Sarasota News Leader
November 29, 2013
OPINION
Page 86
ATTORNEY IN SUNSHINE LAWSUIT DISPUTES CHAPMAN STATEMENTS
TO THE CITY COMMISSION
By Andrea Mogensen
Guest Columnist
GUEST COLUMN
The recent
Sarasota
News Leader article dealing with the pending
Government in the Sunshine lawsuit against
the City of Sarasota contained some factual
errors (Divide to conquer, Nov. 22).
Chapman's attorney, Richard Harrison, attaching the correspondence referenced above and
indicating that the offer was still on the table
until 5 p.m. on Nov. 22. Harrison responded
that he was no longer representing Chapman
and would not respond to the "renewed" settlement offer ( See Exhibit 2). Clearly, Harrison
No doubt, the errors were due to reprealready was aware of the earlier settlement
sentations made at the City Commission
offer, extended to both Atwell and Chapman,
meeting last Monday by Commissioner Susan
dated Nov. 1.
Chapman, so I do not attribute it to any negligence on the part of the News Leader. I just Second, the article states, "Chapman then
want to set the record straight.
received an emergency injunction and was
served with a set of 'interrogatories.' That
First, the article states that Chapman was
was followed with a request to set a schednot offered the same deal that Commissioner
ule for depositions in the case. Atwell instead
Suzanne Atwell was offered. This is flatly
received an offer to settle the case, which she
untrue. On Nov. 1, I extended the very same
accepted."
offer to both Atwell and Chapman to pay
$500 to a charity of her choice in exchange for Attached as Exhibit 3 is the current docket
being dropped from the lawsuit. That email in this case. No motion for emergency
was conveyed from me to the city attorney injunction has ever been filed or served in
and to counsel for both Chapman and Atwell this case. That representation is simply a fic( See Exhibit 1). As reported, Atwell took tion. Additionally, the request to schedule
that deal just a few days later.
depositions in the case occurred on Nov. 13
I would point out that, following the remarks ( See Exhibit 4) — nearly two weeks after
of Chapman last Monday, in which she errone- the same settlement offer had been made to
ously stated that the same deal had not been both Atwell and Chapman — because there
offered to her, I again sent correspondence to had been no response or effort by Harrison
