CINDY LANE | sun

John A. Whitehurst’s grave was relocated from Egmont Key
to St. Augustine National Cemetery in 1909 where it stands
next to Rough Rider John O’Neil’s.

ST. AUGUSTINE – When Rob Whitehurst began looking for the grave of his great-great-grandfather, the Internet was new, with scant information, and research was challenging.

When he learned that John Alexander Whitehurst was buried on Egmont Key in the cemetery next to the lighthouse, it was like striking gold. He recorded his findings on a website, Findagrave.com, and laid his search to rest.

Years passed. Then in 2015, research by The Sun about the people buried in the Egmont Key cemetery uncovered a handwritten ledger on Ancestry.com showing that 12 people, including Spanish-American War soldiers, an “Indian (Unknown),” and Whitehurst’s great-great-grandfather, had been relocated in 1909 from Egmont Key to the St. Augustine National Cemetery.

The website also pointed to Findagrave.com, and “Rob,” no last name, who was listed as the author of a brief biography of his ancestor. A 50-50 shot that his last name was Whitehurst paid off, and one Google search and two e-mails later, Rob Whitehurst felt like he had struck gold again.

His family had always heard the story that a family member’s remains had been moved, he said, but Whitehurst thought it was probably Daniel Scott Whitehurst, who died in 1862 in Pinellas County at the hands of Confederate forces who attacked him and his cousin, John Whitehurst – both Union sympathizers – while they were getting provisions on the mainland to take back to Egmont Key.

In the attack, John Whitehurst was wounded, escaped to his boat and was rescued at sea two days later and taken to Egmont Key, where he had been living with his family under the protection of the Union Navy that occupied the island.

He died from his wounds and was laid to rest in the Egmont Key cemetery, until 106 years ago.

Reunion

The St. Augustine National Cemetery and its dead lie enclosed within a low, white stone wall in the historic Old Town section of the oldest city in the U.S.

Like a mini-Arlington, uniform white headstones make straight rows under the shade of moss-draped oaks.

The American flag whipped briskly in the breeze off the Matanzas River as Whitehurst walked down the central sidewalk one chilly day last week, getting his bearings. The Google Earth image he had consulted showed the back of most of the headstones, with the inscriptions on the opposite side, but he knew the grave was in section A, and he had a landmark to navigate by.

Three pyramids and an obelisk drew Whitehurst toward the south end of the cemetery. The monument is the resting place of Major Francis L. Dade and most of his regiment, killed in the Second Seminole War in 1835. Fort Dade, on Egmont Key, was named for him.

Walking toward the monument, Whitehurst called off numbers on the headstones, walking faster as he neared the number he sought. A headstone without a number, naming John O’Neil, stalled him for a moment. Then, he stopped.

He bent down to read 248, and the name, and placed his right hand on his great-great-grandfather’s headstone.

“Here he is,” he said.

Neighbors

The simple stone’s only inscription is “Whitehurst.”

To the right of the grave is a newer headstone, which replaced one like Whitehurst’s. Both have shields traced around the inscription, like others in the cemetery.

According to the headstone, Trooper John O’Neil, of New Mexico, fought with the 1st U.S. Volunteers cavalry regiment, E Troop, in the Spanish-American War, with Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders.

During the war, O’Neil was transported by ship from Cuba to Egmont Key for medical treatment, but there was a lack of medical facilities on the island and he was sent back to the ship, where he died, according to the book, “Egmont Key: A History.” His remains were among the 12 burials relocated to St. Augustine. The Tampa-based Rough Riders organization placed the new headstone in 2004.

That gave Whitehurst the idea to investigate replacing John Whitehurst’s headstone, but he discovered the cost would be prohibitive without assistance from a historical organization, he said.

Still, Whitehurst’s headstone has more information than some of the other relocated Egmont Key dead.

Many headstones in the St. Augustine cemetery read “unknown” or are blank. “Indian (Unknown),” as listed on the St. Augustine cemetery ledger, is nowhere to be found. Neither is Azaline M. Bahrt, of the Egmont Key lighthouse keeper’s family, whose name is listed on a plaque at the Egmont Key cemetery, although her daughter, Marie Bahrt, is recorded at No. 316 and a related infant, Carlotte Bahrt, is at No. 287 in the St. Augustine cemetery.

