Loading...
Res No 159-96-99135 d RESOLUTION NO. 159 -96 -9913 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ATTORNEY'S FEES; APPROVING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,331.86 AND CHARGING ACCOUNT NO, 1500 -3410, CONSULTING - LEGAL; CONTAINING FINDINGS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of South Miami approved Resolution No. 25 -96 -9788 and directed the City Attorney to file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Ethics against then -Vice Mayor Young; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 14 -96 -1614, providing for indemnification of legal defense costs; and, WHEREAS, the Florida Commission on Ethics entered an order on September 4, 1996, in the proceeding styled In re Paul Young, Complaint No. 96 -14, finding that there is no probable cause to believe that Respondent Paul Young violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes and dismissing the complaint; and, WHEREAS, counsel submitted a final invoice, in the amount of $4,331.86, for attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of Commissioner Young; and, WHEREAS, the City Attorney advised the City Commission that the legal expenses incurred in the defense of the matter are necessary and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. As required by Ordinance No. 14 -96 -1614, it is found that (1) Commissioner Paul Young prevailed in the above - referenced proceedings; (2) the charges arose out of or in connection with the performance of his official duties; (3) the act complained of served a valid public purpose; and,(4) the legal expenses incurred by Commissioner Young are reasonable. Section 2. The invoice of Adorno & Zeder, P.A., dated September 12, 1996, in the amount of $4,331.86, is approved for 0 payment and payment shall be charged to Account No. 1500-3410; Consulting-Legal. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon approval. • x JIMIj 1q, 11 111� I'l ,. 1 11, 1 i. IT-007jewalm III � •, I ATTE T: APPROVED- CITY CLERK MA Y YOR CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Com'n. Eddie Cox, City Mgr, From: Earl G. Gallo City Attorney ` Date: September 12, 1996 Re: Ethics Compl't, Against P.Young Payment of Attorney's Fees This memorandum recommends payment of the September 12, 1996 invoice of Adorno & Zeder, P.A., in the amount of $4,331.86. The attorney's fees and costs are reasonable and they were necessarily incurred in the successful defense of the city commission's ethics charge against Commissioner Young. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 14 -96 -1614, the city must indemnify Commissioner Young for the fees and costs upon finding that: (1) the city official prevailed in the proceedings; (2) the charges arose out of or in connection with the performance of the official's official duties; (3) the acts or omissions complained of served a valid public purpose; and, (4) the legal expenses incurred by the city official are reasonable. The city commission shall be guided by the opinion of the city attorney regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the legal expenses incurred by the city official. I was previously advised that the fees and costs would not exceed $5,000. I approved that budget. Recommendation: Authorize payment of the invoice upon making findings (1) through (4), above. Copies of the invoice, complaint, the Ordinance No. 14 -96 -1614 and the Ethics Commission's order are attached. cc: Raoul G. Canter =, III, Esq. csm /ltrs /attyfee.mem RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ATTORNEY'S FEES; APPROVING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,331.86 AND CHARGING ACCOUNT NO, 1500 -3410, CONSULTING - LEGAL; CONTAINING FINDINGS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of South Miami approved Resolution No. 25 -96 -9788 and directed the City Attorney to file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Ethics against then -Vice Mayor Young; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 14 -96 -16141 providing for indemnification of costs; and, legal defense WHEREAS, the Florida Commission on Ethics entered an order on September 4, 1996, in the proceeding styled In re Paul Young, Complaint No. 96 -14, finding that there is no probable cause to believe that Respondent Paul Young violated Section 112.313(6) Florida Statutes and dismissing the complaint; and, WHEREAS, counsel submitted a final invoice, in the amount of $4,331.86, for attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of Commissioner Young; and, WHEREAS, the City Attorney advised the City Commission the legal expenses incurred that in the defense of the matter are necessary and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. As required by Ordinance No. 14 -96 -1614, it is found that (1) Commissioner Paul Youn referenced proceedin s g Prevailed in the above - g ; (2) the charges arose out of or in connection with the performance of his official duties; (3) the act complained of served a valid public purpose; and expenses incurred by Commissioner Young are reasonable, the legal Section 2. The invoice of Adorno & Zeder, P, September 12, 1996, in the amount of A dated $4,331.86, is approved for Payment and payment shall be charged Consulting - Legal. to Account No. 1500 -3410; Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September, 1996, ATTEST: APPROVED: CITY CLERK MAYOR READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY EGG \csm \attyfee.res RAOUL G. CANTERO, III Via Hand Delivery ?arl Gallop 1. -ity Attorney pity of South Miami 00 S. Biscayne Blvd., liami, FL 33131 nvoi °ar Earl: ADORNO & ZEDER ' PROFrSSIONAL ASSCC:ATION '601 SOUTH BAYSHORE CRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 858 -5555 = ACSIMILE (305) 858 -4777 World Wide Web: http: / /www.adomo.com September 12, 1996 Ste. 3580 r lez?al services through t-1 996 WRITER'S DIRECT .`JO.. (305) 860 -7277 Enclosed you will find an itemized invoice for legal services costs incurred, through the month of Au performed, mmission matter. It is my understanding hat you9areplacinPauYoung Ethics the agenda at the next meeting. Please review the char ueS. g Payment of this invoice 'factory, please remit payment as soon as possible. Verything is As we discussed, it was a pleasure representing results were successful. I welcome the Mr. Young and oppo , to represent o g I am happy mi in the future, e City of South Sincerely, �Kaou� "mld G. Cantero, III J )sure UDEROALE SOCA RATON TALLAHASSEE ul Young ty of South Miami rl Gallop, City Attorney 1 Brickell Key Drive �mi, F1 33131 1 ADORNO (S-v ZEDER A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE 1 305) 8S8 -5555 "ELEFAX 130St SBa -4777 FEDERAL ID4 59- 2746043 September 12, 1996 Invoice 67737 Page 1 Matter # 12740.001 For Services Through August 31 1996 Ethics Commission q196 Review of legal files; telephone con- City Attorne ,� nce with y on /17; meeting with client. =/96 /96 -95 '96 RGC 2.90 hrs. 210.00 /hr Meeting with client and investigator. RGC Office conference re: RGC 2.20 hrs. 210.00 /hr status of case. 40 hrs. 210.00 /hr e ephone ccnference with n client; `eleprcne coference with City Attorney. RGC 40 hrs Telephone conference with client. RGC 30 hrs 210.00 /hr 210.00 /hr 96 Telephone conference with cl i ient; meeting with clent; draft letter to Gallop. RGC 1.70 hrs. 210.00 /hr =MIT PAYMENT TO: ADORNO & ZEDER. P A 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 $ 609.00 MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 462.00 84.00 84.00 63.00 357.00 1 Young y of South Miami 1 Gallop, City Attorney Brickell Key Drive nit F1 33131 a/96 /96 '96 Iwo ADORNO & ZEDER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI FLORIDA 33133 `ELEPHONE (305) 858 -5555 TELEFAX (305) 858 -4777 =EDERALID# 59- 2746043 Meeting with client; review draft of letter. RGC .20 hrs. 210.00 /hr Receive and review Advocate's recommendation. RGC 20 hrs. Telephone conference with client. RGC 10 hrs 210.00 /hr 210.00 /hr Telephone conference with Commission on Ethics. RGC .10 hrs. 210.00 /hr 96 Office conference re: status of case; telephone conference with client. RGC 20 hrs a6 Telephone conference with client. RGC 3 0 hrs 210.00 /hr 210.00 /hr 6 Office conference re: Ethics Commission. hearing. RGC 10 hrs. 210.00 /hr September 12, 1996 Invoice 67737 Page 2 417 PAYMENT TO: ADORN() s, ZEDER. P.,q. 