By Reggie Connell, Managing Editor
Hello, Apopka City Council and those of you who frequent the public comments podium. We are about to embark on an important week with a City Council meeting and a budget hearing on Wednesday.
It's time for us to have a hard talk.
As all of you know, those get-togethers you conduct in the City Hall Chambers every couple of weeks have turned into a circus. I'm not going to get into details, but I think you know it's embarrassing and uncomfortable to witness either online or in person. Many of you are probably nodding yes, but before you do, consider this:
Some of you deserve a lot of the blame, but all of you deserve some.
I'm sorry, but it needed to be said. Now, let's get past the blame and find solutions.
Public Speakers: A Respect for the Office
If you are one of the residents who frequently step forward to express your opinions about Apopka, I congratulate you and thank you. Public comments are an essential part of local government. You are speaking truth to power; believe me, it can be effective and vital to the City's discourse.
However, making a difference in the community will only work if you are taken seriously. When your comments include insults, personal attacks, and profanity, your substantive points are lost and easily disregarded.
I have advice for you, and I hope you don't find it condescending, but here goes:
It's essential to approach public comments with respect and decorum. Maintaining a calm and professional demeanor is crucial. Avoid shouting, interrupting others, or using inflammatory language, as this can undermine your message and disrupt the meeting. Instead, clearly articulate your points, listen respectfully to others, and address the Council with constructive feedback. You can be effective without being insulting.
As a final thought, remember that the City Council is Apopka's leadership. Even if you don't respect the individual sitting in the seat, respect the office they represent.
City Council: A Defense of Truth
I also urge you to have your facts straight.
In at least two instances, residents have stood before the Council and made mis-statements about a council member and a department head. Although I won't call out those who made the statements, I will highlight the examples.
The first involves Apopka City Attorney Cliff Shepard, who was asked about a complaint filed against Apopka Mayor Bryan Nelson during a discussion about rescinding Nelson's censure.
But before the question, Vice Mayor Diane Velazquez read the following statement into the record, written by the Florida Ethics Commission:
"While the April 5th (City Council) vote to effectuate the termination of (City Attorney Michael) Rodriguez's employment, his May 4th resignation should have. On May 3rd, Rodriguez informed the City Council, including Respondent (Nelson) of his intention to resign and provided the written resignation on May 4th. Even after providing his letter of resignation, Respondent continued to withold the truth of the nature of Rodriguez's employment from the City Council during meetings and therefore witheld this information from the public. This action is puzzling. However, the question lies in whether Respondent had a wrongful intent or did he maintain his belief that he had the ultimate authority regarding the employment of the City Attorney?"
Velazquez responded after the statement:
"The censure was about you being untruthful about the status of his (Rodriguez's) employment status. It had nothing to do with when we voted for his termination. And with the commission's findings, they called your actions puzzling."
Commissioner Nadia Anderson pushed back, asking Shepard if the investigation exonerated Nelson.
"Although this commission did not initially formulate the complaint, were the allegations of the mayor not being truthful addressed in the complaint?" She asked.
"It was not," Shepard said. "What the Vice Mayor read is in the report. There's no question about it, and that was the conclusion of the investigator – I think the word was puzzling or something. I forget exactly how it was worded, but what she said is exactly what's there. But if you look at the ethics code, and this is applicable to all of you, there is no ethics rule that elected officials must tell the truth or mustn't tell the truth, or somewhere in between. This is a lesson I would think, as a country, we have learned from listening to politicians nationally, locally, and statewide – there isn't such a rule. Now there is a rule if it applies to like financial forms, things of that nature. But generally speaking, and that's the thing, it was raised by the complainant, it was thrown into the mix, but it wasn't something they could say"here's a statute that says you did something wrong by misrepresenting this thing or saying this was something other than true." There isn't such a rule. And so ultimately, it was in the complaint package, but if that was the only thing that was in there, there wouldn't even have been an investigation."
In summary, Shepard said that lying wasn't part of the ethics code the commission was investigating. He was interpreting the commission's findings, not making a defense for Nelson's actions.
But for some, the takeaway was that Shepard condoned lying.
A similar example occurred during a discussion about Apopka's fledgling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee (DEI). Velazquez suggested disbanding and rebuilding the DEI. She later clarified that she wanted to build a more effective DEI committee.
However, in public comments, she was criticized more than once for wanting to disband the DEI.
