Editorial: Hey mister, can you spare $55,000?

Editorial: Hey mister, can you spare $55,000?

Michael Gold, Editor
St Augustine, FL

I’d be willing to wager that many, if not most, Historic City News readers living, working, and voting in the City of St Augustine, don’t have a spare $55,000 siting around the house, perhaps in a Yuban coffee can or stuffed in a mattress, that they’d be willing to gamble on the chances that an elected local public official, who currently is in office, can win a defamation lawsuit against the press.

In fact, the chances are probably on par that he would win the Florida Lottery.

But $55,000 is the estimated cost that one city commissioner, whose initials are “Todd Neville”, will have to wager if he wants the chance to argue the intentions of Historic City News editor Michael Gold at the time we identified a financial conflict of interest, NOT a “voting conflict of interest”, that existed when he failed to disclose for the record that he had taken nearly $1,000 in campaign contributions from developer David Corneal, his son, local attorney Seth Corneal, and the attorney representing Corneal, Ellen Avery-Smith, in one of the most controversial and divisive quasi-judicial proceedings this year; putting aside the restrictions of HP-1 zoning for several historic homes at the Cordova Street intersection with Bridge Street.

That estimate comes from research by City Attorney Isabelle Lopez done at Neville’s request during “commissioner comments” at the end of the last commission meeting.

Historic City News, as you would expect, also has an attorney.  Our attorney makes the following findings:

• The City of St Augustine cannot be the plaintiff in a defamation suit against Historic City News because, by its very nature, defamation is a personal tort, or wrong, against the good reputation of another individual — therefore the City cannot claim injury by defamation.

• In practical terms, Chapter 166.021, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted to mean that public funds cannot be expended unless it is for a municipal public purpose.

• Pursuant to section 4.19 of the City Charter, the City Attorney can only prosecute and defend lawsuits, “in which the city is a party”, therefore, Neville would have to hire and pay for his own lawyer.

• Because opinion, criticism, rhetorical hyperbole and vigorous epithet is not, in itself, defamation; in the case of a public official, the burden of proof will be very high.  The plaintiff will have to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that our news article contains a statement of fact, which is false, and made with actual malice. Neville will have to prove that a false communication of fact has injured his reputation or good name.

For the most part, these are the same findings reached by Lopez in responding to Neville’s request; although, if there is a motion to proceed with such an action despite these findings, and if the motion receives a second, and if there is a third commissioner who agrees, Lopez, who serves at the pleasure of the commission, will find herself squarely on the horns of a dilemma.

An ethics complaint filed by ex-mayor Joe Boles’ stepson, Willie Masson, may result in Mayor Shaver being asked to recuse herself from this evening’s vote because she purchases domain registration, website design and development services, content management and​ ​Internet​ ​updating for her personal website and various social media properties from Historic City Companies, Inc., the parent company of Historic City News.