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 M1AM1, FLORIDA 33133 42.00 42.00 21.00 21.00 42.00 63.00 21.00 it Young .y of South Miami l Gallop, City Attorney Brickell Key Drive mi, F1 33131 ADORNO & ZEDER ? PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 ELEPHONE 13051 858 -SSSS - ELEFAX (305) SSS -4777 FEDERAL ID# 59- 2746043 8/96 Telephone conference with Commission on Ethics; correspondence to Commission on Ethics. ?/96 /96 !96 °5 J RGC .20 hrs. 210.00 /hr Telephone conference with Commission on Ethics. RGC .20 hrs. 210.00 /hr Receive and review new notice of hearing. RGC 110 hrs. 210.00 /hr Telephone conference with client. RGC 10 hrs Telephone ccnference with client. RGC 10 hrs. 210.00 /hr 210.00 /hr files for Commission hearing. 96 Review of legal RGC 1.70 hrs. 210.00 /hr )6 Travel to Tallahassee for Commission on Ethics hearing; telephone conference with client. RGC 7.90 hrs. 210.00 /hr Total Fees for Professional Services September 12, Invoice 67737 Page 3 1996 42.00 42.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 357.00 1,659.00 4, 074.00 MIT PAYMENT TO: ADORNO S ZEDER. P.A. • 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE . SUITE 1600 r.11AM1. FLORIDA 33133 i Young y of South Miami 1 Gallop, City Attorney Brickell Key Drive ni, F1 33131 a a ADORNO & ZEDER A PROFESSIONAL ASSOG;A T IOM _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 858 -5555 TELEFAX 1305) 6S8 -4777 FEDERAL IDN 59-2 74604-3 September 12, Invoice 67737 Page 4 1996 Costs Incurred 196 Raoul Cantero Reimbursement for attend ethics commissicn hearing 96 Miami Travel,Inc $ 32.00 (Tallahassee on 8/29/96), cab, parking expenses. '. RGC travel expense to Tallahassee, Fl, on $ 183.54 8/29/96. (re: inv# 107857) . Current month's photocopy charges. Current month's telecopy charges. $ 13.30 Current month's telephone charges. $ 20.00 Current month's postage charges. $ 5.00 Legal research. $ 132 $ 3.60 Total Costs Incurred ...................$ 257.86 Matter Summa for Professional Services .s incurred . . . . . 4, 074.00 ................ 257.86 NET CURRENT BILLING .... ....................$ 41331.86 TOTAL DUE FOR THIS MATTER 4,331.86 IIT PAYMENT TO: ADORNO s ZEDER. P. q_ , 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 1600 MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 Preliminary investigation of this complaint for a probable cause determination of whether the Respondent has violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. BJW /pdo I Bonnie J. W±�lliams Executive Director a z Preliminary investigation of this complaint for a probable cause determination of whether the Respondent has violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. BJW /pdo I Bonnie J. W±�lliams Executive Director BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA CO,%14\IISSIO\ ON ETHICS In re PAUL YOUNG, � Respondent. ) 1 Complaint \o. 96 -14 PliBLIC REPORT DATE FILED' S EP 4 1996 COMMISSION ON ETHICS Based on the preliminary im estigaticn cl this complaint and on the recommendation of the Commission'sAdvocate. the Commission �-,n ;cs ;Inds that there is no probable cause that to believe the Respondent. as a rnembci• of the Cint Commission of the Cit` of South Miami, violated Section 11 2-313(6), Florida Statutes, by attempting to influence a member of the Citv's architectural services selection committee, as alleged in this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed with the issuance of this public report, which shall include. the investigative report of the matter. ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in :A executive session on Thursday, August `'o, 1996. cc �Z Da �'Ian :Vice Phelan Chair Mr. Raoul G. Cantero, III. Attorney Ior Respondent GIs. N'irlindia Doss. Commission :Advocate `Ir. Earl Gallop. Complainant ✓ BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS DATE F11 Fa MAR 0 ;996 cOMN,ISSIOK Ora STS -1tCg ?AUL YOUNG, ) R tLRespondent. ) Complaint No. 96 -14 DETERMINATION OF ISATIVE TO INV ST GATjE IuDIC 'ION AND ORDER REVIEW of this complaint, I find as follows: This complaint was filed under oath and in proper form by Jallop, City Attorney for the City of South Miami, on the City Commission of South Miami. the Respondent, PAUL YOUNG, the City of South Miami allegedly serves as Vice. and a member of the City he complaint alleges -.hat on January i9, 1995 .ontacted Mr. Bill Pratt, Director of the Cityls Office Of Development and a member of the three person committee ( "RFI Committee ") appointed by the City Manager to review proposals Presented in response to a Request for Letters of Interest for Architectural and Engineering and Surveying services. The services being advertised for included basic construction, where the costs are not in excess of $500,000, and study activities, where the firm's fees do not exceed $25,000. The materials attached to the complaint indicated that amour � (4) or the 14 firms which submitted proposals were selected by the Committee, and of those, the Cit Mana Y er g :vas authorized to contract with the three that were selected by the City Commission. 40 According to the complaint, during telephone call to f1r. Pratt, the Resbonder_t consider favorably one of the applicants, Associa Inc tes, the Respondent's encouraged ;im to Middlebrooks and The complaint alleges that Respondent's contact with Mr. ?ratt was not considered to be a regular communication, especially since the rating of applications was still underway, 5 The complaint further alleges that Article VI, Section 8 2 of the City Charter provides inquiry, the Commission and that its "except members for the purpose shall deal administrative services solely through the City Manager.,, of with It also allegedly prohibits the Commission and any member thereof either publicly or privately giving orders Manager's subordinates. 6. f rom to any of the City The most applicable provision of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and follows : Employees to the allegations provides as MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. - -_ N officer or employee Of an O Public corruptly use or attempt to use agencoffs ill Position or any property or resource which may be within his trust, or perform his official duties, to secure a special privi benefit, or lege, exemption for himself r This section shall not be °- others. conflict with s . constr .ed `o 104.31. For purposes of this provision, the term "corruptly" is defined as follows: `Corruptly means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, compensating or receiving or compensation for, 3 any benefit result47 omission of a publ inconsistent with the his public duties. Florida Statutes.] 19 from some act or is servant which is Proper performance of [Section 112.312(9), In order to allege a violation of this section the complaint must indicate that the Respondent used his position as City Commissioner or resources within his trust with wrongful intent either himself or another t to benefit _n a manr_er inconsistent with his public duties. 