Laserfiche WebLink
Board of County Commissioners Special Call Meeting Minutes - Final October 20, 2025 <br />Tony Consalo <br />Chance Martin Sr. <br />Michelle Rispoli <br />Pearl McKenzie <br />Lalita Janke <br />Jeff Andos <br />Thomas Kenny <br />Lamar Jackamo <br />Rob MacCallum <br />Michael Marsh <br />Doug McKenzie <br />Kevin Askin <br />Adam Fetterman, General Counsel for the Sheriff's Office, addressed the Board, <br />stating that, as they had heard from the presentations by the Sheriff and his team, <br />literally every single bit of the budget was critical. He told the Board that the Sheriff <br />had to file a lawsuit to hold this public meeting. Counselor Fetterman mentioned that <br />Administrator Titkanich sent his letter to the Sheriff with the same numbers; however, <br />there were no justifications. He wanted to make a public records request of the <br />Administrator's PowerPoint Presentation and provide the justifications. He told the <br />Board that the County Attorney could advise the standard by which the Board would <br />be judged if and when the Sheriff's Office filed an appeal with the State, staring that it <br />would be Arbitrary and Capricious. He wanted to define those terms: arbitrary meant <br />not supported by fact or logic, and capricious meant made without thought or reason. <br />He hoped that the Board would provide the Sheriff with those justifications. <br />Counselor Fetterman told the Board that the Sheriff's Office did not want to proceed <br />with the lawsuit or with an appeal to the Governor, but would do what was necessary, <br />permitted, and required under the law. He felt the Board was obligated to inform the <br />Sheriff's Office of the facts and logic supporting the reductions to the Sheriffs budget. <br />He told the Board they could amend the Sheriffs budget at any time. <br />Attorney Prado asked Counselor Fetterman for clarification on which portion of the <br />statute he was citing that required the Board to provide the specific logic and <br />reasoning for the position it had taken. In response, Counselor Fetterman referred to <br />the Florida Administrative Code that governs the appeals process. He said that the <br />manner in which the Board would be judged in the appeals process was on the <br />standard of arbitrary or capricious, and that it clearly stated that these were the <br />Board's obligations. <br />Counselor Fetterman, in response to Attorney Prado regarding the lawsuit, stated that <br />the lawsuit was a mandamus action to force the Board to do its job under Section <br />30.49 F.S., which was to hold a public hearing setting forth the manner in which the <br />Indian River County, Florida Page 5 <br />