Below is a summary of Koberlein’s Memo alluded to in the last filing. I can’t find his memo  itself but the date is 4 August 2016. The process was never approved by Walter and the Rest of Thee Town Council INCLUDING HELEN.


The following documents and their contents will be the definitive guide in the procedures for handling citizen complaints in the Town of White Springs. Complaints are handled one at a time.

  1. Koberlein’s Memo of 4 August 2016
  2. Town Charter including all portions thereof including
    1. Roberts Rules of Order
    2. Investigations Procedures
    3. Town Manager residence requirements.
  3. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure including but not limited to a juror from voting on an issue that directly affects them. The whole council cannot be challenged but individual accused members may be challenged.
  4. Due Process Requirements including the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
  5. Sunshine Law including all associated case law as stated in the Government in the Sunshine Manual.

The handling Procedures are:

  1. Town Official reads the citizen complaint in its entirety.
  2. Complainant states the law, including actually reading of the law that the was complaintant claims was broken.
  3. Opening statement of Complaining Citizen.
  4. Complainent presents evidence of illegal activity including asking questions of witnesses. Town Council members may be considered Witnesses.
  5. Complaining Citizen closes his statement with a wrap up.
  6. Alleged guilty party, if desired, puts on his or her defense like items 3, 4, 5 above. It is noted that the accused need not put on a defense if they chose not to.
  7. Council votes if the level of the complaint if it rises to a level of a violation in accordance with Koberlein’s memo. If it does the complaint is tabled until the next meeting when the penalty phase of the trial will be held. If the jury decides that the alleged violation doesn’t rise to the level of violation then the issue is terminated and the business moves on to the next complaint if it exists.
  8. The Chair may order an investigation prior to the penalty phase of the trial. If such an investigation is heard the investigator must contact the complaining citizen to get his or her thoughts on the penalty to be assessed.
  9. The accuser can ask of the judges why certain jurors/members voted in certain ways, if he or she is opposed to any single juror’s decision. Jurors must explain their decisions if asked by the chair or the complaining citizen.


Leave a Reply