Private J.A. Brainerd, Company A, 26th Michigan Infantry, is at No. 283. Infantryman James Shannon, listed as Joseph Shannon on the Egmont Key plaque, is at No. 274. Seaman Robert Bentson, of the U.S. Lighthouse Tender Laurel, listed as Benton on the St. Augustine ledger, is at No. 276.

Like “Indian (Unknown),” “Colored Soldier (Unknown)” is nowhere to be found. Charles Williams, at No. 279, was listed as a “colored” soldier on the Egmont Key plaque, but may have been misidentified; his name appears on the St. Augustine ledger directly above the entry “Colored Soldier (Unknown);” the two lines appear to have been mistakenly combined on the Egmont Key plaque.

A few steps away from Whitehurst, at No. 256, is William Rull, who is listed as Rull/Ruth in the St. Augustine ledger, and is identified as a “colored” hospital attendant with the U.S. Marine Hospital Service on the Egmont Key plaque. Southern cemeteries in the 20th century often separated black and white burials, but not here. Whitehurst said his great-great-grandfather, a Southern resident who was a Union sympathizer and scouted for the Union Army, “was right about slavery.”

John Whitehurst’s dying wish was that his three sons, 12, 8 and 6, enter the naval service, according to a report by Lieutenant J.C. Howell, who ordered his burial. The older two were accepted the month after his death, but his youngest, Harney Butler Whitehurst, was not. He became the great-grandfather of Rob Whitehurst.

Whitehurst has visited a dozen or so cemeteries to visit family members’ graves, but this one is special.

“I didn’t really think about it until now,” Whitehurst said, looking at the headstone. “If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t be here.”

CORTEZ – Twenty years after a state constitutional amendment imposed a ban on gill nets, the latest challenge by commercial fishermen is dead in the water.

The Florida Supreme Court issued an order on Thursday, Feb. 12, saying “… the court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied.”

“Surprisingly, they refused to accept jurisdiction and will not entertain any motions for rehearing,” said Ronald Mowrey, attorney for the Wakulla Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Panacea bait shop owner Ronald Fred Crum and mullet fishermen Jonas Porter and Keith Ward. The plaintiffs sued the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in 2012, arguing that its rules designed to enforce the state constitutional amendment banning gill nets violates the equal protection rights of commercial fishermen and results in the unintended bycatch that the ban is designed to prevent.

While the Supreme Court is no longer an option, “we can certainly challenge the rules with FWC and NOAA,” Mowrey said, adding that an appeal in federal court is not an option because the net ban is a state – not a federal – issue.

The news was a blow to FISH, the Florida Institute for Saltwater Heritage in Cortez, and the Cortez members of Fishing for Freedom, which supported the challenge financially and traveled to Tallahassee to rally before a hearing of the case in May 2014.

“I think it’s a shame that they chose that route,” FISH President Kim McVey said.

At the Cortez Commercial Fishing Festival on Feb.14-15, festivalgoers watched Mark Coarsey, president of Fishing for Freedom’s Manatee County chapter, demonstrate how the banned nets work. He pushed a smaller, male “white roe” mullet through a square of four-inch stretch mesh net, explaining that it could swim through to live and breed another day, while a larger, “red roe” female mullet – worth far more at the dock and therefore most targeted – is effectively caught by the gills.

The banned nets reduce unwanted bycatch and preserve the resource, which is the stated purpose of the constitutional amendment, he said, encouraging festivalgoers to call their legislators to support lifting the ban.

After heated debate, the net ban was approved by Florida voters in 1994 to preserve fish populations and prevent the accidental entrapment of unintended marine life. The ban became effective in 1995, putting commercial fishermen out of work statewide, and in Cortez.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is the latest in two decades of disappointment for commercial fishermen. The blow was especially bitter because one court’s 2012 ruling briefly allowed them to use their banned nets again, twice.

