Manatee School District Requests Dismissal of Security Firm Lawsuit

BRADENTON – The Manatee School District has requested that a lawsuit by the security firm whose contract it canceled in early October be dismissed.

Filed in late October, Sarasota Security Patrol's lawsuit alleges that the district's cancellation of its contract with the firm was not valid because Superintendent Rick Mills did not seek approval by the school board first.

The security firm's contract with the district for providing security guards in elementary schools was canceled after the district did not fulfill its obligation to inform the public of an evaluation committee meeting that was designated to review prospective security firms for the district's Request for Proposal.

That failure to provide public notice violated Florida Sunshine Law, which Mills said in a statement that after consulting with district and board attorneys and Special Counsel, it was concluded that "the technical violation of sunshine law renders the contract void," and that the violation "cannot be remedied by any subsequent school board measures."

Fred Moore of Blalock Walters, the attorney representing the district on the lawsuit, stated in the dismissal request that the contract is void to begin with due to the Sunshine Law violation, and so ”there is no contract for the court to interpret.“

The attorney representing Sarasota Security Patrol, John Montgomery of Montgomery Law Firm, speaking to the Times on Tuesday, argued that if the contract is void, "there's no provision of a written contract by which the school board has empowered the Superintendent to act on behalf of the district in cancelling the contract."

A secondary claim made by the lawsuit says that a $47,000 invoice dated September 29 was not paid by the district within 30 days. District Attorney Teitelbaum confirmed that payment was rendered in the amount of $47,000 on October 29. Speaking to the Times, Teitelbaum said, "At no time from the time that we rendered payment to the time they served the district (on December 2) were things ever amended to remove that cause of action."

The district's response to the lawsuit can be viewed here.