Disgusting, abhorrent, morally reprehensible
Those are the terms being used by the mayor, the city manager, and the husband of a planning commissioner to describe a recent (rare) editorial on Venice Florida! dot com -- and that was before at least one of them had actually read the article
-- John Patten, 08/29/07
-- jpatten@veniceflorida.com

Got a comment? Make it here.

The emails

To: Mayor, council, city manager:
It is disgusting that some elements in this town are circling like vultures eagerly anticipating that the seat of Councilman Tacy will become vacant and who will no doubt be misquoting Sec. 3.07(b)(4). (see Veniceflorida.com editorial). I would urge Council to continue to excuse Councilman Tacy, as I am sure you will, and to make it clear to anyone who raises the question at any Council meeting that such speculation is inappropriate, and abhorrent.
-- Winston Wilmore [husband of Planning Commissioner Janis Fawn], 08/28/07, 9:13 AM

---------------

Thank you for your comments. It has been our intention to work with Councilman Tacy during his medical procedures. We have arranged to have him present for meetings via phone. The City Attorney has determined that Councilman Tacy can attend meetings by phone, but cannot be counted towards quorum. This is the same rules that applied, I am told, for Councilwoman Warren several years ago when she was ill. Councilman Tacy is a significant contributor to the Council, City and the Community and look forward to hearing his input on the issues that Council sees at each of the meetings.
-- Mayor Fred Hammett, 08/28/07, 9:48 AM

---------------

Mr. Wilmore, I expressed similar sentiments to reporters for the Herald Tribune and the Gondolier this morning and would hope that they would take a positive position, sending a clear message to that element of the community that their actions are in deed, abhorrent (I used the term morally reprehensible).
-- City Manager Marty Black, 08/28/07, ---> 12:28 PM <---
 

Disgusting. Abhorrent. Morally reprehensible.
Those are the terms being used by the mayor, the city manager, and the husband of a planning commissioner to describe a recent (rare) editorial on Venice Florida! dot com.

What's really strange: At yesterday's council meeting, the mayor opened up the meeting by stating that he would not answer any questions about the nature of Tacy's illness as he was prohibited by law from giving out Tacy's diagnosis. Good try there, Fred, but nobody was asking that question.

Even stranger: City Manager Marty Black told me late yesterday (around 4:30 PM or so) that he still hadn't had a chance to read the original editorial. Nevertheless, he had referred to me in print as "morally reprehensible" some four hours earlier for writing something that he had not, as yet, read.

I call shenanigans. Break out the brooms.

The editorial, Is Tacy out or in, addressed an issue that nobody at city hall still wants to talk about -- the city's lack of any public statement surrounding Councilman Rick Tacy's ongoing absences from council meetings.

What was never asked by this web site (and won't be): what is Tacy's diagnosis? If Tacy chooses to disclose that voluntarily, well, that's one thing, but just asking the question seems, well, ... just wrong.

What was asked: what is Tacy's prognosis and can we get a clarification of the rules regarding such absences? Then there were the implied questions, which perhaps I should have been more specific with: Is Tacy expected to return to his full duties? If so, any idea when? One month? Three months? Six months?

What I didn't ask for: Tacy's resignation. What I did ask: If -- IF -- that's a big IF --If Tacy has already made the decision to resign, would he please do so before the closing of council candidacy sign-up period, this to avoid creating yet another civil war zone?

Then came the questions that caused Winston Wilmore, husband of Planning Commissioner Janis Fawn, to refer to me as a vulture: If Tacy is not expected to return and city hall already knows it, are Tacy's absences being excused at this time merely for the sake of keeping the seat occupied in order to avoid the seat becoming open for this November's election? Has the CQG already picked his to-be-appointed replacement?

It's a tough set of questions, a callous-sounding set of questions, and I apologize to Tacy if he felt hurt as that was not the intent. It's also, unfortunately, a very real and valid set of questions for a very good reason: the tactic has been used before. As shown in the editorial, it's how Mayor Fred Hammett was originally appointed to council some three years ago. Tacy himself was part of the decision making process that led to Hammett's appointment.

I've gotten to know Tacy pretty well over the course of his tenure on city council -- he is very much a political realist. He is a staunch conservative Republican and a national political news hard-core addict. It would be somewhat ludicrous to suggest that he didn't expect expect these questions to arise at some point in time and that somehow these questions are a moral affront to him.

The elephant in the living room
City hall has, of late, been treating Tacy and his conspicuous absences like the metaphorical elephant in the living room: everyone noticed but nobody wanted to be the first to acknowledge its existence.

I was the first person to bring the issue up and that was some six weeks after the situation started, so this is hardly a rush to judgment. I felt uncomfortable (and still do) about bringing it up, but it was becoming apparent that if I didn't, nobody else would.

Presently, officials are clutching their chests in mock outrage -- shocked, shocked I say, that anyone could suggest that city officials might manipulate excused absences in order to avoid an extra slot on the ballot in an upcoming election. After all, it's not like it has ever happened before, right?

In preparation for this past Tuesday's city council meeting, city officials were trying to figure out a way to skirt around one rule involving attendance by having Tacy attend the meeting by conference phone, even though the city's charter and ordinances specifically state that attendance must be physical. I didn't know yet about that rule when I asked city hall a very simple question prior to that meeting: Is attendance by phone allowed?

It was a simple procedural question, yet you'd have thought I was Jeffrey Dahmer for asking it. City hall never answered the question, instead it resorted to name-calling. Venice Taxpayers League Vice President Ray Lesko finally provided the answer, though, on this site's message board. He's a bad man.

Tacy excused -- but how, exactly?
One other bit of legal bizarreness showed up in the subsequent research into city council absences, though, and I still don't know what to make of it. I will, of course, be vilified for bringing it up.

If a council member has more than three unexcused absences in a row from council meetings, this can be cause for his removal from office. The charter and ordinances, however, leave it wide open as to how many excused absences are allowed. It is possible that someone could get elected and never once appear at a council meeting if all of his/her absences are excused by council. This is the bit in Sec. 3.07(b)(4) that Wilmore was referring to in his email to the city.

While the charter and ordinances allow for excusing an absence, there appears to be a huge gaping hole in the books: nowhere in the charter and ordinances can I find a description of the process that is to be used to excuse a council member's absence. Is it done by vote? If so, by majority or unanimous vote? Does it have to be done in advance? Can it be done after the fact? Does requesting an excused absence have to be done in writing? The city's charter and ordinances are curiously silent on this matter -- the process itself is not described. It apparently doesn't legally exist.

So a valid question arises: in the absence of a defined process for doing so, does city council actually have the legal power to excuse an absence?

No, I don't have the answer -- that's why I'm asking the question.

Ummmmm.... that might be referred to in some circles as a bit of a problem. In other circles it might be described as a huge problem. There is no doubt that I will be going straight to Hell for pointing it out. In those five paragraphs above, I have clearly given city hall prime proof that I am the Anti-Christ. I should be dragged through the streets like Mussolini -- it's really the only fair thing to do.

Questions still unanswered
All of this leaves some tough and ugly questions unanswered, but they are questions that are not likely to go away and that still deserve some answers. The city has a strategic worker out on sick leave. Isn't a company's first heartless-yet-realistic question usually along the lines of "Does anyone know how long he's anticipated to be out?"

To risk didactic redundancy for the sake of absolute clarity, I'll ask again for the second time in this article, the third time overall: Does anyone at city hall have any idea when Tacy is expected to return to work? Do we have any idea how long his recovery is forecast? One month? Six months? Longer? Anyone?

Moreover, why is asking that question considered "morally reprehensible?" I'm truly failing to see the controversy. Unless... unless plans were already being made to delay replacing him, which I suggested was a possible scenario based on very recent history. I discussed that possibility openly. Which then pissed a lot of people off as they didn't want to talk about it. If that's the case, if those really were the smoke-filled-back-room plans, then and only then can I understand the vitriol.

As for those that are hiding behind Tacy's illness and using it to toss word-grenades like "disgusting," "abhorrent," and "morally reprehensible," well... I would suggest taking a good long look in the mirror before tossing those words out again. By mis-phrasing my questions and then using them for political hate-fodder, you are the ones using Tacy's illness for political expediency. And that truly is morally reprehensible.

I wish Tacy the best and sincerely hope for a solid recovery from his current health woes, whatever they may be. In spite of our political differences, I do genuinely like and admire Tacy. God has dealt him a terrible hand in some of the things he has had to endure through his life so far and I wouldn't wish what he's been through on anyone.

Rick: get well. Get well soon. The sooner the better, and for pragmatic and selfish reasons: This town doesn't need this shit. I don't need this shit. We all need this like a hole in the head.

John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.