Ord No 25-24-2510ORDINANCE NO. 25-24-2510
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8A-7, “CONE OF
SILENCE”, OF CHAPTER 8A, “CODE OF ETHICS,” OF
THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE
CONE OF SILENCE; CONFIRMING THE CITY’S OPTING-
OUT OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONE OF SILENCE
AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2-11.1(t) OF THE MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY CODE AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF
THE PROVISIONS THEREIN; PROVIDING FOR
CORRECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapter 166, Florida
Statutes, provides municipalities with the authority to exercise any power for municipal purposes,
except where prohibited by law, and to adopt ordinances in furtherance of such authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of South Miami (“City”) finds it
periodically necessary to amend its Code of Ordinances (“Code”) in order to update regulations
and procedures to maintain consistency with state law, implement municipal goals and objectives,
clarify regulations, and address specific issues and needs that may arise; and
WHEREAS Section 8A-7 “Cone of Silence” of Chapter 8A “Code of Ethics” of the Code
(the “City’s Cone of Silence”) is applicable during competitive solicitations and prohibits certain
communications, with limited exceptions, between a potential vendor, bidder, or proposer, or agent
or lobbyist, and members of the City Commission, City professional staff and members of the
City’s selection committee; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-11.1(t) (the “County Ordinance”) of the Miami-Dade County
(“County”) Code establishes the County’s cone of silence provision, which is applicable to
municipalities within the County unless a municipality opts out of the requirements of the County
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Cone of Silence differs from the County Ordinance in several
respects, including its termination provision which terminates the prohibition on certain
communications during an active procurement process at the City Commission meeting at which
the Manager’s recommendation is considered, rather than when the City Manager’s
recommendation is made, as would otherwise be required under the County Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the broad prohibition on certain communications, including internal
communications, inhibits rather than promotes the City Commission’s ability to fairly and fully
consider the ramifications of a potential procurement award; and
Document ID: ef958de98043d564739181bf50baded7ebff31e1cd2fada05a8c9f389730630e
Ordinance No. 25-24-2510
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that City’s Cone of Silence provides for
impractical limitations and should therefore be amended to enable better efficiency and decision-
making in procurement; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to confirm it is opting out of the County
Ordinance and the inapplicability of provisions therein to the City’s Cone of Silence and
procurement process; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission further finds that the proposed amendments would
preserve the intent of the City’s Cone of Silence to prohibit communications between a vendor and
the City while a competitive solicitation is undergoing review and evaluation, but would allow
communication between City staff and City Commissioners throughout the process, and between
potential bidders and proposers and City Commissioners, once the evaluation and recommendation
process has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to amend Section 8A-7 of the Code as provided
herein and finds that this Ordinance is in the best interest and welfare of the City and approved it
on first reading on October 15, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing as required by law and approved the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:1
Section 1. Recitals. The above-stated recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. Amending Section 8A-7 “Cone of Silence” of Chapter 8A “Code of
Ethics” of the Code. Section 8A-7 “Cone of Silence” of Chapter 8A “Code of Ethics” of the
City Code of Ordinances, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 8A-7. - Cone of silence.
(a) Definitions.
(1) "Cone of silence", as used herein, means a prohibition of any communication regarding
competitive solicitations such as a request for proposal ("RFP"), request for qualification
("RFQ"), request for information ("RFI") or request for invitation to bid ("RFB ITB"),
between:
1 Coding: Strikethrough words are deletions to the existing words. Underlined words are additions to the existing
words. Changes between first and second reading are indicated with double strikethrough and double underline.
Modifications made at second reading are shaded in dark grey.
Document ID: ef958de98043d564739181bf50baded7ebff31e1cd2fada05a8c9f389730630e
Ordinance No. 25-24-2510
Page 3 of 5
a. A potential vendor, service provider, proposer or bidder (hereinafter referred to as
the "potential bidder"), or agent, representative, lobbyist or consultant for the potential
bidder; (hereinafter referred to as the "bidder's representative"); and
(i) Members of the city commission; or
(ii) City's professional staff; or
(iii) Any member of the city's selection, evaluation or negotiation committee.
b. Members of the city commission shall not communicate with professional staff or
members of the selection, evaluation, and/or negotiation committees at any point in the
competitive process except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) below.
(2) "City's professional staff" means city department heads and their staff and the city
manager and deputy city manager and their staff including consultants involved in the
solicitation, evaluation and negotiation process.
(b) Restriction; notice. A cone of silence shall be imposed upon each competitive solicitation,
commencing with the date that the advertisement of said solicitation is published and the
requirements of this section shall be included in the solicitation. At the time of imposition of the
cone of silence, the city manager or manager's designee shall:
(1) Provide for public notice of the cone of silence by posting a notice at city hall;
(2) Issue a written notice thereof to the affected departments;
(3) File a copy of such notice with the city clerk; and
(4) Serve a copy thereof on each city commissioner.
(c) Termination of cone of silence. The cone of silence shall terminate at the time beginning of the
city commission meeting at which the city manager makes his or her written recommendation to
the city commission or at the time that the solicitation process is terminated by the city manager.
