Palm Bay Faces Council Member Lawsuit—Is Public Trust at Risk?
Examining conflict of interest laws, Charter rules, and the impact on city leadership.
If a Palm Bay official sues — or threatens to sue — the city they represent, how can they still claim to serve it?
That question now defines Chandler Langevin’s tenure after two letters surfaced: one written in support of a white nationalist, and another — sent by attorney Anthony Sabatini — threatening Palm Bay itself with litigation.
The Two Letters
Letter #1:
Written on official city letterhead, Langevin urged federal officials to grant clemency to Robert Rundo, founder of a violent white supremacist group. The letter implied Palm Bay’s endorsement — an abuse of city representation that drew national condemnation and was later cited by the City Attorney in a formal suspension request to Governor Ron DeSantis dated October 3, 2025. The city’s request described the action as “misfeasance and incompetence,” violating multiple sections of Palm Bay’s Code of Conduct.
Letter #2:
On October 13, 2025, the Sabatini Law Firm sent a “Notice of Representation” to City Hall threatening “immediate lawsuit for First Amendment Retaliation” if the council advanced Resolution 2025-41, the pending censure motion.
The letter cited Gundy v. City of Jacksonville and Thornber v. Fort Walton Beach to portray Langevin as a victim of retaliation and claimed, incorrectly, that his legal fees were “reimbursable from this point onward.”
Together, the letters show a descent from questionable judgment to open defiance — and from misrepresentation to direct legal hostility toward the city.
Loyalty vs. Oath
Langevin swore to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of his office.
Instead, he aligned himself with two outsiders:
Rundo, whose ideology offends Palm Bay’s values; and
Sabatini, whose career centers on antagonizing governments for profit and publicity.
Each alignment reflected a loyalty away from Palm Bay residents — away from the oath that binds an official to public service, not personal crusades.
A public oath demands fidelity to the city; political vanity demands conflict with it.
The Legal and Ethical Wall
Florida’s governance laws make dual loyalty impossible:
§112.313 – Conflicts of Interest: Officials cannot act where personal interests oppose city interests.
§112.3143 – Voting Conflicts: Must abstain from voting on matters tied to personal litigation.
§286.011(8) – Shade Meetings: Adverse parties, including city officials engaged in litigation, are prohibited from attending closed legal sessions.
Once litigation is threatened, a wall goes up. The official can no longer vote, receive legal briefings, or access any form of legal counsel or communication from the city attorney’s office, as that office now represents the city in litigation against them. Under Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the city attorney’s fiduciary duty is to the municipal corporation — not the individual officer — making any legal discussion with Langevin on related matters ethically and legally prohibited.
In practice, they are a city official in title only — barred from governing the very city they’ve sued.
Fiduciary Duty: You Can’t Serve Two Masters
Public office is a fiduciary trust — a duty to act solely for the city’s benefit.
Litigation flips that duty on its head: a plaintiff seeks victory against the city.
Analogy:
“It’s like suing your own employer, then showing up Monday expecting to run the team meeting.”
When an official’s personal cause collides with the public good, the duty ends the moment the lawsuit begins.
That collapse of duty sets the stage for why the Sabatini letter fails both legally and ethically.
Why the Sabatini Letter Fails Legally
Sabatini wrote:
“Failure of this council to refrain from such unlawful action will result in immediate lawsuit... Furthermore, under Thornber v. Fort Walton Beach (1990) all legal costs regarding this representation are reimbursable from this point onward.”
1. What Thornber Actually Says
In Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach (Fla. 1990), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a public official may be reimbursed for legal costs only after successfully defending actions arising from their official duties — and only after the litigation concludes.
The case involved reimbursement after officials were sued, not before. They were defendants, not plaintiffs. And the payments were approved only after the courts cleared them of wrongdoing.
2. Why Sabatini’s Claim is Misleading
Sabatini’s claim that “all legal costs... are reimbursable from this point onward” inverts Thornber’s meaning. It suggests Palm Bay owes immediate payment of private legal fees for an unfiled lawsuit — an assertion with no basis in Florida law.
Reimbursement applies only to defense of official acts, not attacks on the city.
No statute allows pre-approval or automatic billing of taxpayers for an official’s private representation.
Any attempt to use city funds that way would violate §112.313(6), misuse of public position.
3. Why the Threat Rings Hollow
The cited cases don’t apply to council discipline or censure.
The threat of “immediate lawsuit” appears more rhetorical than legal — a demand letter framed to sound serious but resting on misapplied precedent.
It functions as pressure rather than a substantiated legal claim, with the cited cases offering no clear support for the assertions made.
Palm Bay’s Charter and Ethical Reality
Palm Bay’s City Charter §3.054 bars officials from financial or contractual conflicts.
While it doesn’t explicitly require resignation in such situations, the combination of conflict, recusal, and ethical quarantine makes governance impossible.
This isn’t a debate over free speech — it’s about functionality. A city cannot operate when one of its members weaponizes their position against it.
Palm Bay’s council has precedent for censure and even suspension requests when conduct undermines institutional integrity.
The Public Trust Equation
Palm Bay’s citizens expect their officials to argue for them, not against them.
When a sitting official’s attorney threatens the city with litigation, public trust collapses.
No statute compels resignation — but ethics, practicality, and integrity do.
Palm Bay’s government cannot survive divided loyalties.
The day Chandler Langevin turned to Anthony Sabatini to threaten the city, he stopped governing and started campaigning against it.
I voted for Chandler, but he needs to say "I am sorry I created such a big distraction.", so the City Council can get back to doing their job.
If he doesn't, Chandler can assume he will never get a vote from me again.
Folks need to research their candidates! Follow the money, #1, and you can determine those who are "owned" or in it to influence for their own agenda, NOT the constituents. This is NOT free speech! It shows a sick mindset that does not represent Palm Bay's values!! ..And should represent NO ONE'S! Thanks again, Thomas, for the great reporting!