Velazquez responded to the comment in a statement to The Apopka Voice:
"At the last (City) Council meeting, during the Commissioner's Report, I made reference to the Apopka DEI Committee, recommending (using the word) 'DISBAND' the DEI Committee. I received feedback asking for clarity; there were residents present at the council meeting and others tuning in via 'Live' YouTube, interpreting my recommendation as dismissing the DEI altogether and its mission. That was NOT my intent. I am writing this post for clarity. I was referencing the DEI Committee representing our City of Apopka. Respectfully, I asked the Mayor for our commission to REVAMP and appoint new members to Apopka's DEI Committee."
But even after her clarification, she continues to receive criticism about wanting to disband DEI.
Shepard also referenced the criticism in an email to Velazquez:
"I clearly recognize that you have been trying hard to bring civility to the dais and that doing so is not easy unless you are assisted by others. As I said, maintaining decorum at council meetings is one of those things that does "take a village." A lone council member will never be able to carry the day, even one as reasonable and polite as you.
As an example, at two meetings in a row I have been accused by members of the public of saying that it is okay for public officials to lie. All of you know that is not true. There is a transcript of what I actually said if interested, which is that the Code of Ethics in Florida Statutes does not make lying an ethics violation unless the lie has to do with the financial disclosure forms we are all required to file. Yet knowing these statements from the public were untrue, none of you corrected the record. This is how things get out of hand. And I am not trying to make this about me, but I am trying to explain that enforcing decorum cannot only happen when you or someone you view as an ally is unfairly attacked. You must be consistent, whether the attack is against one of you, a staff member, or another member of the public."
I would echo Shepard's point. Members of the Council should defend fellow members of the Council, staff, and members of the public that are falsely accused or criticized. It would go a long way if a person knew they would get called out for making a false statement. As Shepard said, it cannot only happen when you or someone you view as an ally is unfairly attacked. You must be consistent whether the attack is against one of your allies, a staff member, or a member of the public.
A Legacy in Peril
Mayor Nelson, you have had an impressive run in Orange County politics. You are undefeated in elections, and your victories include the Florida Legislature, Orange County Commission, and Apopka Mayor. One might joke that you worked your way down the ladder, but I suspect sitting in the same seat as Mayor John Land may be the job you always wanted.
But will you be remembered in the same light as Mayor Land?
No one can deny Land had the type of legacy any politician would want. It may be time for you to start thinking about your legacy, Mayor Nelson.
I understand your frustration with the tone of public comments from a few individuals. I don't like it when readers criticize me on my news site or social media, but it's part of the cost of doing business as a news site or elected official.
However, moving the public comments section to the end of the meeting and turning off the live feed is an overreaction of a significant proportion.
After the August 7th meeting, I asked Nelson why he made this decision but did not get a response. However, the Apopka City Administrator Jacob Smith did.
"You will need to speak with the Mayor on that one," Smith said. "I know his reasons, but it’s best if you get it directly from him."
Two weeks later, at the August 21st meeting, Nelson again closed the meeting with public comments and turned off the live feed.
Again, there was no response from Nelson, but Smith replied to my question.
"It was his decision – the reason? No idea. My only guess is that it is an effort to minimize the grandstanding by certain residents."
Then, at the September 4th meeting, Nelson kept the comments at the end of the meeting for a third straight time and turned off the live feed. Despite a motion by Commissioner Nick Nesta, the Council voted 3-2 AGAINST turning the live feed back on - with Commissioner Alexander Smith and Anderson joining Nelson in defeating the motion.
Unfortunately, there was no debate or discussion about why they voted against the motion, and Nelson, Anderson, or Smith did not respond when The Apopka Voice reached out to them about their reasons for keeping public comments off the live feed.
But Smith, his city administrator, again replied.
"I didn’t make the decision to move public comment. The mayor sets the agenda, he put the public comment at the end, a few commissioners wanted to put it after presentations and it was voted down by the Council. Same thing with the streaming of public comment on the online video sharing platform, YouTube. At the last meeting the motion was made to stream the public comment portion, the Council voted against it. As an administrator, I recognize that the City Council and Mayor are accountable to their community for the decisions they make; it is my role to implement their ratified decisions – even if I personally disagree and/or a portion of the public is in disagreement."
Mayor Nelson, if you punish EVERYONE who wants to participate in public comments, you should at least explain your actions. If your city administrator is responding to questions you won't, what does that tell you?
At the August 21st meeting, I watched as two elderly ladies struggled to the podium. They waited until well past 10 p.m. to support Main Street Apopka and ask for help caring for the local homeless population. Are they and all other non-controversial speakers simply collateral damage in your scheme to control public opinion?
At a minimum, the residents of Apopka should know why you are making this puzzling decision, but perhaps you should ask yourself another question:
"How would Mayor Land handle this issue?"
Your legacy may depend on your response.
