Electronically F iled

0 4 I

02/20 1 3 I 0

:20 AM ET

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE F'IRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

MAREN L. DEWEESE, in her official capacity as City Councilwoman for the City of Pensacola, and in her individual
capacity as citizen and taxpayer of the City of Pensacola,
CASE NO.: 2012-CA'2898

DIVISION: K

Plaintiff,
v.

S.ryFP

ASHTON J. HAYWARD, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Pensacola, a Florida municipal corporation, and RICHARD BARKER, JR., in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the City of Pensacola,
Defendants.

ANSWER COME NOW the Defendants, Ashton J. Hayward, in his official capacity
as

Mayor of the City of Pensacola, and Richard Barker, Jr. in his official capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the City of Pensacola, by and through their undersigned attorney, and
answer the allegations of the complaint filed herein as follows:

1. 2.

Admitted.

It is admitted that Ms. DeWeese served

as a msmber

of the City Council of

pensacola at the time of the filing of this complaint. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

3.

Admitted.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

It is admitted that the City Council

has the power to legislate

for the City by

adopting ordinances and resolutions in the best interest of all citizens of the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

City.

The

11. 12. 13.

Admitted.
Denied.

It is admitted that the Mayor has the power of veto described. It is further

admitted that the Mayor may veto any "line item" in accordance with Section a.01 (10) of
the City Charter. It is further admitted that any veto may be overridden by an affirmative

vote of at least six (6) Council Members. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are
denied.

14. 15.

Admitted. Admitted.

16. It is admitted that the budget of the City of Pensacola of expenditures

pursuant to that budget must comply with applicable Florida law and the provisions of the Charter of the City of Pensacola. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

17. It is admitted that the procedures for the adoption of ordinances and
regulations for the City of Pensacola must comply with applicable Florida law and the provisions

of the Charter of the City of Pensacola. The remaining allegations of this

paragraph are denied.

18. D.

Admitted.

It is admitted that the Pensacola City Council

passed two (2) amendments

to Resolutions No. 40-IZ prior to adopting the amended resolution. The remaining
allegations of this paragraph are denied.

20.

It is admitted that the Pensacola City Council

passed two (2) amendments

to Resolutions No. 40-IZ prior to adopting the amended resolution. The

allegations of this paragraph are denied.

remaining

2L.

It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 reduced

the Mayor's Advertising Line Item as described in Exhibit

allegations of this paragraph are denied.

"B."

The remaining

ZZ.

It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-12 reduced

Technology Resources as described in Exhibit

paragraph are denied.

"B."

The remaining allegations of this

23. It is admitted that one of the amendments to Resolution No. 40-Lz

increased City Council professional Services as described in Exhibit

"B." The remaining

allegations of this paragraph are denied.

24.

It is admitted that the City Council acted as described in Exhibit "B." The

remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied'

25. It is admitted that the City Council adopted Resolution No.40-12

amended. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

as

26. 21.
l2

Admitted.

It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

as described in

28. Zg. 30.

l2

It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40-

12 as described in Exhibit

"C."

The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

12 as described in

It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40Exhibit "C." The reuraining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

as described in

31.
l2

It is admitted that the Mayor vetoed the amendments to Resolution No. 40Exhibit "C." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

as described in

32.

These defendants specifically deny that Resolution No. 40-12'oenacts" the

as budget of the City of pensacola. It is admitted that Resolution No. 40-12 was amended

described in Exhibit

"B."

The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

33. It is admitted that the City Council did not override the vetoes of the
Mayor. The remaining allegations of this paragraph
are denied.

34.

rendered the legal

It is admitted that counsel for Ms. Myers (now counsel for Ms. DeWeese) o'D." These defendants are without opinion attached as Exhibit

knowledge as

to the remaining

allegations

of this

paragraph and, therefore, those

allegations are denied.

35. 36. 37.

These defendants are without knowledge and demand proof thereof.

Regardless of the legal opinion of Ms. DeWeese, that opinion is irrelevant to this action.

Denied.

It is admitted that amended Resolution No. 40-12, is further altered by

the

veto of the Mayor, took effect as the FY2013 Budget on October 1,2012. The remaining
allegations of this paragraph are denied.

38. 39. 40. 4I.

Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

42. It is admitted that the budget for FY2013 properly shows the amounts
originally proposed by the Mayor in those items which were the subject of his veto. The
remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied'

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Denied.

It is admitted that there has been no further resolution of the City Council

with respect to the vetoed items.

Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the
she

City Council. They further deny that she has any duty to the public to ensure what

believes to be proper function of the government of the City of Pensacola according to its
Charter.

61.

These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

City Council. They further deny that she has any duty to ensure that the public trust of
the citizens of Pensacola is maintained by the proper and legal use and expenditure of public funds.

62.

These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

the

City Council. They further deny that she has any right to protect and defend
Pensacola City Council in any way and for any purpose.

63.

These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

and

City Council. They specifically deny that she has the right to challenge the nature

the validity

of the veto exercised by the Mayor of the City of Pensacola. They further

contend that she has no standing to act in that regard.

64.

These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member

of

the

City Council. They further deny that she has any right to ensure that ordinances and
resolutions enacted by the City of Pensacola and the City Council are enacted in a proper
and legal manner. They specifically contend that she has no standing to bring this action.

65.

These defendants deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the City Council.

They specifically deny that she has a right to ensure that the public interest is served by
the actions of the City of Pensacoia government in that she has no standing to bring this
action.

66. 61. 68. 69. 70. 77. 12. 73.

Denied. Denied. Denied. These defendants specifically deny that Ms. DeWeese is a member of the

City Council. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are also denied.
Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants assert as an affirmative defense that Ms. DeWeese has no
standing to bring this action.

DANIEL,IU
Florida Bar No. 22876t Beggs Lane, RLLP 501 Commendencia Street (32502) P. O. Box 1.2950 Pensacola, Florida 32597-2950 (8s0) 46e-3306 (850) 469-333I - f.ax Attorney for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

furnished via Electronic Mail on this Znd day of April, 2073 to: J. Alistair McKenzie, Esquire McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. 905 East Hatton Street Pensacola, Florida 32503 am@mckenzielawfirm. com hsmith @mckenzielawfirm.com

has been

ida Bar No.228761 Beggs Lane, RLLP 501 Commendencia Street (32502) P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 3259I-2950 (850) 46e-3306

(850) 469-333I

- fax

Attorney for Defendants