allegations of this paragraph are denied'


4/8

25. It is admitted that the City Council adopted Resolution No.40-12 asamended. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

26. Admitted.21. It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-l2 as described in Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

28. It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 as described in Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

Zg. It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 as described in Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

30. It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-l2 as described in Exhibit "C." The reuraining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

31. It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-l2 as described in Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

32. These defendants specifically deny that Resolution No. 40-12'oenacts" thebudget of the City of pensacola. It is admitted that Resolution No. 40-12 was amended asdescribed in Exhibit "B." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

33. It is admitted that the City Council did not override the vetoes of theMayor. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

34. It is admitted that counsel for Ms. Myers (now counsel for Ms. DeWeese)rendered the legal opinion attached as Exhibit o'D." These defendants are withoutknowledge as to the remaining allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, thoseallegations are denied.


5/8

35. These defendants are without knowledge and demand proof thereof.Regardless of the legal opinion of Ms. DeWeese, that opinion is irrelevant to this action.

36. Denied.37. It is admitted that amended Resolution No. 40-12, is further altered by theveto of the Mayor, took effect as the FY2013 Budget on October 1,2012. The remainingallegations of this paragraph are denied.

38. Denied.39. Denied.40. Denied.4I. Denied.42. It is admitted that the budget for FY2013 properly shows the amounts

originally proposed by the Mayor in those items which were the subject of his veto. Theremaining allegations of this paragraph are denied'

43. Denied.44. It is admitted that there has been no further resolution of the City Council

with respect to the vetoed items.45. Denied.46. Denied.47. Denied.48. Denied.49. Denied.50. Denied.


6/8

51. Denied.52. Denied.53. Denied.54. Denied.55. Denied.56. Denied.57. Denied.58. Denied.59. Denied.60. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

City Council. They further deny that she has any duty to the public to ensure what shebelieves to be proper function of the government of the City of Pensacola according to itsCharter.

61. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of theCity Council. They further deny that she has any duty to ensure that the public trust ofthe citizens of Pensacola is maintained by the proper and legal use and expenditure ofpublic funds.

62. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of theCity Council. They further deny that she has any right to protect and defend thePensacola City Council in any way and for any purpose.

63. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of theCity Council. They specifically deny that she has the right to challenge the nature and


7/8

the validity of the veto exercised by the Mayor of the City of Pensacola. They furthercontend that she has no standing to act in that regard.

64. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of theCity Council. They further deny that she has any right to ensure that ordinances andresolutions enacted by the City of Pensacola and the City Council are enacted in a properand legal manner. They specifically contend that she has no standing to bring this action.

65. These defendants deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the City Council.They specifically deny that she has a right to ensure that the public interest is served bythe actions of the City of Pensacoia government in that she has no standing to bring thisaction.

66. Denied.61. Denied.68. Denied.69. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

City Council. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are also denied.70. Denied.77. Denied.12. Denied.73. Denied.


8/8

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSEThese defendants assert as an affirmative defense that Ms. DeWeese has no

standing to bring this action.DANIEL,IU

Florida Bar No. 22876tBeggs Lane, RLLP501 Commendencia Street (32502)P. O. Box 1.2950Pensacola, Florida 32597-2950(8s0) 46e-3306(850) 469-333I - f.axAttorney for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

furnished via Electronic Mail on this Znd day of April, 2073 to:J. Alistair McKenzie, EsquireMcKenzie Law Firm, P.A.905 East Hatton StreetPensacola, Florida 32503am@mckenzielawfirm. comhsmith @mckenzielawfirm.com

Beggs Lane, RLLP501 Commendencia Street (32502)P. O. Box 12950Pensacola, Florida 3259I-2950(850) 46e-3306(850) 469-333I - faxAttorney for Defendants

ida Bar No.228761

Answer.pdf

Documents