70 Inasmuch as the aile gatiens indicate that Respondent used his position as a City Commissioner in an attempt to benefit Middlebrooks and Associates, Inc. by attembtin g to influence the City's competitive selection process through his is call to a City employee who had been appointed to the P,F I Committ ; ee �n order to encourage him to favorably review the company, and inasmuch as Respondent's alleged contact may ^ave been violative of the City Charter and, therefore, inconsistent with +- �he proper performance of his public duties, the complaint is sufficient t o allege a possible violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida statutes. WHEREFORE staff of the CommiSSiOn cn Ethics shall conduct a 4 COMMISSION ON ETHICS STATE OF FLORIDA Complaint No. 96 -14 NOTICE CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY This report of investigation concerns an alleged violation of Chapter 1129 Part III, Florida Statutes, or other breach of public trust under provisions of Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution. The report and any exhibits ma} be confidential (exempt from the public records law pursuant to Section 112.324, Florida Statutes, and p Chapter 34 -5, F.A.C., the rules of the Commission on Ethics. Unless the Res onden t has waived the confidentiality in writing, this report will remain confidential until one of the following occurs: (1) the complaint is dismissed by the Commission; (2) the Commission finds sufficient evidence to order a public ( hearing; or 3 ) the Commission orders a public report as a final disposition of the matter. TITLE: COMPLAINT NO INVESTIGATED BY: Distribution: Releasing Authority$ STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 -5709 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Mr. Paul Young City Commissioner South Miami #9644 Exhibits A through C H. B. Jackson Commission on Ethics Respondent Advocate File LA��u«ve Lirector z3 X996 Date 4 DETAILS (1) The complaint in this matter was filed by Mr. Earl G. Gallop, City Of South Miami, on behalf of the Ci Co Y for the City Mr, Paul Young, while serving as a C y Commissioner of South Mil The complaint charges that for Public Officers and Employees., violated the Code of Ethics . (2) The complaint charges that the Respondent used or attempted to use his to secure a special benefit for himself or others. The Executive Director of the Cof official position Ethics found the charges sufficient to allege possible violations of Section 112 mmission on Statutes. 313 (6)5 Florida (') The complaint alleges that the Respondent contacted a member of the City' services selection committee and attempted to influence the member's favorable consideration an applicant to the committee during a competitive selection process. According to the compon of the Respondent contacted Mr, William Pratt, Director of the City's Office of Development, member of a three person Request For Information (R. F. I. Co - opment, and a that Mr. Pratt was appointed by the City Manager to review proposals submitted b mmittees The complaint indicates architectural, engineering, and surveying services. The R. F. I. Committee was responsible offering selecting firms capable of providing building services that included basic construction, P °nsible for costs are not in excess of $500,000, and study activities, where the firm's fees Bon thre the $25,000. exceed (4) Mr. Pratt advised, in a sworn affidavit attached to the complaint, that on 19, 1996, just after 5: 00 p• m., he received a telephone call from the Respondent. �. Friday, January that the telephone call occurred while the R. F. I. Co that explained architectural and engineering firms to be recommended to the e was in the process of selecting the City Commission for final approval, City Manager and then forwarded to communication was to encourage him to give favo�abled that the clear purpose of the Respondent's and Associates Inc. Mr. Pratt indicated that the two other committee memberswereMiddlebrooks by the Respondent relative to the selection process. not contacted (5) Mr. Pratt advised that he has worked for the City of South Miami for a Fears as the Director of the Office of Development and that during this period of time i has approximately three on several committees formed to select companies to provide services for the Ci served that, with the exception of Commissioner Young's call, he does not recall hay' • Mr. Pratt stated contacted by a City Commissioner during a competitive selection process. Mr. Pratt ein r been South l�liam' City Commissioners are "`ood,, about routing their ' opined that Manager's office. g inquiries through the City 1 (6) Mr. Pratt confirmed that the Respondent contacted him by telephone at his office sho after Sapp p.m,, on January 19. Mr. Pratt advised that his conversation with the Respondent rtly brief, only lasting a couple of minutes. He said that the Respondent asked him ' p was Associates still was under consideration by the Committee, and he responded that Middlebrooks and they were. M. Pratt acknowledged that he could not recall the conversation verbatim. However, he recalled h r during the conversation, Commmissioner Young said something to the effect of, "Give consideration t to this `specific law firm' [Middlebrooks and Associates]." Mr. Pratt related that he did not respond to Commissioner Young's statement but that he subsequently became an p involved him in "something like this." He explained that the telephone call made him t eel "uncomfortable" for three reasons. First, he related that it was unusual to receive a call after 5:00 P.m., particularly on a Friday, because the City's administrative offices close at 5:00 p.m. Secondly, Mr. Pratt advised that the call was "odd" because it concerned a competitive selection process that was underway. Finally, Mr. Pratt opined that the conversation was inappropriate because a specific firm (Middlebrooks and Associates) was mentioned by the Commisstoner for consideration. (7) Mr. Pratt advised that he is accustomed to receiving "inquiries" from individuals seeking information about City matters. However, Mr. Pratt opined, his conversation with the Res onde t clearly went beyond the inquiry stage. He stated, "It [the conversation suggested p at them [Middlebrooks and Associates] more favorably than somebody else." Mr. that I should look tt said Respondent did not attempt to intimidate him and said nothing that indicated that there wou d the a reward or punishment for him if the Middlebrooks firm was or was not selected. (g) City Attorney Gallop explained that the City of South Miami has a City Manager form of Government and therefore, City Commissioners are "policy makers" and are not involved in the "day to day" operations of the City. Mr. Gallop advised that the City Charter, Article VI, Section 7 (appended as Exhibit A) limits the amount of influence City Commissioners have over City employees. Mr. Gallop stated that the Respondent, along with the other Commissioners, has been informed about this Section on more then one occasion. Mr. Gallop said that most briefed the Commissioners on the City Charter followin. the City election held in February 1996e and, therefore, the Respondent should be "very familiar'' with the provisions of the Section. Mr. Gallop continued by saving that the Commissioners have also been advised that prudent" to first contact the Citv Manager when making inquiries about City business, proper and (9) The Respondent advised that he was elected as the Vice-Mayor of South February 1994. Mr. Young explained that the position of V ice -Mayor is awardedto h mCiity Commissioner who received the highest number of votes in the most recent City election. Consequently, Commissioner Young advised that he relinquished the Vice -Mayor seat following the City's February 1996 election and will serve out the remainder of his four year Commissioner. term as a City (10) Mr. Young advised that his occupation is in public administration, although he currently is unemployed. He noted that he left his former em January plover, the Florida Department of Labor, on 1996. The Respondent indicated that his oniv connection to the firm of Middlebrooks oil e and Associates is that he knows Mr. Joseph Middlebrooks, the head of the company. (11) Mr. Young advised that he has known both Mr. Pratt and Mr. Middlebrooks for approximately 20 years. He explained that they all became acquainted while attending school and working at the University of Miami. Mr. Young explained that he is "cordial" with both men but that he does not have regular contact with either of them. He said that he occasionally encounters Mr. Pratt at City Commission meetings and that he has not had a "problem" with Mr. Pratt relative to his position as a City employee. Mr. Young said that he normally will see Mr. Middlebrooks a couple of times a year, either at a social function or by "happenstance." Mr. Young related that in 1995 he and Mr. Middlebrooks worked together on an "ad hoc task force" made up of business and professional people. The task force dealt with "recreation" within the City, Mr. Young said. (I?) Mr. Eddie Cox, City Manager of South Miami, advised in a telephone interview that he was aware that Mr. Young and Mr. Middlebrooks had an active relationship. Referring to a memorandum he received from Mr. Young in June 1995 (appended as Exhibit B), Mr. Cox stated that he became aware that Mr. Young was meeting with constituents to determine how available grant money should be spent on a proposed City building project. Mr. Cox indicated that the Citv had a process in place at the time to determine how best to spend available grant money. He stated that he was unaware of any responsibility or authority Mr. Young had to participate in such meetings, other than his obligations as a City Commissioner. Mr. Cox opined that the meetings and the above referenced memorandum were in large part an effort by the Respondent to gain "visibility" for Mr. Middlebrooks' firm and to "link" it to City projects. Mr. Cox advised that the Social Service and Recreation Center referred to in Mr. Young's memorandum has developed into a "multi -use facility" and was the impetus for the formation of the R. F. I. Committee, of which Mr. Pratt was a member. (I n)) Mr. Young advised that Mr. Middlebrooks contacted him on January 19, 1996 to inquire about the status of his firm relative to the R. F. I. Committee's review. Mr. Young recalled that he told Mr. Middlebrooks that he did not know the firms status but that he would find out and let him know. The Respondent maintains that he called Mr. Pratt to ask if Mr. Middlebrooks' firm was still in the runnina." not knowing that Mr. Pratt was a member of the R. F. I. Committee. Mr. Young stated, "It was just a stab in the dark that I called Pratt, I did not know who was on the Committee or where they were in the process." He recalled that Mr. Pratt told him that Middlebrooks and Associates was still under consideration. Mr. Young said that the purpose of his call was to "inquire" about the status of Middlebrooks and Associates' application. Referring to Article VI, Section 7. the Respondent stated that the City Charter allows him to "inquire" about City business. He further maintains that he did not ask Mr. Pratt to " A consideration to Middlebrooks and ssociates." Mr. Young could offer no explanation as to how Mr. Pratt could have misinterpreted his inquiry. 1 `I) Ms. Ronetta Taylor, Hialeah Gardens City Clerk. opined in a telephone interview that the Respondent knew that Mr. Pratt was a member of the R.F. I. Committee. She advised that she received the information from firms applying to the R. F. I. Committee and that the incoming 3 applications were stored in her office. Ms. Taylor recalled a- conversation with the Respondent in which she specifically commented to him that she would like for Mr. Pratt to remove the applications from her office. Ms. Taylor said that during the conversation it was obvious to her that the Respondent was aware that Mr. Pratt was on the R. F. I. Committee. (15) Mr. Joseph Middlebrooks, of Middlebrooks and Associates Inc., related by telephone interview that he has known the Respondent and Mr. Pratt for "some time." Mr. Middlebrooks could not recall participating in an "ad hoc committee on recreation," but he advised that he and Commissioner Young have participated in City meetings in which recreational facilities were discussed. Mr. Middlebrooks stated that he does not recall having contacted the Respondent relative to the City's R. F. I. Committee. However, he acknowledged that it is possible that he did contact the Respondent on the matter. Mr. Middlebrooks was questioned about a telephone message record (appended as Exhibit C) that was provided by Ms. Taylor, the City Clerk, in which Mr. Middlebrooks is recorded to have telephoned the Respondent on January 19 and asked that the Respondent return his call. Mr. Middlebrooks restated that he does not recall specifically contacting the Respondent. The telephone message record indicates that in addition to Mr. '.Middlebrooks' call, the Respondent also received calls from Mr. Tom '�� estberg of Middlebrooks and Associates on January 1 and 19, 1995. Mr. Westberg advised in a telephone interview that he did not recall having made the telephone calls to the Respondent. He said that it is possible that he placed the telephone call for Mr. Middlebrooks. Mr. Middlebrooks indicated that he knows of no reason why the Respondent would advocate for his firm in City matters. Note: The firm of Middlebrooks and Associates. Inc. was eliminated from competition by the City's R. F. I. Committee for factors unrelated to this matter. END OF REPORT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 4 rt y C 77 N w n a w M w rt rOr II• 7 `< crt � Q. n H � � � � � (D � O w n 0 He 0 �E 'CL :c o n t-� (] II. !D rt C C (D C < r• (D w p C C• n r- ? fD 'II N r- d N' F,. O' tA• n `G a C rY•'-.. -3 O o Pa a w �� O•� rt rt 0 k'' N c-J, C 0x1 ~C O- 5 rt H � o rwr Pi 40) f 'i 0 w t-^ ►-* (D rt �. C (h (D (D (D� n N rt ?-I rt r� rrr''� �•o rt ra N- an rn rt rs <. f.. (D r• 5 U1 �' O C O N 0 b O ? (D (D M C rt C (D p, (n He E He W ° n a N � � n (n (D O (D rt H a D `G fl n He (D (n ( m Ho D O N cn 0 < z He He He He (n He " 'a 0 0 rt C r (D Imi z Ped N rt rt rt a ON Fed H 0O O' C N. ' C b E rt . CD (D 0, . ? 5 r- n C rt n O fn w O n'C a �- n 0 PO rat rt 0 0 r- (i (D rt (7 {y rf (D n (D 0 (D rt rt (D (D O- n rt (D r- N -� rA w 7 O, (D n M f l 0 N N• O h'• °� N� n� N (D '�< ri C rt n r O (n O rt w N rt � rD in LQ C N N• 0 0e ~• M �• N•`c1 0 rt O (D (D� (D a =- O• rt O C (A n rt n rn W Ll. !v = a rt rt He (D rt w C• rt (D le + (D O O Zr O TJ O- O O (D � (rr rt w r• (D (D rt (D n `C tt ri (D N 0 (D rt < rt rm (D (D '�< N rt C n rt N N n N rt t3 rt >v 'T3 (n (D (n n Y a (!, O. 0 0 (D ^r 'B (D (D C' O .'7' w (D rt, rt 0 5 rt (D W t-j C !--• in < (D ,a LQ r• C (D N Cl, rt N rto (D n C w N C r• (D rt (D (D C w Irr n C rt a .. r• 0 w 5 N rt ~• rt �~ C N N C rt :y w C rn ;1) N � n r• I. tw—' (D O N 1C-' (D n rt 0 O i n n n M �' ° C ° N (D O + C, w (D M x1 r. a R. w > r- w n w n = 'II N' n n<i w (<D w n �. �• r n ct C' N n N rt (�D O (D rt (D (D rt w r• (D -- (D C rt rt w a, it C L< w H, < ,II P n a (D w ~ c1, (D "0 rt N. ` (A n• n n n r- n n M rt 0- 0 rt (D C nj O W r• (D n rt N< 0 rt O `r C rt rt He 5 (D rt C 'II n (D N 0 r• rt K p a, rt C >y a, N r{ (D w rt N rt � N Sl ct O, rt t7• (D ,< �L r• < rt (D � w `O 'G rt rt (D ( r• r• O C n 7� n w r (D £ (D rt < N n w rt `< rt ro p, (n OeWO rt m (D r w 0 l-r (D ° `O — S' n 0 0 ~ (D 0 O r. C fD �.. r� n rY w 1..- ... rS n r- n ]" C' C, rr rt O a N C r. G1, C1. C rt O N (D r (D rS iQ (1, O Q >y h7 w w �"' 0 5 n 0. 0 (D n• 0 rr rr- (D (D r• fl. Ll, (D O N y rN fi C - O TO FROM RE: INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM s Eddie Cox City Manager R . Paul Yon a t � vice Ma a" "G�'`� Y� U DATE: 7124195 Development of Social Service and Recreation Center Pursuant to several recent meetings with the Joe Middlebrooks and several influential brought to my attention that the community facilities: a recreational facility and a sc to meet community needs. Moreover, I have learned that facilities in the six (6) figure not limited to a hat f- million several individuals, architectural firm of constituents it was is interested in two )cial service facility ade_uate fundi c ng of these two range can be made available and is dollars as previously thought by I have also discussed maintenance costs with several influential constituents and residents and they concur that it if becomes necessary to vote for a special assessment district to generate funds to help defray these costs that they would have no difficulty with it at a11. In fact, these constituents have indicated to me that they do not want a band aid approach to this critical community need (i.e., recreation and social service centers). As the situation continues to develop I will keep you and the members of the city Commission. advised being made. of the progress that is There appears to be a real breakthrough in the communit with the able assistance of the J y oseph Middlebrks Architectural f bringing these en vi irm in sioned oofacilities to reality. c= Mayor and commission Joseph Middlebrooks ,I FOR / DATE M OF PHONE q S�! , I� %S J AfREA CCE MESSAGE �MBER t irEN PHONE, IMESSAGE .Y `•..VI's .�ryt ,<. -�4s• yL�t:� ply_ �. =A FENSION rMONE CALL ) A.M. --__ T ME P.M. TELEPHONED RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN TO YOU 'fSC 11540 �OF .Y `•..VI's .�ryt ,<. -�4s• yL�t:� ply_ �. =A FENSION rMONE CALL ) A.M. --__ T ME P.M. TELEPHONED RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN TO YOU 'fSC 11540 �+� lhlr. @fit Srrt�..y; • �• -tow ff r' .t' _I j: i -tow ff r' .t' _I j: R. Paul Young 6825 Hardee Road Miami, Florida 33143 (305) 665 -2685 May 28, 1996 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 P.O. Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Fl 32317 -5709 Dear Ms. Williams: mg y 3 0 �5 Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to respond to the Report of Investigation, regarding complaint No. 96 -14, In re: Paul Young, dated May 23, 1996, received Saturday afternoon May 26, 1996. Enclosed below is a statement of what occurred on the afternoon of January 19, 1996, which is the exact statement given to investigator, Mr. Bo Jackson of your office when we met in Miami. However, I would like to categorically state for the official record the following: 1. My telephone call to Mr. Bill Pratt on January 19th, 1996 at 4:59PM was one of inquiry (which is appropriate under Article VI, Section 7, Page 55 of the South Miami City Charter). A copy of this section of the charter was given to Mr. Bo Jackson by me during our meeting (appended as Exhibit A of the Report of Investigation). 2. The City Manager nor any other representative of the City had advised me at the time in question , what stage the competitive selection process was so I did not know nor did I feel uncomfortable inquiring about the Page ? of 5 aa competitive status of a minority South Miami firm. Moreover, my telephone call was one of inquiry and now more than that and its duration was less that a couple of minutes. 3. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Bo Jackson inquired about the number of times I normally encounter Mr. Middlebrooks, socially and I said over the years about twice a year at his New Year's Eve and Halloween parties. 4. Because one of my campaign commitments was to improve recreation for Aaaw the community; I had been actively working for enhancing the Recreation Department. This work by me preceded Mr and involved the following: . Cox 's tenure as City Manager A. A meeting in Boca Raton, which I arranged with Boca Raton Parks and Recreation Director Tom Alexander along with key members of the South Miami Recreation Department. The specific purpose of the meeting was to show our recreation department staff how a first class recreation department operates and to seek their assistance and learn from them. B. Prior City Manger Bill Hampton. decided to retain the consultant services of Mr. Tom Alexander of Boca Raton to study and review South Miami's Recreation Department. A comprehensive report was developed and submitted to the Commission.. along with suggested annual budget recommendations for the Recreation Department. C. An Adhoc task force consisting of business and professional individuals, residents and members of the Alliance for Youth was convened by me several times at the South Miami Hospital Education Center for luncheon meetings to discuss ways and means of enhancin the Recreation Department and the development and location of a g community recreation facility. To the best of my knowledge the following individuals attended at least one or more meetings: City Manager Bill Hampton; City Clerk, Rosemary Wascura; Recreation Department Director Jim Cowen; Commissioner Tom Cunningham; Attorney Joe Reisman, Mr. Al Alias; Mr. Dick Ward: Mr. Lee Pe Ms. Sheen Aver v- Ms. Daisey Harrell: Ms. Margret Harden; Mr. Joe Middlebrooks; Mr. Tom Alexander: Ms. Joyce Shechter and others. Page 3 of 5 5. With respect to my memorandum of July 24, 1995, appended as Exhibit B it should be noted that the memorandum was a result of my ongoing effort as chair of the Adhoc Recreation Task Force to determine what the citizens of South Miami really wanted in terms of a community facility and its preferred location. This was a potentially explosive issue since various constituents had strongly diverse views on the location within the community and what specific purpose the building should he constructed. 60 I made a sincere effort to keep my campaign commitment for recreation enhancement and to assist the citizens of South Miami of fac in obtaining the kind ility they desired with an appropriate location. There was unequivocally no intent either expressed or implied on my part to give visibility to Mi ddlebrooks and Associates as Mr. Cox erroneously alleges, 7. I have no idea: how or why Mr. Bill Pratt misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued my telephone inquiry call of January 19, 1996, to him at approximately 4:50PM. Furthermore, during my brief inquiry, Mr. Pratt did not express or indicate any anger, displeasure, concern and/or dissatisfacti with me or my inquiry. Quite frankly, was totally on learned that Mr. Pratt had expressed y� y �pnsed when I later mgmn'. This was not the firt time I had spoken withohim y telephone fact, Mr. Pratt had telephoned me on several previous occasions seeking assistance in obtaining and facilitatin my the years I have known him there has grant been any ind ca matters. In all of less than a cordial conversation. The only thing that I can deduce from Mr. Pratt's allegation is that: he did not listen attentively and clearly understand what I was saying to him during my brief telephone inquiry of January 19th or he may have been intimidated by others in authority at a later time or he w under duress for reasons unbeknown to me. as Again, I am honestly and unequivocally stating that I never stated, nor implied that he (Mr. Pratt) should look at Middlebrooks and Associates more favorably than somebody else during my brief telephone inquiry of Janu 19, 1996. iL I ary a r Page 4 of 5 8. I quite honestly and to the best of my knowledge do not recall or have knowledge of South Miami, City Clerk, Ms. Ronetta Tavlor, advising me that she had possession of the applications from various firms responding to the RFI Committee and that Mr. Bill Pratt was a member of the RFI Committee. In fact I had no interests in or the need to know about the RFI Committee until Mr. Middlebrooks inquired of me about the status of the process on January 19, 1996, when I told him, I would find out. 9. Finally, I have the utmost respect for the public trust and would do nothing to break it. It is my sincere belief, that I have done nothing that violates the South Miami City Charter and certainly nothing that violates Florida Statutes warranting action by the Commission on Ethics either prior to and/or during my tenure in public office. I am an honorable, sincere and ethical person who seeks only to serve the citizens of the City of South Miami to the very best of my ability. I have never sought compensation, favors, or anything of value from anyone doing business with the City of South Miami and to the best of my knowledge no one has offered or promised me anything of value during my tenure of 2 1/2 years as a City Commissioner, nor have I done anything with wrongful intent. Neither have I misused or attempted to misuse my Position as a South Miami City Commissioner with a telephone inquiry of January 19, 1996. Furthermore, the complaint alleges a violation of Florida Statute 1 12.313(6). That statute is based on intent and I have demonstrated in this letter that I never intended to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for the Middlebrooks Firm. The sole purpose of my telephone call was to inquire about the status in the competitive process, in response to an inquiry from the Middlebrooks firm. This inquiry is perfectly consistent with the South Miami Citv Charter, Article VI, Section 7 Page 55. While Mr. Pratt's interpretation of our conversation is unfortunate, his mere opinion that I intended to influence him is insufficient to establish a violation of section 112.313(6) of the Florida Statutes. Had I intended to influence Mr. Pratt I would have necessarily called the other members of the Selection Committee since Mr. Pratt had only one (1) out of three (3) votes on that committee. Yet the report of Investization shows that I did not call any of the other members of the Selection,¢ Page 5 of 5 Committee. This evidence demonstrates that I could not have intended to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for the Middlebrooks and Associates firm. Moreover, because the City of South Miami has a City Manager form of government and City Commissioners are only policy makers. Nothing I could have said to Mr. Pratt could have or would have influenced his decision. The City Manager, not the City Commission is Mr. Pratt's direct supervisor and only he could have any influence over Mr. Pratt's decisions. Thank you very much again for providing an opportunity for me to respond to the Report of Investigation. If you need to reach me. please telephone me at (305) 665 -2685. Respectfully and sincerely, R. Paul Young enc: Iphoned Bill Pratt on January 9 1996 ry at approximately 4:59PM and he answered his telephone at 5:01 PM. At that time, I said hello this is Paul Young calling. How are you? I then told Bill Pratt that I was calling to inquire about the competitive status of the firm Middlebrooks and Associates, a South Miami Minority owned firm in the selection process. I asked Bill whether or not the Middlebrooks & Associates firm were still in the running in the selection process? Bill Pratt responded: they are still in the running. And I said thank you very much, that's all I needed to know. And then I said goodbye and hung up. I categorically did not know who the members of the selection committee were, nor what stage the committee was in its selection process, nor what was the selection criteria and neither did I inquire about these or other items relating to the selection process by the selection committee. BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS In re: Paul Young, Respondent. Complaint No. 9644 .., 0 90 The undersigned Advocate, after reviewing the Complaint and Report of Investigation filed in this matter, submits this Recommendation in accordance with Commission Rule 34- 5.006(3), Fla.Admin.Code, PARTIES The Respondent, Paul Young, is a member of the South Miami City Commission. The Complainant, Earl Gallop, is the City Attorney for the City of South Miami, JURISDICTION The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics determined that the Complaint was legally sufficient and ordered a preliminary investigation for a probable cause determination as to whether the Respondent violated Section 112,313 (6), Florida Statutes. The Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 1126322, Florida Statutes. The Report of Investigation was released on May 23, 1996. ALL.EC7 TION nNF The Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by attempting to influence a member of a City architectural services selection committee to favor a particular firm. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. No public officer or employee of an agency shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position or any property or resource which may be within his trust, or perform his official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. The term "corruptly" is defined by Section 1113 12(9), Florida Statutes, to mean: "Corruptly" means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties. In order to establish a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, the following elements must be proved: 1 • The Respondent must have been a public officer or employee. 2• The Respondent must have: a) used or attempted to use his or her official position or any property or resources within his or her trust, or b) performed his or her official duties. 3• The Respondent's actions must have been taken to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for him- or herself or others. -2- 4. The Respondent must have acted corruptly, that is, with wrongful intent and for the purpose of benefitting him- or herself or another person from some act or omission which was inconsistent with the proper performance of public duties. ANALYSIS On January 19, 1996, the City of South Miami's three- member Request for Information (R.F.I.) Committee had under consideration proposals submitted by several firms offering architectural, engineering, and surveying services. (ROI 3-4) The Committee's task was to review the proposals and forward its recommendations to the City Manager. (ROI 4) One of the firms being considered was Middlebrooks and Associates. (ROI 6) William Pratt, Director of the City's Office of Development, was a member of the R.F.I. Committee. (ROI 3) At around five o'clock' on the afternoon of the 19th the Respondent called Mr. Pratt. (ROI 6, 13) The most detail Mr. Pratt can recall of the conversation is that Respondent said something to the effect of, "give consideration to this `specific law firm [ Middlebrooks and Associates]. "' (ROI 6) However, he [Mr. Pratt] says that Respondent's statements, along with the fact that the call came so late in the day, and dealt with a competitive selection process in progress, lead him to believe that "the clear propose of the communication was to encourage me to give favorable consideration to a Particular applicant, being Middlebrooks and Associates, Inc." The evidence is undisputed that he asked Mr was still under consideration (Attachment to Complaint, p. 4) Pratt whether Middlebrooks and Associates (ROI 6, 13) But Respondent states that he was merely following up on an inquiry made of him by Mr. Middlebrooks, and that his call to Mr. Pratt was merely one of Pratt says it was just after five, (ROI 4) the Respondent states it was 4:59 Investigation) (Response to Report of inqutrv. (ROI 13) The Respondent asserts he was not even aware Mr. Pratt was on the R.F.I. Committee. In my view the evidence here is not sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. It is true that it is the rare case where an official seeking to improperly use his influence states his wishes bluntly, and it is also true that there is no evidence of any motive for Mr. Pratt to misstate or exaggerate the impression he received from his conversation with the Respondent. Nevertheless, the only facts to which Mr. Pratt can testify are that Respondent said, "something to the effect" of asking for consideration, and this, in my opinion, is insufficient evidence on which to base a prosecution. The timing of the call, the fact that Mr. Pratt was on the selection committee, and the Respondent's relationship with Middlebrooks, all bolster Mr. Pratt's testimony, but not to a degree sufficient to move forward: an afternoon telephone call to a city office is not inherently unusual, the evidence that Respondent knew Mr. Pratt was on the R.F.I. Committee is itself based on inference and opinion, and though Respondent clearly had a relationship with Middlebrooks, there is no evidence of any specific motive for him to try to improperly benefit the firm. Based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend the Commission find there is no probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 1 12.313(6), Florida Statutes. 2This statement is somewhat undercut by the testimony of the City Clerk, who states she had a conversation with Respondent the context of which made it clear that Mr. Pratt was on the committee. (ROI 14) -4- RECOMMENDATION It is my recommendation that: 1 • There is no probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged. Respectfully submitted this day of June, 1996, VIRLINDIA DOSS Advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics Florida Bar No. 0607894 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL -01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1050 -5- 14-96- 1614 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF iuE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; ?EIATING TO ETHICS; PROVIDING FOR INDEMNIFICATION OF LEGAL DEFENSE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, OR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, DINANCES IN Cpr1FLICT, AND WHEREAS, Florida courts recognize that public officials are entitled to legal representation at public expense fcr successfully defending themselves against administrative c'_zarges and litigation arising from the performance of their official duties while serving a public purpose; and, WHEREAS, the purpose to be ach'_eved by providinq legal epresentation for public officials is the avoidance cf barriers to public service and public employment caused by she chilling effect that a denial of representation night have on publ'_c officials in perfcrming t!err duties properly and diligently; and, WHEREAS, neither Florida Statutes nor the City of Souttj Miarn� Code �f Ordinances specifically provide for pays L of legal expenses incurred by city officials who prevail in defending against charges filed against them, with the Florida Ethics Commi=sicn, the c_t1; - commission , in the Dade County r ., ourt, cr In any other udiC'a', cruasi- judicial, or adnin_stratiJe forum; and, in rec Flc WE the e=ve ent rida EREAS publi inde as is the Ma C intere mnificat req;,ire yor ana s to c icn for d 'ender the �'ty Corrmissicn find that odify the right of city officials to such _egal expenses to the same the ,crrmon maw cf the State of NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIANII, FLORIDA: Section 1. It is found and declared to be in the ?public interest to provide for the indemnification of the reasonable legal expenses incurred oy city officials who prevail in defending against ethics charges filed against them with tine Florida Ethics Commission, the city commission, in the Dade County Court, or in any other judicial, quasi judicial, or administrative forum to the same extent as is re qu red under the common '_Gw of the ti fate of Florida. Section 2. Definitions. CA 8b£9299s02 IWt1IW k Page 2 Ord. #14 -96 -1614 1 The term "city official" `jeans the Mayor, a member of the city commission, or a member of any agency, authority, ooard committee of the city, the city manager, the city ttorney and the city clerk, an employee or an agent of the city. 2. The term "reasonable legal expenses" means reasonable attorney's fees and costs which are necessarily incurred in providing a successful defense to an ethics charge. 3, The term "ethics charges" means a formal charge of a violation of a code of ethics for public officers and employees, that is alleged to be applicable to city Officials, filed in a judicial, quasi - judicial, or administrative forirn, which arises ender §112,311- §112~ 326, Florida Statutes, the City Charter and the City Code .f ^.irdinances, the Metropolitan Dade County Code, or any other provision of the Florida Statutes, or the city or Colin' y codes pertaining :.c e �hics . 4 The t-erm "rrevai." means aw.1 charges filed in a procetlding are dismissed for any reason or the accused is found irnoce:-:r. of all charges, The germ "prevail" does riot meal; !1) the accused ~leads no contest to any cf the Charges; or, (2) any of the charges are wit.�:drawn or dismissed under an.y circumstances relating to the accused reaching an agreement with .he complainant or the pro :3ec'_;ting authority. Section 31 The city shall indemnify a city official for the reasonable legal expenses incurred by an official who prevails -_n de Fending against ethics charges filed against the -)fficial With '_`e Florida Ethics Commission, she city commission, in lihe Dade (I Court, cr in any other judiciai, quasi - jtidicwal, o �Amir.istratj_ve forum tc the same extent as is reguireci t=(ier onmori law of the State of Florida. I«c.'e:nni,t .cat ,_or shall be paid after .he conclusion of the trial ana appella4.E _)roceedings upon findings by the city _ommission ".ha= ;1) t..e city orfiCial prevailed in the proceeding's; (2) the charges arose out of or in connection with *the performance of the official's ot'_iCial duties; (3) the acts or omissions cornnlained of served a valid public purpose; and, A) the legal expenses inci;rreU by to city official are reasonable. The city commission shall '1e guided by the opinion oL the city attcrney regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the legal expenses ncurred by hhe ci.t•r off ic__a- . Legal expenses shall be presumed to be reasonable it they are incurred purtivant to a litigation plan and buduet that approved by the city attorney before they are in ,marred. "ect-on This ordinance shall be codified in the amity of south Miami Code of Ordinances as Sec. 2 -4.6A. Common law indemnification of city officials. 9gse2: IwaIw H1f10S _710 L a JA i Page 3 of Ord, 714-' '96 -1614 e Section If any section, ?ause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason :held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent 41arisdiction, ;.he holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. All ordinances cr parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 7, This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 6th ATTEST: City Clerx 1st Reading - July 23, 2nd Reading - August 6, REAL AND APPROVED AS TC City Attorney 1996 1996 FORM: day of August 1996. APPROVED: yor COMMISS Mayor C Vice Ma CC) mmiss Commi ss CommiSS 10 IN unni yor ione ione i one V n r r r OTE: gham: obain PH c Seth Youn 5 -c Yea a: Yea e: Yea el; Yea 91 Yea 2E `�j SV29F99se2 IWt' H.Lnds W TS:.7n r L. _UMM. UN t I " r aX : JU4-c d8S 50 f r � C Feb 17:40 P.OliUl � 1 STATE OF FI.nRIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS P. O. DRAWER 15709, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA s9317 -5709 COMPLAINT 1. PERSON BRINGINGQMPLAINT: Earl G. Ga loo, Fsa. o/b / o NameCity Commission of t e City of auutli Miami Address: Telephone Number: 305-374-5505 501 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 300 Co ity: Miami Dade Count: Zip Code: 3 3131 2. PERSON AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT. (Current or former public officer, public employee, candidate, or lobbyist) (Please use one complaint form for each person you wish to complain against): Paul Young Name: Telephone Number: 305 -665 -2685 Address: 6825 S . W, 64th Street City: South Miami Dade County: Zip Code. 33143 Title of office or position held or sought: Vice— ?Iayor. , City of South Miami 3. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Please explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets, providing a detailed description of the facts and the actions of the person named above. Include relevant dates and the names and addresses of persons whom you believe may be witnesses. If you believe that a particular provision of Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) or of Part III, Chapter 113, Florida Statutes (the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees) has been violated. please state the specific section(s). You need not attach copies of documents; if they are relevant, your description of them will suffice. See the attached affidavit of Mr. Bill Pratt 4. OATH: Resolution no, 35 -96 -9788 and supporting documents STATE OF FLORIDA �1 COUNTY OF Daz I, the person bringing this complaint. do depose on oath or affirmation and say that the facts set forth in the foregoing complaint and attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT Sworn to (or affirmed and subscribed before me this day of �.Q c� r 19 by �rl r L(; gallon v (Print, T)pe, or Stamp COMMitiioned Nurse of Notary Public) Personally Known 1,_ OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced: RESOLUTION NO, 25 -96 -9788 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ETHICS; REQUESTING THE FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER A COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE STATE CODE OF ETHICS OR OTHER LAWS. WHEREAS, it is reported that a city commissioner of the City Of South Miami contacted a member of the architectural services selection committee and attempted to influence the favorable consideration by that member of an applicant during the competitive selection process; and, WHEREAS, the reported contact by a city commissioner with a city employee, if true, violates the requirement of article VI, section 8 of the city charter, which provides that "Except for the Purpose of inquiry, the Commission and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager" and the contact may further violate the prohibition that "neither the Commission nor any member thereof shall give orders to- any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately "; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to article II, section 4A of the city charter, a willful or intentional violation of a prohibition of the city charter is punishable by forfeiture of office; and, WHEREAS, section 2- 11.1(g) of the Metropolitan Dade County Code (county code of ethics) prohibits a municipal public official from exploiting the official's position by using or attempting to use the official's position to secure special privileges for others; and, WHEREAS, section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (state code of ethics) prohibits a municipal public official from corruptly using, or attempting to use, the official's public position to secure a special privilege or benefit for others; and, WHEREAS, a finding by the Florida Ethics Commission of a violation of the state code of ethics is punishable one or more of the following: by removal or suspension from office, public censure and reprimand, forfeiture of a portion of the official's salary and a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000; and, WHEREAS, the city commission believes that good cause exists to request the Florida Ethics Commission, by filing a complaint, to investigate the reported conduct. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: EXHIBIT 0 Section 1 The city attorney is directed to secure an affidavit from the employee who reported the conduct and to prepare and file a complaint with the Florida Ethics Commission. Section 2. The city manager, city attorney and city clerk are directed to cooperate with any investigation by the Florida Ethics Commission. Section 3. The complaint, the affidavit and any investigations relating to the complaint, shall remain confidential, as required by law, unless waived by the accused. Section 4. This resolution shall take ef)lect immediately upon approval. // PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of Febr4ry s 1995. Mat_ _ /.. READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY E= \es9 \ethica0res CERTIFICATION ity Clerk of the City of South mi, Dade County, Florida do hereby certiy this document to he a true and corect copy of dated ���s� , according to the records of the City of South Miami, Florida. Given my hand and the official Seal of the City of SoLAh Miami, Florida this day of Axe City Clerk APPROVED: MAYOR MAYOR CARVER VJCE PAAYOR YOUNG CURvUS.1O&P. BASS Cowse "vDUR CXPER YEA v NAY _ YEE NAY _ YEA NAY _ YEA NAY CMWSSIONER C!VN1NGHAM YEA NAY __ AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA) )SS COUNTY OF DADE ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Mr. Bill Pratt, who being by me first duly sworn on oath deposes and says: 1. I am employed by the City of South Miami as the Director of the Office of Development. The statements made in this affidavit are true and based on my personal knowledge. 2. Ms. Sonia Lama, AIA, Acting Director, Building and Zoning, Ms. Diana Morris, Assistant to the City Manager and I were appointed by Mr. Eddie Cox, City Manager, to serve on the RFI Review Committee. The charge of the committee was to review the qualifications of architectural and engineering firms and to recommend the selection of firms to be used by the city under competitive negotiation procedures. 3. On Friday, January 19, 1996, just after 5:00 p.m., I received a telephone call at my office from vice -mayor Paul Young. The telephone call occurred during the process of selecting A & E firms to be recommended by the City Manager to the City Commission. The clear purpose of the communication was to encourage me to give favorable consideration to a particular applicant, being Middlebrooks & Associates, Inc. 4. As a result of the communication from the vice - mayor, I withdrew from the RFI review committee. For reasons unrelated to the communication, Mr. Middlebrooks' EXHIBIT firm was not recommended for retention by the city. A copy of my January 22, 19 9 6 memorandum to Mr. Cox, regarding the communication is attached and made a part of this affidavit. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this y da of Affiant ��ti J99� Notary Public, State of Florida Print Name: My commission expires: EGG /egg /Pratt.aff OFFICAL NOTARY SEAL NOTARY PUBIJC A OF FWRIDA COMMM'ON NO. CC319817 MY tO�1M1S612N EXP. SE r, 6.1997 Page 2 of 2 i ► 7711i l t 6900 SW 59th Place South Miams. FL 33143 Phane o05 -0508 Fax 665 -0381 To: Mr. Eddie Cox From: Mr. Bill Pratt This is a follow up to our discussion earner today. Date: 1/22/96 Subject: Commissioner Contact I am withdrawing from the RFI review committee. It is my view that continuing could Provide a perception of unfairness in the outcome. This view is based on the following: On Friday January 19, 1996 I received a call from the an elected official just after 5:00 P.M. in reference to the review of firms responding to the RFI for consulting architect/engineer. The essence of the call was to encourage a favorable review of one applicant. This was not a regular communication, and the rating of applications was still underway. In keeping with procedures, I am reporting this contact and assure you that it has not had any impact on my ratings since I had already reviewed this firm and w'il not change that rat'n However, given the situation, I cannot continue on the committee since it may give the appearance of potential favoritism. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. EXHIBIT CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Commission /.F'rom:— Eddie Cox City Manager Date: January 25, 1996 Agenda Item #11/ Re: Comm. Meeting 2/6/96 Architectural and Engineering Services Recognizing the need for occasional consulting services of Architectural and Engineering firms, the City issued a request for proposals from aualified firms interested in providing such services to the city. Services to be provided would include basic construction where costs is not in excess of $500,000, and for study activities when the fee does not exceed $25,000. Our objectives was to identify several firms that could provide a full scope of services. A review committee of three members of city staff were appointed by the City Manager to review the proposals and identify fizzes which could best provide a full range of services to the city. Sonia Lama (Acting Director, Building & Zoning), Diana Morris, (Assistant to City Manager), and Bill Pratt (Director, Office of Development), reviewed the proposals using a uniform criteria sheet. One member of the review committee requested removal from the review process (see attached memo). The two remaining members of the review committee averaged their rating sheets, and based on the highest scores, presented four firms which met the necessary criteria. Those firms are: Corzo, Castella, Carballo, Thompson, Salmam The Architectural Design Consortium, Inc. M.C. Harry and Associates Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc. I request the Commission approve three firms from this group to serve as consultants to the city for projects requiring such expertise and services. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Commission From: Eddie Cox City Manager Date: January 31, 1996 The four proposals selected by Ms. Lama and Ms. Morris are available in my office if you wish to come by and review them prior to the February 6 Commission meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY 3 OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO 4 RETAIN THREE FIRMS AS CONSULTANTS UNDER CONTINUING 5 SERVICES CONTRACT WHERE THE BASIC CONSTRUCTION COST DOES 6 NOT EXCEED $500,000 PER PROJECT, AND FOR STUDY ACTIVITIES 7 WHEN THE FEE DOES NOT EXCEED $25,000. 8 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida proposes projects 9 that require the expertise of architects and /or engineers to be 10 appropriately contracted; and 11 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida requires the 12 preparation of specifications and review of these projects to 13 assure successful implementation; 14 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION 15 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 16 Section 1. That the Mayor and City Commission of the City 17 of South Miami, Florida acknowledges that fourteen firms submitted 18 proposals to serve as the City's consultant and that four (4) firms 19 that met all of the established criteria were identified by a 20 review committee; 21 Section 2. That the Mayor and City Commission of the City 22 of South Miami, Florida authorizes the City Manager to enter 23 contracts with the three firms selected by the Mayor and Commission 24 from the four firms identified by the selection committee, for 25 study activities when the fee does not exceed $25,000 and basic ?6 construction projects where the cost does not exceed $500,000. 27 28 29 all 31 32 33 34 35 Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY day of APPROVED: MAYOR 1996.