Leon County Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford lifted the net ban by ruling that it was a “legal absurdity” because the FWC rules enforcing the ban allow small stretch mesh nets that catch juvenile fish, while prohibiting larger mesh nets that let juvenile fish go. She wrote that the rules defeat the purpose of the ban, to preserve fish populations.

In a legal tug of war, her ruling was appealed and stayed by the Florida Attorney General’s office, then reinstated, then appealed and stayed again before being reversed by the First District Court of Appeal, whose ruling the plaintiffs challenged at the Florida Supreme Court.

“The constitutional amendment that has protected Florida’s marine fisheries for more than 20 years is safe and intact once again,” said Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) Florida Chairman Bill Camp in a press release.

“The FWC, Attorney General Pam Bondi and especially Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Glogau all deserve the respect and gratitude of anglers not just in Florida but all over the country for their efforts on this case,” said CCA Florida Executive Director Brian Gorski in a press release. “They did a fantastic job to ensure that our state remains the sportfishing capital of the world.”

“Everyone needs to pray for all the fishermen because no telling what the FWC and the CCA are going to do to us now!” reads a post on Fishing for Freedom’s Facebook page. “Just know that we will never give up and are already working on something else!”

BRADENTON BEACH – Many city voters who signed the first of two recall petitions directed at Mayor Bill Shearon received a letter of rebuttal from the mayor last week.

In its entirety, Shearon’s letter states: “The following is my response to the recall election. I will be a candidate if there is a special election, I will also be a candidate for re-election Nov. 3rd. To save thousands of dollars of city funds and resources, don’t sign the recall petition. Vote in the regular election Nov. 3rd, not a few months earlier. I am committed to serving the citizens as your mayor.”

The letter is signed, “Thank you for your consideration. Mayor William ‘Bill’ Shearon.”

Next to the mayor’s signature is a telephone number: 737-0159. City Treasurer Sheila Dalton confirmed this is the number for Shearon’s city-issued cell phone.

Acting City Clerk Terri Sanclemente said Shearon’s letter was not produced by the clerk’s office, and the city incurred no postage fees in its distribution.

Questions raised

Questions have been raised as to whether Shearon’s letter constitutes a misuse of city property or qualifies as a campaign or ethics violation.

City policy says, “It is the city of Bradenton Beach’s policy that representatives of our organization who are issued a cellular phone understand the phones are issued for business use.”

The policy does not define business use.

Vice Mayor Jack Clarke signed the recall petition and questions the mayor’s use of city property for campaign purposes.

“When you read the letter, this has nothing to do with city business, because the recall effort is a citizen-led initiative. If the mayor was referring to the forfeiture proceedings, that could be considered city business,” he said.

Florida Commission of Ethics Executive Director Virlindia Doss said it would be improper to comment on a specific incident, but she provided general information referred to in Florida Statute 112.313.

“It says public officers and employees cannot use their position or the resources of their position with corrupt intent, for the purpose of benefitting themselves,” she said.

“Corrupt intent means doing something that’s inconsistent with the proper performance of public duties and done with wrongful intent, which means someone was put on notice that they were not supposed to do something, but did it anyway. Those things would have to be shown before someone could be found in violation of the misuse law,” Doss concluded.

Campaign compliance

When seeking reelection, incumbent candidates are not supposed to use government-issued e-mail accounts for campaign purposes, but is unclear if this also applies to government-issued cell phones.

Sharon Stief, from the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Office, said she was not familiar with election law that addresses cell phones in this manner.

In regard to campaign literature, the Florida Division of Elections Website states: “Any political advertisement that is paid for by a candidate that is published, displayed or circulated before or on the day of any election must prominently state: ‘Paid by (name of candidate), (party affiliation), for (office sought).’”

Shearon’s letter did not include this disclaimer.

Legal consultant Michael Barfield said he would be conducting additional research to determine if Shearon violated state statutes governing campaigns and elections.

“The best that can be said about this is that it shows a lack of good judgment by the mayor,” he said.

Citizen reaction

Bradenton Beach resident and small business owner Steve Schewe said, “What a shame that our beautiful city has this negative cloud lingering over it. I received a patronizing letter from the mayor pressuring me to ‘vote in the regular election, not a few months earlier.’

"Isn’t this the same guy who has cost our city tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and created what many feel is a hostile work environment for city employees?

"I encourage him to kindly step back and observe what has occurred here since he took control; and to take his own advice ‘to save thousands of dollars of city funds and resources’ by doing what is best for our small town so that we may move on.”

Resident and small business owner Nancy Kim said, “It feels like he’s trying to influence me and tell me what to do. It’s my choice if I vote in the recall election, and he’s basically saying I’m wasting people’s money if I sign the recall petition. Is he trying to place the blame on us? His letter also struck me as slightly intimidating because he’s not asking in a friendly manner, which I would have appreciated.”

joe hendricks | sun

Bradenton Beach Treasurer and Finance Director
Sheila Dalton received praise for her work on the city’s budget

BRADENTON BEACH – The efforts of City Treasurer Sheila Dalton and the receipt of $320,000 in cell tower lease revenues were credited as significant contributing factors in the audit of the 2014 fiscal year budget that revealed far fewer problems than in 2013.

“Your revenue went up, and your expenditures went down, with the most significant item being the $320,000 from the cell tower,” Auditor Randy Dillingham told commissioners last week.

According to the audit report, “The assets of the city exceeded its liabilities by $8,668,788. Of this amount, $1,605,881 may be used to meet the city’s ongoing obligations. Of this total amount, $942,085, is available for spending at the city’s discretion.”

Citing the report, Dillingham said the city’s general fund budget, which does not include designated Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Tingley Memorial Library Funds, was $1.92 million at the end of the 2014 fiscal year, compared to $1.68 million in 2013.

“Your general fund went up $236,062 this year. That includes the $320,000 that came in for the cell tower. If that money wasn’t in, the results would have been expenditures exceeding revenues by $83,938. In 2013, expenditures exceeded revenues by $266,314, so there was still an improvement, but without the cell tower you still would have been in a deficit,” Dillingham said.

2014 revenues totaled $2.9 million, with expenditures of $2.62 million. Revenues exceeded expenditures by $292,666, and city expenditures decreased by $105,832.

In addition to the initial lump sum cell tower payment, Dillingham said there was also a $60,000 revenue increase attributed to taxes, state revenue sharing and permit fees.

“We’re on the right track. We’ve made great strides and now the challenge is to move forward,” said Mayor Bill Shearon.

“We’ll get some extra revenue from the cell tower, and with our building department and all the new houses coming up, there’ll be an increase in tax revenue, but we can’t spend money that we don’t have. We’re very fortunate that in years prior the reserve fund was built, but in the last five years that reserve keeps decreasing, and someday we’re going to run out of money,” he added.

“Being in a coastal community on the Gulf of Mexico, it’s probably wise to have adequate reserves in the event of an emergency,” Dillingham said, noting that a reserve fund equaling 25 percent of the general fund would cover city expenses for three months.

Soon after he became mayor, Shearon proposed, and the commission approved, the creation of treasurer’s position and the separation of the clerk and treasurer’s duties once performed by the late Nora Idso.

“The biggest single step that was taken to bring us back in the right direction was hiring a treasurer, and I give her all the credit for putting our ducks in a row. I think the main credit for a clean audit goes to our treasurer,” said Vice Mayor Jack Clarke.

Dalton said later, “Although I was flattered by what was said, I also need to give credit to Deputy Clerk Audra Lanzaro. She has been a big help to me by keeping me informed of issues, and letting me know of past practices that will be beneficial to our department. She keeps the department running smoothly.”

BRADENTON BEACH – Last week, city commissioners approved payment on invoice for $8,528 for attorney fees generated by Mayor Bill Shearon, his significant other Tjet Martin and resident Jo Ann Meilner in their continued opposition to a 2012 development agreement the city reached with restaurant owner Ed Chiles.

According to the Jan. 31 invoice submitted by the Blalock Walters law firm, $7,208 of that total monthly figure is directly attributed to the city’s successful defense of the emergency injunction Martin and Meilner filed in their unsuccessful efforts to prevent the development of a contractually-obligated, unpaved public parking lot adjacent to Chiles’ BeachHouse restaurant.

The invoice also notes that at least $925 was spent on a recent non-public shade meeting that allowed city commissioners and attorneys to privately discuss the city’s defense of a related and still pending lawsuit Shearon, Martin and Meilner filed against the city in 2012. An additional $302 is attributed to attorney correspondence and review of matters pertinent to one or both legal challenges.

Most of the invoiced expenditures pertained to services provided to the city by attorney Chuck Johnson.

When the invoice was discussed at last week’s commission meeting, Commissioner Jan Vosburgh reiterated her previously stated desire for the costly legal expenditures to come to an end.

“As a resident, taxpayer, and commissioner, I think we should work diligently to end this lawsuit that has gone on way too long,” she said.

Commissioner Janie Robertson and Mayor Bill Shearon questioned some of the expenditures, including the $1,127 spent on a conference between Johnson and City Engineer Lynn Townsend Burnett, who was prepared to testify on the city’s behalf if needed.

While he failed to acknowledge the role he and Martin played in initiating multiple legal proceedings, Shearon did express concern that they are straining the city budget.

“All this money we’ve spent is not budgeted, and we don’t have the money for it,” he said.

The city has already spent two-thirds of the $89,000 budgeted for legal fees for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 and does not end until Sept. 30.

Commissioner Ed Straight said the city has little control over billable activities once an attorney’s services are requested; and in response to Robertson’s comments, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said the filing of an emergency injunction required an expedited approach to defending it.

“What we got for this was the city won, and he (Judge John Lakin) denied the injunction; and to me, that was a very telling sign from the judge,” Perry said.

During public input, resident Jim Hassett, a Shearon supporter, commented on the injunction hearing he attended.

“Mr. Johnson did a hell of a job,” he acknowledged.

He then recalled that Lakin told Johnson this matter should have been resolved two years ago, and he reminded the commission that the 2012 lawsuit is still in play. He described the judge’s injunction ruling as a “supposed victory for the day,” and concluded by saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”

Residential property owner Patrick Shomo told the commission he has been the plaintiff in two successful lawsuits he filed against the state of Maryland.

In response to Robertson and Shearon’s concerns about some of the legal strategies employed, he echoed City Attorney Ricinda Perry’s explanation that the shorter the time frame the attorneys have to work with, the higher the cost is going to be.

“Generally if you’re going to go to court, my advice is to take your checkbook and throw it in a really dark deep place, forget you actually have it, and try not to look at the balance. My first piece of advice is don’t go to court,” he concluded.

ANNA MARIA – After voting earlier this month to get a declaratory judgment on whether short-term rentals are a commercial enterprise in a residential zone, the city commission worked out an ordinance last Thursday that would require rental agents to be licensed with the city.

The commission worked on the plan that was drawn up with input from residents and real estate professionals and then put into legalese by an attorney.

Mayor Dan Murphy said they needed to re-examine the declaratory judgment process because when they voted to seek one, it was not listed on the agenda.

“You needed to reach a consensus and the vote was three-to-two,” he said. “We should put it on the agenda and vote on it again next week.”

Commissioner Doug Copeland agreed, saying that way there would be no questions.

Meanwhile, City Planner Alan Garrett said he revised the proposed vacation rental ordinance with some changes in the number of bedrooms allowed, the hours renters could use the swimming pools and rental unit requirements.

Commissioner Dale Woodland asked if this ordinance would negate the need for the declaratory judgment and Garrett said yes. The biggest booster of such a judgment, Commission Chair Chuck Webb, was not present at the work session.

Commissioner Carol Carter said they might be running out of time to get a declaratory judgment because of the moratorium on buildings with more than three bedrooms.

Commissioner Nancy Yetter said she talked with residents after they worked on the ordinance previously and they felt that 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. was too long for swimming at the rental homes.

“They prefer 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.,” she said. “Those are the same hours in the rules for commercial pools.”

The ordinance requires every rental property to have a licensed agent if the owner lives out of town and that agent would have to be able to get to the house, in the case of an emergency, within 30 minutes and be available 24 hours per day.

If violations occur repeatedly, the agent will face losing his or her city license. Woodland suggested if there were three violations within a year, the agent would lose the license for the duration of the year plus another year.

Copeland said if an agent has problems with more than one property, he or she might face expulsion.

“If we take a hard stand, it will be effective,” Woodland said. “The agents’ rental agreements are stricter than this ordinance.”

The commissioners made changes, including the pool hours, and they took a consensus to proceed with the ordinance.

Murphy said attorney Susan Trevarthan, who ruled the city couldn’t treat rental properties differently from residential homes, offered to review the ordinance.

The commissioners will review it Feb. 26 at 6 p.m. at the regular commission meeting.

A declaratory judgment action is a lawsuit where the court must declare what rights the parties have. In the case of Anna Maria, it would require the city to sue the owner of a rental home in a residential area, charging that the owner is using that rental home as a commercial enterprise, which is not allowed in the residential zone.

joe hendricks | sun

The fate of these gulf side picnic tables is now up in the air.

BRADENTON BEACH – The Planning and Zoning Board wants the Moose lodge to remove its beachfront picnic tables, and longtime lodge administrator and manager Ernie Casali is not happy about it.

After Wednesday’s meeting, a frustrated Casali said, “Are they telling me I have to get rid of the picnic tables? That ain’t gonna happen. Those tables are over $10,000…over $1,000 apiece.”

The request to remove 13 picnic tables located on the lodge’s gulf front patio is one five stipulations the planning board collectively suggested when recommending approval of a special exception request that would allow the lodge to transfer 50 of its 190-seat seating allowance to a new rooftop dining area.

The lodge is also requesting a rezoning of the property located at 110 Gulf Drive South in order to remove a non-forming property status that would prevent the propose expansion.

The board was divided on the specifics of the special exception allowance, but unanimously supported the rezoning request. In March, the city commission will have final say on both requests, and they can accept or reject any or all of the five special exception stipulations suggested by the planning board.

The suggested removal of the picnic tables stems from board members John Metz and John Burns concerns that the outdoor tables are not included in calculations used to determine parking requirements.

In the spirit of compromise, it was suggested the picnic tables be replaced with chairs and small tables that would not provide enough space for dining.

Moose patrons are allowed to carry food and drinks to the outdoor tables that overlook the Gulf of Mexico, but patio dining and beverage service is not provided. Because of this, Casali believes the tables should not be included in parking calculations.

Board members James Lynch and Dan DeBaun supported this argument, but DeBaun later voted in favor of the recommended stipulations in order to break a 2-2 gridlock and advance the matter to the commission for final determination. Lynch, the board’s newest member, remained steadfast in his opposition to requesting the tables be removed.

Other suggested stipulations include limiting the lodge’s total seating capacity to 190; creating two additional parking spaces, as already planned; requiring delivery trucks to park in the Moose parking lot rather than the roadside right of way; and requiring 5-foot walls along the north and south second story perimeters.

During the meeting, Casali addressed the rezoning request and said, “We put up $3,000 to speak to you today, and it’s $3,000 we should have never had to come up with, for the simple reason that the city’s out of compliance with their own zoning laws.”

After the meeting, he said, “No matter what information we supplied to a few individuals in there, the answer is going to be the same. They did compromise, but they didn’t make any compromise compatible to what we want. We’ll go before the city council with our issues and see what they have to say.”

Casali also noted that the Moose has beachfront property rights that extend far beyond the patio confines and the lodge has never restricted public access to that portion of its property.

A visit to the Moose lodge after Wednesday’s meeting found visiting members Pat and Bill Jones, and Minnie Brickel, sitting down at one of the picnic tables with beers in hand.

When asked how she would feel if the picnic tables were removed, Brickel said, “I’d be really upset. I just came from Canton, Ohio where it’s 15 degrees.”

“You can sit out here, socialize and enjoy a drink. Why take that away?” Bill Jones added.