Last week, the Madeira Beach City Commission selected Interim City Attorney Thomas Trask to serve as the permanent City Attorney despite the fact that he and his firm publicly refused to provide the information the city asked of all prospective city attorney applicants. 

What the City Said it Wanted to Know

In one section of its formal Request For Qualifications (RFQ), the city asked all applying attorneys and legal firms the following:

Provide a list of judgments or lawsuits against each attorney and/or the firm in the last five (5) years, including the nature of the lawsuit and the resolution thereof. Provide a list of all lobbyists employed by your firm and areas lobbied. Provide a list and explanation of any ethics complaints filed against each attorney and/or the firm or any attorney proposed under this solicitation by the Florida Bar Association or any relevant State regulatory agency within the past five (5) years.

What Mr. Trask Refused to Reveal

Here is what the Trask Daigneault, LLC law firm submitted in its application for the position of City Attorney:

“The Firm is currently addressing Complaints filed by William Gay against Thomas J. Trask and Jay Daigneault. The details of these Complaints will be discussed privately with each Commissioner should that be requested.”

In my opinion, that reply by Trask Daigneault, LLC is neither accurate nor complete. The RFQ requires that the attorney provide 1) a list and 2) and explanation of any Florida Bar complaints filed against each attorney and/or firm. 

In Trask Daigneault, LLC’s response to the RFQ, there is neither a list nor an explanation. The firm offered private conversations with Commissioners to explain the details of the Complaints. Frankly, a private conversation that is out of view and not disclosed to the public does not comply with the RFQ and is not in the public interest.

The RFQ failed to disclose the Florida Bar complaints that I personally filed against Mr. Trask and his law partner, Jay Daigneault  on a number of issues, including some related to Mr. Trask’s and Mr. Daigneault’s actions in their capacity as the Madeira Beach City Attorneys over the past three years. I also have personal knowledge that the Florida Bar is reviewing complaints against either or both Mr. Daigneault and Mr. Trask involving their actions in other municipalities, including Oldsmar, Dunedin, North Redington Beach and Redington Shores. 

During the Commission’s pointed public questioning of Mr. Trask , he refused to give any more detail in a public venue. When asked by Mayor Rostek whether he would discuss the Florida Bar Complaints, Mr. Trask flatly refused. After Mr. Trask’s blunt response, Mayor Rostek commented that he would vote against Mr. Trask’s firm’s selection because it failed to comply with the terms of the City’s required application.  That didn’t stop the other commissioners who ignored the City’s posted requirements for completing the response to the City’s Request For Proposal. 

Here is a video showing just what Mr. Trask  told the commission:

So, Just What Does This Mean for the Citizens of Madeira Beach?

Despite Mr. Trask’s comments to the City Commission this week, Florida Bar rules allow him, Mr. Daigneault to disclose these complaints to the city and to the public. Under the terms of the RFQ, Mr. Trask and Mr. Daigneault should have been required to comply with the RFQ requirements to disclose the complaints and to discuss, in writing or in a public interview, the facts of those complaints regarding the City of Madeira Beach and any other complaints. Commissioners decided otherwise and failed to require Mr. Trask’s response. The big question is, what will the City do if the Florida Bar acts on those complaints. . . and what will Mr. Trask and Mr. Daigneault and their law firm do if that happens?

With Trask, et al, Past is Prologue

What was proposed by Trask Daigneault, LLC – i.e., proposing to discuss the Florida Bar complaints in private meetings with Commissioners – is all too similar to the facts described in a pending Sunshine Law violation lawsuit against city officials and in which Mr. Trask is involved.

Before Mr. Trask was appointed as Interim City Attorney, Mr. Trask met privately with former Mayor John Hendricks, and Commissioners Doug Andrews, Nancy Hodges, and Helen Price to discuss Mr. Trask’s potential appointment to replace then-city attorney. Mr. Trask never appeared in public for an interview and none of those former public officials said a word about any of their meetings and discussions with Mr. Trask at the meeting at which they appointed him.

Resident William Gay subsequently sued the city and the four commissioners over how they violated the Florida Sunshine Law. The lawsuit said, in part:

“Commissioners were well aware that during Trask’s former tenure as City attorney in 2016-17 he was responsible for advising the City in matters which the court found violated the Sunshine and Public Records laws…. By appointing Trask, the Commissioners had confidence they could proceed with their redevelopment plans without complying with the City’s rezoning ordinances, just as they had during Trask’s former tenure.”

And that is exactly what has occurred.

That lawsuit is now in the appellate court in a challenge to a Circuit Court ruling that, in my opinion, failed to follow a previous state appellate court decision stating that both actual and “de facto” meetings must be held in public when matters are discussed that will come before a board for a vote . Here is the video of the commission approving the appointment of Mr. Trask.

The Schooner Resort involves a planned nine-story hotel on the west side of Gulf Boulevard. Once built, it would become the tallest hotel in the small beach city. The commission approved plans for the project in July, but the project has been delayed pending the outcome of a lawsuit in Circuit Court.

Trask Misleads on Schooner Resort Development Litigation

One final comment. 

Recently Mr. Trask announced that the City had won the Schooner litigation and that it was the only case outstanding on that development. That was not correct.

First, the parties, including the City, represented by Mr. Daigneault, have sent a joint motion to the court advising the court that it was mistaken in its decision to dismiss the case. Instead, it asked the court to resolve the litigation. The court entered an order temporarily vacating the dismissal and that case is now back on the court’s docket.

There is also another case pending regarding the Schooner that Mr. Trask did not mention. Burke v City of Madeira Beach, Case No. 522022AP000001XXXXCI challenging the Schooner development is currently pending before the court as well. After I advised the City of the above omission Mr. Trask corrected the City’s litigation report.

City Charter Requirements for a City Attorney

Here is just some of what the City’s Charter has to say about how the duties and responsibilities of the City Attorney:

The City Attorney shall act as legal advisor to, and attorney for, the City and all of its officers or employees in matters arising out of the performance of their official duties for the City, but the City Attorney…

The City Attorney shall bring and defend or assist in litigation and defense, for and in behalf of the City, all complaints, suits, and controversies in which the City is a party and shall perform such other professional duties as may be required of him by official action of the Board of Commissioners.

The City Attorney shall be an attorney at law, admitted to practice before the highest courts of the State of Florida and the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida.