A chaotic end to Apopka City Council meeting leaves questions unanswered

Chaos.

That's not the noun you want to use to describe the end of a four-hour-plus Apopka City Council meeting, but unfortunately, it fits. The marathon session went from contentious, insulting, and dysfunctional to outright bedlam.

After causing a stir earlier in the week by moving public comments to the end of the meeting, Mayor Bryan Nelson took the additional step of cutting off the live feed before the public had the opportunity to speak, but after his Mayor's Report—unbeknownst to the Council.

But before the last 30 minutes of that meeting, events transpired to set this surprising finale in motion.

On Monday night, The Apopka Voice confirmed that public comments were moved on the agenda. On Tuesday, Commissioner Nick Nesta posted a question on whether Apopka residents wanted the meeting moved to the end or to stay at the beginning.

A Council at Odds

Nesta referenced the public comments shift early in the August 7th City Council meeting.

Anything on the agenda review?" Nelson asked Apopka City Administrator Jacob Smith. 

"No, we don't have anything," Smith said.

"Alright, we're going to go into the..." Nelson said.

"Well, if I can," Nesta said. "It's been a big issue with the agenda and public comments going to the end. I'm not sure why that happened. It wasn't discussed, and Resolution 2016-16 states that it needs to be determined by the City Council. I'm not sure why this was moved. It seems like this was an attack on the residents."

"Thank you, Commissioner Nesta," Nelson said dismissively. "Appreciate it."

"You can't just move the agenda around," Nesta continued. "It's at the will of the City Council. It's in the resolution, and it was already decided to be in the front... so I move that we move it back to the front."

"We're going to go into the..." Nelson said, attempting to move past Nesta's motion.

"Well, that's a motion," Nesta said.

"Why is it not under consideration?" Commissioner Diane Velazquez asked.

"It's not," Nelson said. "This is the agenda review."

"Right, we're reviewing the agenda," said Nesta.

"We're going into the fire negotiation," Nelson said.

"Well, this is coming back up," Nesta said.

After approximately an hour, the Council returned from the fire negotiations, and Nesta returned to the subject.

"Are we going to discuss public comment? Nesta asked. "The motion I made before? There was motion on the table."

"You haven't been recognized," Nelson said.

"I don't have to be. You've applied no rules at any of your meetings. I don't have to be recognized," Nesta said. "So when will we be doing public comments?"

"At the end," Nelson said.

"Nobody agrees with that except for you," said Nesta. "The resolution states that it must be designated by the City Council."

"Mr. Shepard, he's asking about the public comment," Nelson said to City Attorney Cliff Shepard. "I think all it says is it has to be after (presentations)."

Shepard read from Resolution 2026-16 that public comments must come after presentations, but not specifically where after presentations. Nesta, however, offered a discussion with the Council on two different instances specifying where public comments should fall.

"There were minutes on February 1st and February 15th of last year, where the city council agreed right after presentations immediately after," Nesta said. "So, the City Council has already spoken on that, so it can't be unilateral."

Despite Nesta's motion, presentations commenced, and then Nelson attempted to move on.

"Alright, consent agenda, we've got six items..."

"Mayor, you are out of order," Nesta said. 

"I didn't recognize you," Nelson said.

"You don't need to recognize me. You are out of order," Nesta responded.

Ultimately, the Council voted 3-2 to keep public comments at the end of the meeting, with Nelson and Commissioners Nadia Anderson and Alexander Smith voting against Nesta's motion while Nesta and Velazquez voted in favor.

During the City Council Reports, Anderson expressed her reasons for voting to move public comments to the end.

"So I kind of want to go back and address why I actually voted to keep the agenda the way that it was presented at the beginning of the meeting," Anderson said. "I have received numerous complaints from residents, in regards to not only residents, but also for people that want to do business in the city, that they have to come and have to sit through public comment. And the concern is that a lot of times the public comments... the majority of time it's derogatory, it's rude. It doesn't really have any resolution. It's just bickering back and forth about their dislike for some of the City Council members. So it's not as effective. So, in my opinion, I thought it would be best suited for it actually to go last. That way, professionals don't have to sit through that. So I do agree with keeping it last, and I think it's important. In addition to that, it doesn't limit the public from addressing concerns that are on the business items. What it does limit is the time that people have to sit through things that have absolutely nothing to do with the business items at hand. So I stand by that. I think it's important that we present ourselves in our city in the best light if we want to attract some of the best restaurants and some of the best businesses to come into the city. No one's going to take their millions of dollars and invest in a city where there's chaos."

30 minutes of Chaos

The Apopka Voice obtained the audio portion of the August 7th public comments through a public records request. Although some parts are inaudible, the intent was clear.

Public comments commenced for approximately 30 minutes after the Mayor's Report, but after the first speaker concluded, Nesta asked about the livestream.

Chaos ensued.

"We're having issues, I guess, with the live feed," Nesta said. "So we need to wait until that is back and confirmed. Sorry to interrupt."

Although the audio is again unclear, it suggests a discussion between the dais and the audience, at which point Nesta learns the live feed has been turned off.

"Shameful," he says. "This needs to be live."

"It's audio, it's audio, it's recovered audio," Nelson responded and then called for the next speaker. "Come on up. You can. It's audio. You got it. Let's go."

"Well, so you're just shutting down access to public comment," Nesta asked.

"No, I'm not," Nelson responded. Does anybody want to speak?

"No, no, this is so inappropriate," Nesta continued. "Mr. Hippler, were you directed to turn this off?

Robert Hippler, the City of Apopka's IT director, could not be heard on the audio, but multiple sources later confirmed that Hipler told Council that Nelson directed him to turn off the feed. 

"Wow. Disgraceful," said Nesta.

After the meeting, The Apopka Voice texted all five members of the City Council to understand what happened.

"The mayor instructed staff to cut the feed to YouTube for public comment," said Nesta.

From his seat on the dais, Nesta recorded public comments and posted them on his Commissioner's Facebook page.

Velazquez backed up Nesta's assertion.

"At the mayor's direction, Live Feed was turned off," she said. "During the public comment session, the question about turning off Live Feed was directed to Robert Hippler from IT. He responded that it was the decision made by the Administration."

Commissioner Alexander Smith also confirmed the feed was cut but did not know why. 

"I think we all learned that it had been cut at the same time," he said. "I heard the question asked what happened, but there was so much commotion that I never heard the response."

Nelson acknowledged that the video was cut after the Mayor's Report but before the public comments. He did, however, offer an alternative to the live feed.

"Audio is still available," he said. "You’ll need to contact IT in the morning."

Anderson did not respond to the text message before the publication of this article.

The next day, Velazquez sent a blistering email to the City Administrator, Jacob Smith, City Attorney Cliff Shepard, City Clerk Susan Bone, and IT Director Robert Hippler.

"It is the morning after the public council meeting. I want to share my thoughts, not as criticism but as an Elected Official sitting on the Dais, experiencing the failure of the process to ensure the public meeting was conducted with integrity and professionalism. The professionalism, integrity, and transparency were lacking at last night’s public council meeting. As an Elected Official, I rely on you and the attorney to interject and guide the meeting when it begins to go awry. Last night it did.

At my Agenda Review, I expressed my concern regarding the sudden shift of the Public Comment Session without notification to the rest of the commission and the public. I did warn you there would be a backlash from the public. There were Presentations on the Agenda, but I had no prior knowledge or information to review beforehand. That should not be occurring at all.

The most disturbing act of last night's meeting was turning off the live feed of the public comment section without any knowledge or warning,  It was pre-planned, leaving the public enraged, followed with outbursts and accusing the Commissioners of deceit.

I cannot accept or condone what occurred last night. It was intentional, and on ALL levels, it was a reflection of our commission's lacking Integrity, professionalism & respect. We did not uphold the standards of conducting a public meeting. It was by all accounts the worst display of our Council. I do not assign any blame to the staff, as they followed the directives of the Mayor. I do not need to assume otherwise. At the Agenda Review, when I asked who directed the shift of the Public Comment Session, you stated it was the Mayor.

After last night’s meeting, it is time to address some of the underlying concerns about dissension and a lack of respect for the Commissioners on the dais."

Shepard responded to Velazquez in an email the same day. This is, in part, his response:

"I clearly recognize that you have been trying hard to bring civility to the dais and that doing so is not easy unless you are assisted by others. As I said, maintaining decorum at council meetings is one of those things that does “take a village.” A lone council member will never be able to carry the day, even one as reasonable and polite as you.

As an example, at two meetings in a row I have been accused by members of the public of saying that it is okay for public officials to lie. All of you know that is not true. There is a transcript of what I actually said if interested, which is that the Code of Ethics in Florida Statutes does not make lying an ethics violation unless the lie has to do with the financial disclosure forms we are all required to file. Yet knowing these statements from the public were untrue, none of you corrected the record. This is how things get out of hand. And I am not trying to make this about me, but I am trying to explain that enforcing decorum cannot only happen when you or someone you view as an ally is unfairly attacked. You must be consistent, whether the attack is against one of you, a staff member, or another member of the public.

Finally, your email states that Resolution 2016-16 stands “on its own merit.” By that I presume you are saying that council had already acted to establish that public comment would occur immediately “following presentations.” As I read to you all last night, the minutes from the February 2023 meeting do not indicate any official action taken by the council. Instead, those minutes, which were unanimously approved by council, say that you and commissioner Becker wanted the public comment period to be moved back to just after presentations, rather than at the end of the meeting, and that the Mayor said “okay.” The statement “okay” is not an official action of council on which a vote appears to have been taken. Accordingly, Commissioner Nesta’s motion to make such action “official” was appropriate. It did not pass, and that is the nature of decision-making by elected bodies. However, future motions can still be made, and the rules can be changed by council at any time. This is not a static situation.

But by saying that, I am not supporting the proposition that leaving public comment at the end of the meeting is a good idea. Nor am I saying it was appropriate for you all not to know about the shuffling of the agenda until the meeting itself. I was under the impression that you all got the agendas well before the meeting, and certainly in time to make it an issue as soon as the meeting got underway. If you all were unaware of that change beforehand, you have every reason to be irritated and expect answers. And the same goes for the decision to “cut the feed,” which I did not find out about until the meeting was underway. These are the exact kinds of actions which breed the mistrust and infighting we see at every meeting. While this is not a legal issue, it is certainly one of professionalism.

Absent changes, I do not believe the current situation is sustainable in the long term."

The Apopka Voice also reached out to Jacob Smith by email shortly after the meeting concluded to confirm his involvement in the decision to turn off the feed.

"You will need to speak with the Mayor on that one," Smith said. "I know his reasons, but it’s best if you get it directly from him."

The Apopka Voice also contacted Nelson by email: