By Coral Gables Gazette staff

The Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center Association escalated its dispute with City Hall this week, accusing Mayor Vince Lago of retaliation, challenging a series of public statements made during recent commission meetings, and warning commissioners they could face personal legal liability if the city proceeds with litigation against the nonprofit organization.

The eight-page letter, sent May 18 by attorney Jane Muir on behalf of the Association, responds directly to statements made during the May 5 City Commission meeting and frames the city’s escalating confrontation with the nonprofit as a potential violation of constitutional protections involving free speech, free association and political retaliation.

The letter was addressed to the mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, City Attorney Cristina M. Suárez, and outside counsel from Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The record, disputed point by point

Much of the Association’s letter systematically challenges five specific statements made by city officials at the May 5 meeting regarding the organization’s finances, governance, and legal status.

On Lago’s claim that the city had been requesting information for nearly a year without receiving anything, the Association stated it has responded in writing on five separate occasions, producing more than one hundred pages of records — and that City Attorney Suárez acknowledged receipt of the most recent response at the same meeting at which Lago made the claim.

On the comparison of Association board members to Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes, the Association stated the characterization is “without factual basis.” Its tax filings show total expenditures averaging $3,846.75 per year over eight years, no board member compensation, zero liabilities, and more than $100,000 in reserve funds professionally managed by Morgan Stanley.

On Lago’s characterization of the city and Association as “partners,” the Association stated no contract, agreement, or legal instrument establishing any such relationship has ever existed. The Association made three public records requests to the city last January seeking documentation of any such relationship. According to the letter, the city produced nothing in response — while simultaneously demanding the Association produce its own records.

On Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson’s characterization of the reverter clause as having “zero guardrails,” the letter noted that the city itself drafted and approved the reverter structure in 1958 and cannot retroactively add conditions to its own creation. The Association says its bylaws — which were filed with the State of Florida in 1996 and available to the public— explicitly prohibit any individual from ever receiving personal benefit from the reverter clause upon dissolution and all assets must go to a 501(c)(3) exempt purpose. “With this, the City has conclusive evidence that, in the event the City violated the terms of our gift, and our organization exercised the reverter, the property could not fall into private hands,” Muir wrote.

On Lago’s claim that the Association demanded “millions and millions and millions of pages” in records requests, the letter argued the characterization drew on communications from a protected mediation session, making its public disclosure a potential violation of Florida’s mediation confidentiality statute. According to the Association’s letter, Suárez corrected Lago on the record at the same meeting, stating she did not know where the figure came from and that no cost estimate had been finalized.

At the center of the disagreement remains the Association’s long-standing independence from the city — a distinction the letter argues is foundational to the original structure governing the property.

“The Association’s independence from the City is not a deficiency or an obstacle,” the letter states. “It is the structural requirement of the deed itself.”

The retaliation claim

The letter’s most serious section addresses what the Association characterizes as an impermissible retaliatory motive behind the city’s actions.

At the August 26, 2025 commission meeting, Lago directed his remarks not at the Association as an institution but at a named individual board member, Kirk Menendez, who previously served as a city commissioner and ran against Lago for mayor. The letter states Lago accused Menendez of a “direct conflict of interest” and “nepotism.” Commissioner Melissa Castro stated that the expenditure of taxpayer funds on this effort appeared to stem from “a personal issue” the mayor has with that board member.

“A governmental campaign of escalating resolutions, litigation threats, and public accusations directed at a private nonprofit whose member is a former political opponent of the sitting Mayor is not a legitimate exercise of governmental authority,” Muir wrote. “It is the precise conduct Florida Statutes § 768.295 was enacted to deter.”

The letter states that the motive animating the majority’s actions “is not a matter of inference or speculation. It is a matter of public record, stated on the dais.”

Warning of potential personal liability

The letter placed commissioners on formal notice of three categories of potential legal exposure.

Under the state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute — a lawsuit brought primarily because the target exercised constitutionally protected rights exposes the governmental entity to expeditious dismissal, recovery of attorney’s fees, and actual damages.

Under the federal civil rights statute — governmental officials who deprive organizations of constitutionally protected rights under the color of law may be held personally liable. “The personal exposure of individual commissioners who knowingly proceed in the face of a clear constitutional violation is not a matter the Association raises lightly,” Muir wrote.

Under common law abuse of process — which the letter argued is established by the city’s own conduct, written resolutions, and public statements reflecting a stated purpose of eliminating the reverter clause.

The letter also cautioned commissioners about relying exclusively on advice from outside counsel while ignoring contrary legal positions raised by the Association. “Public officials who knowingly participate in unconstitutional conduct are not shielded from personal liability merely because outside counsel approved the strategy,” the letter states.

The Association’s position and offer

Despite the letter’s sharp tone, it closed with a constructive offer. The Association confirmed it has filed an IRS Power of Attorney seeking retroactive 501(c)(3) reinstatement for 2017 through 2026, directly addressing the tax status questions the commission raised. The letter also reiterated the Association’s willingness to review any future proposals for the Youth Center property and provide written feedback.

“As we have done for more than seventy years, the Association is committed to protect the War Memorial Youth Center, support the youth of Coral Gables, and honor the memory of the brave soldiers who fought in World Wars and lost their lives,” Muir wrote.

Background of the dispute

The broader dispute centers on the relationship between the city and the nonprofit organization created decades ago to help govern and protect the War Memorial Youth Center property at 405 University Drive.

City officials have argued the organization’s structure, governance practices, and historical deed restrictions create legal and operational concerns for the city. Commissioners supporting litigation have repeatedly referenced the need for transparency and accountability involving property connected to municipal operations.

The Association, however, argues the city is attempting to undermine the organization’s independence and weaken deed protections specifically designed to preserve the property’s civic purpose.

The current dispute traces to July 2025, when the commission voted 3-2 to launch a formal investigation of the Association, centered on the 1958 reverter clause. In December 2025, the commission voted 3-2 to give the Association until December 23 to produce financial records or face a lawsuit. The deadline passed without compliance.

The dispute has expanded beyond records requests into broader disagreements over governance authority, institutional independence and the future control of the property.

The city had not publicly responded to the Association’s May 18 letter as of publication.