Should a council member collude with a friend to justify the use of city ordinances to target the children of one family to solve a neighbors dispute?

Events stated herein are in the public record for the City of Punta Gorda in the agendas and videos found at http://www.ci.punta-gorda.fl.us/meetings for 2/25/25 and 3/11/26.

This is a bizarre story involving three parties:

• a family who put up a basketball net on a slab in their yard for their boys to play

• a neighbor complaining about the noise and lights from a family of boys playing basketball

• a council member, Mellissa Lockhart advocating her friend’s (the complaining neighbor) agenda, while acting in an official capacity in a council meeting

On June 19, 2024, at the meeting of the City of Punta Gorda (PG) council then Mayor Mathews introduced an issue (agenda item 6b) and incorrectly stated that an unpermitted sports court had been installed in PG. The city attorney corrected Matthews by informing her that ordinances allow for such structures. Matthews then “spoke in favor of prohibiting sports courts.” Councilmember Lux “spoke in favor of working with neighbors.” At the end of discussion Matthews, without a council vote, proclaimed that there was “consensus of Council to define sport court activities and establish hours of operation.” Then the issue died until Council member Mellissa Lockhart decided to carry Matthew’s torch and requested that city staff place the old topic on the 2/25/26 agenda.

City staff placed the topic “Dusk to Dawn Sports Court” on the agenda for the 2/25/26 PG Council meeting. It can be seen at 2:37 in the meeting video. The city staff presented a slide deck about sports courts in general and what was allowed in PGI towards discussion of future regulations of sports courts. It should be mentioned that sports court pictures in the presentation bear no resemblance to the basketball net and slab of the family that was about to be targeted.

Immediately following the staff presentation Mellissa Lockhart began speaking about the general sports court topic then slowly shifted her arguments to creating an ordinance that would immediately limit one family’s basketball playtime. The significance and realization that Lockhart had turned the discussion from a general issue for council to the targeting of a single family with boys playing basketball in their own yard seemed lost by all.

Lockhart’s idea, in essence, was to weaponize city ordinances to target one family. One neighbor across the canal from the targeted family complained about noise and lights at night whenever the boys played basketball. Things become clearer as discussion ensues. Council members are expected to be neutral and without bias when acting in their official capacity. It turns out the complaining neighbor is a friend of Mellissa Lockhart and Lockhart was representing her friend’s agenda from behind the dais.

• Is this behavior acceptable and what we expect from our elected city council members?

• Should council members be representing one side of a friend’s dispute?

• Is that a betrayal of public trust?

At 2:50 in the meeting video, Lockhart shows video of the minors in their yard. She states she has the video on her phone and admits to having taken them from across the canal. Heard clearly in the video is audio of the minors playing in their yard and one can be heard calling to mom. Council member Lockhart secretly recorded those boys playing in their yard and placed a video of children playing, without consent, into the public domain.

It is illegal in the State of Florida to record any audio without the consent of both parties, and it is illegal in the State of Florida to video minors in spaces they expect to be safe. Depending upon legal interpretation, this might be malfeasance.

• Regardless, is there any debate that the default in the argument should be to protect children’s rights and safety?

• Legal or not, is this behavior acceptable and what residences of PG expect from our elected city council members?

• Should council members be secretly recording the children of our city’s residents for any reason?

The council allowed the complaining neighbor to speak. Her immediate comment was to complain about the boys playing basketball at 7:30 in the morning. She then complained about basketball at noon. Finally, she complained about the boys playing basketball at night, declaring that they play until 10/11:00 at night. She stated that the lights and noise were the issue. As you listen you come to realize that this has nothing to do with noise or lights during certain times, this seems to be all about an intolerant neighbor who simply doesn’t want boys playing basketball… as she stated, not in the morning, not at noon, and not at night. This neighbor has unrealistic expectations. Children of families should be allowed to play basketball.

Lockhart made a motion that passed unanimously, to prevent the boys from using lights for basketball from 8am until dusk. No one seemed to realize that dusk actually meant that they can never play with lights on. Also, no one connected that ordinances allow construction to create any noise and have any lighting at 7:00am. Now in Punta Gorda construction can start earlier than kids can play. All of this discussion occurred without ever contacting the targeted family or getting any other perspective except the one presented by Lockhart and her friend.

• Should ordinances be weaponized to resolve disputes between neighbors and target the playtime of one family?

• Should our council even be discussing neighbors disputes?

The targeted family discovered what had ensued and spoke at the 3/11/26 council meeting. They were joined by many other neighbors who resoundingly denied much of Lockhart’s perspective. These neighbors spoke and stated that the play did not happen late at night, as claimed. They also stated the noise was not excessive or bothersome. One neighbor said the intolerant neighbor blew air horns at the family to annoy them. Another neighbor had video from their home’s surveillance camera that disputed statements made by Lockhart’s friend. Lockhart actually attempted to silence the neighbor with contradictory information by yelling from the dais. Lockhart’s bias couldn’t have been more obvious.

Lockhart’s actions could be viewed as betrayal of trust and possibly malfeasance in regard to the video and audio recording. The city charter states that the council can act against its members for forfeiture of office. Forfeiture of office in the charter is defined as “grounds for forfeiture of office shall be malfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.”

• Should there be consequences to Council Member Lockhart’s actions?

Someday we will all miss hearing children play. Let the children play! The City of Punta Gorda Council should rescind their motion immediately.