UPDATE - VB City Council Disqualifies Suda’s Proposal. Tracey Zudans Recuses Herself After Being "Threatened" Politically By Brian Barefoot.
Did Mr. Barefoot sabotage the 3 Corners bid process? Mayor Cotugno's attempted politics failed as council votes 4-1 to “start from scratch.”
Framing the media narrative in advance.
On the June 6th broadcast of WPTV’s News at 6, Vero Beach Mayor, John Cotugno, framed the narrative of his special call meeting taking place the next day. In referring to the alleged prohibited communications made by the president of SuDa, Gaurav Butani, via email to the City Clerk, Tammy Bursick, and Manager of Purchasing for the city, John O’Brien, Cotugno explained, ”A mistake was made. We did not address it. It's clearly spelled out, and we need to address it now.”
Mayor Cotugno lied to the reporter, Kate Hussey, about not addressing the prohibited communications at the May 28th meeting. She did not verify his statement. The email issue was addressed prior to the vote, and, both he and council member, John Carroll, who had other concerns as well with the SuDa proposal, stated clearly in that meeting that they did not want to disqualify SuDa in spite of their own reservations. In his opening remarks prior to the vote that evening, Mayor Cotugno clearly put forth the email issue. He stated, “I think we need some comment from John O’Brien who spearheaded the proposal gathering and our city attorney, because a number of things have happened since then. We received emails from a principal, [I’m] referring to SuDa. We received emails directly to city council which is not part of the process. In fact it’s excluded from the process. It’s not suppose to happen.”
The Sunshine Journal did address the two council members’ concerns here and how they did not press the issue of disqualification (LINK ABOVE). In his own remarks, Suda’s attorney, Mark Grafton, described the obvious facts of May 28th. He said, “We reviewed the transcript of the May 28th hearing thoroughly. Each and every alleged basis that is being talked about now was raised, discussed, thoughtfully considered. You got some advice on the discretion you have in this process. Collectively, all 5 members elected not to proceed to a disqualification vote, not even a vote was requested.”
Ignoring their own testimony of record, Mayor Cotugno and Mr. Carroll fervently demanded that SuDa be disqualified from winning the Request For Proposal (RFP). The gloves were off. Mr. Carroll, said he didn’t make his argument “strongly enough” on May 28th, and for the first time ever, mentioned he thought SuDa’s original proposal should not have been accepted. He said they made a “mockery” of the process. He finished his do-over by saying of their initial submission on February 1st, “we should have kicked them out and I told staff to kick them out and it fell on deaf ears!”
Where was Mr. Carroll’s vehement fervor on May 28th? Mayor Cotugno’s disposition was defensive and overtly combative too. Interrupting at times, he directly challenged SuDa lawyers. He even accused council member, Taylor Dingle, of being political for making a request to ask a question of their legal team. Like John’s Island member and recently resigned school board official, Brian Barefoot, who, via email, threatened Tracey Zudans with withdrawing campaign support for her from himself and his “friends” because she voted for SuDa, Mayor Cotugno wanted to bury the community-favored proposal that was awarded May 28th.
The odd recusal of Tracey Zudans
Mrs. Zudans is running for the Indian River County Commission’s District 5 seat against incumbent Laura Moss. Because of a threatened withdrawal of campaign support made to Mrs. Zudans, she made a statement recusing herself from the disqualification vote. The Sunshine Journal learned that the email exchange she was referring to was initiated by Mr. Barefoot. In her explanation from the dais, she mentioned forwarding the email received privately to the city attorney earlier in the week to obtain advice on how to proceed. She did not initially mention why she was recusing herself and the city attorney, John Turner, directed that she must make a public disclosure of the reason. She revealed, “In the email, it was stated disappointment in my [May 28] vote. In the email, it was also stated that support for my run for county commission was based on my vote, or not on my vote.”
Vice Mayor, Linda Moore, visually gasped at the revelation with an utterance of “oh my” as a look of shock came over her face. Mrs. Zudans did not mention who sent the email. The city attorney had read the statute pertaining to what constitutes valid reasons for recusal and campaign support was not one of them. From the statute, Mr. Turner read, “Any state public officer who abstains from voting in an official capacity upon any measure that the officer knows would inure to the officer’s special private gain or loss…”
After he read the full text of what that means, he asked Mrs. Zudans if any thing would inure to her benefit financially. She replied, “There would potentially be a benefit based on support for my campaign.”
Campaign support is not a direct, private gain. Campaign financing is never wholly owned by the candidate. The funds received belong to the campaign for activities and purposes only related to it. Whatever remains in the account at the campaign’s conclusion is either proportionately returned to the contributors, or entirely donated to charity.
Furthermore, the IRC commissioner’s annual salary is calculated at $79,843 according to a 2023-24 report from the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic & Demographic Research. While that may be a private gain, Mr. Barefoot and his friends do not have enough votes to secure an election for Mrs. Zudans. For example, in her 2022 re-election bid, school board member, Jackie Rosario, faced the same direct opposition from Mr. Barefoot with a coordinated PAC of some of those same island “friends” that spent an additional $22,000 against her campaign. John’s Island is in precinct 32. While she lost that precinct by 9% of its vote, she handily won re-election with a 55% county-wide majority.
Mr. Turner emphasized her reason was not enough for recusal. “You are required to vote unless you can meet one of the requirements in the statute,” he stated. Mrs. Zudans respectfully disagreed and recused herself voluntarily, ignoring legal advice she sought on 2 separate occasions. The Vero Beach City Council voted 3-1 to disqualify the SuDa / CREC Madison Team.
It seemed Mr. Barefoot was winning and it looks like Mrs. Zudans may still receive the support of his gang. She and Mr. Barefoot went back and forth replying about an email he sent to city council which she had not seen. In closing he wrote, “I’m sorry you did not receive my email and perhaps it would have made a difference in your vote. If for some reason the negotiations with the selected developer don’t go as planned, I hope you will become an advocate for Clearpath should they still want to be considered. As we get closer to the August 20 election, I will reconsider my current position as I am not a fan of Laura Moss.”
Did Mr. Barefoot sabotage Clearpath’s opportunity as well?
But with the special call meeting scheduled for June 7th, Mr. Barefoot got on the phone again to press a particular council member for the proposal that he and his friends desired. At 1:17 PM on June 6th, he texted Taylor Dingle to schedule a call. Mr. Dingle replied he would accept a call after the meeting on Friday to which Mr. Barefoot replied, “I understand … just want you to be sure you focus on Clearpath after disqualifying the clear winner for violating clearly written rules. I previously communicated support for Clearpath as their proposal and community financial support far exceeds other proposals.”
Mr. Barefoot violated the “clearly written rules” he just stated to Mr. Dingle. Mr. Barefoot’s previous meddling before the original vote was brought up by SuDa’s representatives who also claimed he violated those same prohibited communication rules. Roughly 7 hours before the May 28th meeting, Mr. Barefoot sent an email to the city council. Another of SuDa’s team, Frank Tsamoutales, shared with the board that “Mr. Barefoot admits he is a principal in this project via his email” on behalf of Clearpath. During a ten-minute recess, while Suda’s lawyers were retrieving evidence concerning the email, Clearpath’s attorney, Robert Shimberg, reached the company’s president, Randy Lloyd. He testified, “I spoke with Mr. Lloyd. I was able to reach him out of town. The gentleman’s name who was referenced [by SuDa] is not apart of the Clearpath group and has not ever been a part of the Clearpath group. He is somebody that they had spoke to at one point, and the gentleman said that he was interested in talking to them if they got the award, but, he has never been apart of the group.”
In response to Clearpath’s lawyer, SuDa attorney, Pete Sweeney, read directly from the clause concerning prohibited communication. Emphasizing the first word in the clause, he reminded, “Potential and actual proposers shall not solicit or otherwise communicate in any manner whatsoever, directly, or indirectly, with the City Council…”
Mr. Sweeney then presented a giant poster board of Mr. Barefoot’s email marked “high importance” sent to the city council before the May 28th vote. In it, Mr. Barefoot characterized his relationship very differently than Clearpath’s legal representation had just testified. Mr. Sweeney read a large chunk of it. “Over the past year or more I’ve spent considerable time with Mr. Randy Lloyd discussing the opportunity being presented and have gained tremendous respect for the aspirational vision he and his team put forth,” Mr Barefoot wrote. He later penned, “While ambitious, I believe if Clearpath is selected, their proposal will be further refined, and local financial support can be obtained. To this end, I am aware of community members who are prepared to provide that financial support in a structure that makes sense for Clearpath, investors and our greater community. That potential for support has been communicated to Mr. Lloyd on more than one occasion and there will be considerable excitement if they are selected.”
The question remains, who’s version of the relationship with Clearpath is true, Mr. Barefoot’s description of events or Mr. Lloyd’s testimony?
A new opportunity to bid on 3 Corners begins.
Immediately following the disqualification vote, Vice Mayor Moore motioned to start a whole new RFP from scratch. Earlier, she had received assurances from the attorney that SuDa was not disqualified from a future RFP. She first presented this idea in the discussion after hearing Mrs. Zudans’s recusal. She described the process “tainted” by the email “threats,” and, that the community was losing trust, therefore, they must start over. Agreeing with the Vice Mayor, Mrs. Zudans seconded the motion. Mr. Carroll described the motion as “unfortunate” preferring to move to the second ranked firm and not “penalize the other three that followed the rules.”
Mayor Cotugno, who earlier stated he wanted to move forward with the second place proposal after the disqualification of SuDa, had a reflective moment. He said, “This is what happens when you politicize a process.”
The motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Carroll voting against it.
I suppose it’s safe to say then, a vote for Dyer is a vote for Barefoot and the Indian River School District is right back to the cesspool because Barefoot has picked and endorsed him. He even uses his (Barefoot’s) campaign manager
Ethics absent in Vero leadership. It smells to high heaven as the saying goes. Barefoot’s disgraceful, enough of him. Now, on to the next rot. Rosemarie B. Wilson