Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockledge City Council meets in closed session to discuss litigation tied to Case No. 2007-CA-022374
Summary
Mayor Thomas J. Price said the Rockledge City Council met in a closed attorney/client executive session on June 18 to discuss litigation identified as Case No. 2007-CA-022374; the session began at 5:17 p.m. and ended at 5:54 p.m., after which the council reconvened and adjourned.
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rockledge City Council met in a closed attorney/client executive session on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, to discuss litigation identified as Case No. 2007-CA-022374, Mayor Thomas J. Price said. The public portion of the special meeting was temporarily adjourned at 5:17 p.m. for the private session and the council reconvened and adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
"The Council will sit in Executive Session concerning specific litigation issues, followed by a Special Meeting that will be open to the public," Mayor Thomas J. Price said when calling the meeting to order. Price also read aloud the case number, Case No. 2007-CA-022374, as the subject of the closed discussion.
The clerk's attendance list read into the record named the officials permitted to attend the closed session: Mayor Thomas J. Price; Councilmembers Dr. R. Shaun Ferguson (Seat #2), Sammie Brown Martin (Seat #3), Frank T. Forester (Seat #4), Duane A. Daski (Seat #5), and Tara L. Connor (Seat #6); City Attorney Wade C. Vose; outside legal counsel Joseph DeLeo; and City Manager Dr. Brenda Fettrow. A court reporter was noted as present for the executive session.
City Attorney Wade C. Vose declared the executive attorney/client session adjourned at 5:54 p.m., at which point the city clerk returned to the dais and Mayor Price announced the special meeting was reconvened and open to the public. There is no record in the minutes of any public action, motion, or vote taken during the session; the meeting was adjourned immediately after reconvening.
Because the discussion took place in a closed attorney/client meeting, the minutes and public record identify only the case number and the officials who attended; no substantive details of the litigation were included in the public minutes.
