Fernandina Beach city commissioners voted at Tuesday night’s meeting to approve paying legal fees for Commissioner David Sturges, who is the subject of a state ethics complaint.
Such complaints are strictly confidential while being investigated by the Florida Commission on Ethics. The complaint was filed March 6.
Sturges recused himself from voting on the matter, as did Commissioner Chip Ross.
This is ridiculous. Why am I paying for his legal fees?! If he is personally being investigated, he should foot the bill! Quit wasting my tax dollars and do things for the people of this city!
WHY DID COMMISSIONER ROSS RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE VOTE?
If you watch the video of the 4/18 meeting at 1:34 Commissioner Ross indicated he was abstaining to avoid any perception of bias in the proceedings. Whether you agree or disagree with Chip’s position on matters, his litany of the resources he consulted in arriving at this position demonstrates the detail he goes to on all issues.
Well in using that logic then the other Commissioners would have also recused themselves. There has to be a reason why Ross recused himself. All so unnecessary and silly.
Don’t understand your response. Commissioner Ross’s action precludes any allegations that his action was not in relation to the merits of the question, but due to a strained relationship. The disagreements between the two on city matters/votes are well documented.
You are discrediting yourself, Jason.
Are you asking because you really do not know the answer or you do know and do not want to come out and say it? I think the answer to your question is obvious. The timing is weird too. Suddenly a complaint is filed after the firing of Dale Martin. Is that a coincidence? I do not think so.
How DARE they! He was advised by the city solicitor to recuse himself from the vote on Bret’s due to conflict of interest, yet he did exactly what he wanted! No WE have to pay for his arrogance? What a circle of fools we have in city management!!! Every action by this man should be suspect!!!!
Sturges did recuse himself from the vote regarding Brett’s. Check the record.
Only one of the votes. He had several votes prior to that. Check the record.
Come on Sheila. Having a friend that’s an employee of Brett’s is in no way unethical in how he fought to save the restaurant from government overreach. That’s the real scandal here.
Jason, you misstate the facts. The previous article states that he was a business partner not a “friend”; or are you saying the article is incorrect. Clearly you are in David’s corner and that is fine, but stick with the facts.
They’re business partners Jason. Why are you defending Sturges before his ethics case is reviewed?
Lol. “Friend”? Nice try.
What record? Please give details.
When was he advised by the city attorney to recuse himself from the Brett’s vote? Can you provide a date and time?
Based on the information available commissioner Sturges was advised the week prior to the vote on Bretts by the city attorney that apotential conflict insisted because he and Mr Ericksen, whom I understand is a lifelong friend of Commissioner Sturges, co-own a commerical building together, making them de-facto business partners and Mr Ericksen is an employee of Bretts that there may be a conflict, and out of an abundance of caution he should recuse himself. So he did. Prior to that it seems as if the matter did not come up at all in any discussions.
I too find it suspect that Commissioner Ross recused himself from voting on whether or not to cover legal fees relating to the ethics complaint, it could lead one to speculate that maybe he is the complainant or related to the complainant in some form or fashion? That, if it is the case, is a bit troubling that one commissioner may have filed a complaint against a fellow commissioner rather than handling it as the City Charter dictates.
Since the ethics complaint arose out of Commissioner Sturges’ role as a commissioner, it is incumbent upon the city to represent him, thats what the statutes provide for and part of the job. This is no different than a lawsuit against the commission, jointly or individually arsing form their roles as commissioners
The anger should be focused on the complainant should there be no probable cause or finding of fact from the complaint and this was all an exercise in futility.
Sturges got himself into this mess…he should hold full responsibility in getting himself out of the mess! Our tax dollars should not be paying for his self serving stupidity.
You say he got himself into this mess but you don’t mention exactly what the mess is. No one here knows what is in the actual complaint yet there are complaints about taxes and Sturges along the way. How do we know the complaint is not frivolous? Where is the evidence either way?
So they didn’t want to spend money for the professional search company to find a new city manager which would benefit all citizens of FB but no problem spending money on one of their own.
We should not be paying his legal fees.
Why is it the City’s problem and not Sturges’ problem? The City and taxpayers should not pay for Sturges’ potential lack of ethics. Sturges should be responsible for his own ethics and moral standards, not us. If I am responsible for his values, I would like to give him some advice.
If the commission is willing to commit tax-payers money, every detail of this case should be made public so people know what they are paying for. But willing to pay these legal fees without the blink of an eye and yet cannot agree for weeks to hire a professional search team to hire a new town manager? Priorities people!
Debra, every detail of this case will be made public AFTER it has been settled. That is the way that it works with litigation involving a governmental agency. The Commission will meet in Executive Session with the City Attorney and outside council to discuss its strategy and process in its defense. After the matter has reached it conclusion, all the minutes, votes and other documents are open to the public. Of course you have the option to reach out to VM Sturges and see if he will provide you with a copy of the ethics charge.
I’ll place my chips on Sturges being cleared. Why? Because I think the “reason” for reporting him was secondary to something more sinister, which most likely has more to do with Dale Martin’s termination than anything else. Of course it will never be admitted, but just wait and see what the investigation reveals. Emotions can be dangerous when making decisions or trying to get someone in trouble. That’s why objectivity is so important.