However, if the city commission refers the manager's recommendation back to the manager or
staff for further review, the cone of silence shall be reimposed until the beginning of the city
commission meeting at which such time as the city manager makes a subsequent written
recommendation.
(d) Exceptions to applicability. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) Communications at a duly noticed pre-bid conferences or at any duly noticed public
selection or negotiation committee meeting or duly noticed public city commission meeting
at which the city manager has placed the subject of the solicitation on the agenda;
Document ID: ef958de98043d564739181bf50baded7ebff31e1cd2fada05a8c9f389730630e
Ordinance No. 25-24-2510
Page 4 of 5
(2) Communication regarding the solicitation at recorded contract negotiations, recorded
oral presentation or recorded oral question and answer session and recorded contract
negotiation strategy sessions in compliance with the exemption in F.S. § 286.0113;
(3) Briefings made by the city manager or his designee to the city commissioners during a
meeting following the completion of the selection or negotiation committee meetings;
(3 4) Written communication at any time with any city professional staff (not including
selection, evaluation or negotiation committee members), unless specifically prohibited by
the applicable competitive solicitation documents. This section shall not be construed to
prevent written communication between city professional staff and any city selection,
evaluation or negotiation committee. A copy of any written communication made during
the cone of silence shall be contemporaneously filed with the city clerk by the potential
bidder or bidder's representative. The city clerk shall make copies available to any person
upon request;
(4 5) Communication that is strictly limited to matters of those processes or procedures that
are contained in the corresponding solicitation document and which communication is
between any person and the city's purchasing agent or the city employee who is designated
as being responsible for administering the procurement process for such solicitation;
(5 6) Communications with the city attorney and his or her staff;
(6 7) Communications during any duly noticed site visits to determine the competency and
responsibleness of bidders regarding a particular bid during the time period between the
opening of bids and the time the city manager makes a written recommendation;
(7 8) Any emergency procurement of goods or services pursuant to city code;
(8 9) Responses to a request made by the city's purchasing agent, or the city employee who
is designated as being responsible for administering the procurement process for such
solicitation, for clarification or additional information;
(9 10) Communications prior to bid opening between city's professional staff and potential
bidders and/or bidder's representatives to enable city staff to seek and obtain industry
comment or perform market research, provided all communications related thereto between
a potential bidders and/or bidder's representatives and any member of the city's professional
staff including, but not limited to the city manager and his or her staff, are in writing or are
made at a duly noticed public meeting.
(e) Penalties. Violation of this section by a particular bidder or proposer, or their representative,
shall render any award to said bidder or proposer voidable by the city commission and/or city
manager. Any person who violates a provision of this section may be prohi bited from serving on
a city selection or evaluation committee. In addition to any other penalty provided herein, violation
of any provision of this section by a city employee may subject said employee to disciplinary
action at the discretion of the city manager.
Document ID: ef958de98043d564739181bf50baded7ebff31e1cd2fada05a8c9f389730630e
Ordinance No. 25-24-2510
Page 5 of 5
(f) The provisions of this Cone of Silence shall govern communications regarding competitive
solicitations. Accordingly, the City opts-out of Section 2-11.1(t) of the Miami-Dade County Code
of Ordinances and which shall not apply to the City.
Section 3. Opt-Out of the Miami-Dade County Ordinance. The City Commission
hereby formally opts-out of Section 2-11.1(t) of the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances
which shall not be applicable to the City. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of
this Ordinance to the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission.
Section 4. Corrections. Conforming language or technical scrivener-type corrections
may be made by the City Attorney for any conforming amendments to be incorporated into the
final Ordinance for signature.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance
is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Conflicts. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances, resolutions or parts
of resolutions, in conflict herewith, are repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Section 7. Implementation. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take any and
all necessary action to implement the purposes of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption.
PASSED on first reading on the 15th day of October, 2024.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second reading on the 4th day of November, 2024.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM, COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND Mayor Fernández: Yea
EXECUTION THEREOF Vice Mayor Bonich: Yea
Commissioner Calle: Yea
Commissioner Liebman: Yea
Commissioner Corey: Yea
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN COLE
& BIERMAN, P.L.
CITY ATTORNEY
Document ID: ef958de98043d564739181bf50baded7ebff31e1cd2fada05a8c9f389730630e
Signer ID: MVRKNH6T13...
Signer ID: F1HZYBLO13...Signer ID: LHLQYXFA13...
Agenda Item No:15.
City Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: November 4, 2024
Submitted by: Roger Pou
Submitting Department: City Attorney
Item Type: Ordinance
Agenda Section:
Subject:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 8A-7, “CONE OF SILENCE”, OF CHAPTER 8A, “CODE OF ETHICS,” OF THE CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CONE OF SILENCE; CONFIRMING THE CITY’S OPTING-OUT
OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONE OF SILENCE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2-11.1(t) OF THE
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS THEREIN; PROVIDING
FOR CORRECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 3/5 (CITY MANAGER)
Suggested Action:
Attachments:
49W6719-CC Memo Re Ordinance Amending Cone of Silence CAv3.DOCX
49W7073-Ordinance Amending Cone of Silence 2nd Reading - CAv2.DOCX
49W6737-Business Impact Statement For Ordinance - Amending Section 8A-7 - Cone of Silence CAv5.DOCX
MH Ad.pdf
1
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:The Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the City Commission
FROM:Lillian Arango and Tony Recio, City Attorneys
CC:Genaro “Chip” Iglesias
DATE:November 4, 2024 City Commission Meeting
SUBJECT:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8A-7, “CONE
OF SILENCE”, OF CHAPTER 8A, “CODE OF ETHICS,” OF THE CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CONE OF SILENCE;
CONFIRMING THE CITY’S OPTING-OUT OF THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTYCONEOFSILENCE ASSETFORTHINSECTION 2-11.1(T)OF
THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF
THE PROVISIONS THEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;
PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The accompanying Ordinance was prepared at the direction of the City Commission at the
October 1, 2024 City Commission Meeting and contains additional changes and clarifications to
the City’s Cone of Silence as recommended by the City Attorney. It was approved on first reading
on October 15, 2024.
A.BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2017, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No 2273, creating Section
8A-7 “Cone of Silence” of the City Code (the “City’s Cone of Silence”) for the purpose of
prohibiting certain communications, with exceptions, regarding a competitive solicitation between
a potential vendor, bidder, or proposer, or agent or lobbyist, and members of the city commission,
city professional staff and members of the City’s selection committee.
Section 2-11.1(t) (“County Ordinance”) of the Miami-Dade County (“County”) Code
establishes the County’s Cone of Silence provision, and makes such provisions applicable to
municipalities within the County, unless a municipality has adopted an ordinance opting out of the
County’s Ordinance. If a municipality opts out of the County’s Ordinance, the municipality must
provide the Ethics Commission with a copy of the ordinance.
B. CITY’S CONE OF SILENCE PROVISIONS.
Currently, the City’s Cone of Silence provides that the Cone of Silence shall terminate at
the beginning of the City Commission meeting at which the City Manager makes his or her written
2
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
recommendation to the City Commission or at the time solicitation process is terminated by the
City Manager. This Cone of Silencetermination section differs from the County Ordinance, which
provides that the Cone of Silence shall terminate at the time the Mayor makes his or her written
recommendation to the County Commission. Furthermore, the City’s Cone of Silence provisions
also prohibit members of the City Commission from communicating with the City’s professional
staff and imposes the Cone of Silence on non-competitive procurement solicitations issued to
conduct formal market research or gauge market interest.
The broad prohibitions on communications in the City’s Cone of Silence inhibit, rather
than promote, the City Commission’s ability to fairly and fully consider the ramifications of a
potential procurement award and provide impractical limitations on the procurement process.
C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CONE OF SILENCE.
The proposed Ordinance accompanying this memorandum amends the City’s Cone of
Silence by:
1. Providing for the termination of the City’s Cone of Silence upon the issuance of the
City Manager’s recommendation;
2. Eliminating prohibitions on internal communications between members of the City
Commission and the City’s professional staff;
3. Removing the applicability of the City’s Cone of Silence to non-competitive
procurement solicitations issued to conduct formal market research, such as Requests
for Letters of Interest (RFLI);
4. Formally opting out of the County’s Ordinance; and
5. Making other miscellaneous, non-substantive clarifications and clean-ups.
Importantly, the proposed Ordinance does not contravene the intent of the City’s Cone of
Silence. Specifically, the proposed Ordinance retains prohibitions on communications between
vendors and the City’s professional staff, the City Commission, and the City’s selection,
evaluation, and/or negotiation committees until the City Manager issues a formal recommendation.
Furthermore, members of the City Commission would also remain prohibited from communicating
with the City’s selection, evaluation, and/or negotiation committee(s) to ensure the procurement
process is fair.
3
Exhibit “A”
BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATE 1
Title of Proposed Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8A-7, “CONE OF SILENCE”,
OF CHAPTER 8A, “CODE OF ETHICS,” OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES
TO AMEND THE CONE OF SILENCE; CONFIRMING THE CITY’S OPTING-OUT
OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONE OF SILENCE AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 2-11.1(t) OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE AND THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS THEREIN; PROVIDING FOR
CORRECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance and Statement of Public Purpose to be Served:
The proposed ordinance amends Section 8A-7 “Cone of Silence” of Chapter 8A “Code of Ethics” of the City
Code of Ordinances. The "Cone of Silence" in South Miami refers to a local ordinance designed to ensure
transparency and integrity in the procurement process. It prohibits communication between potential bidders or
proposers and city officials during the procurement process to prevent any undue influence or favoritism.
Should the Ordinance be adopted, the Miami-Dade County, Section 2-11.1(t) of the Miami-Dade County Code
of Ordinances shall not apply to the City and the City’s Cone of Silence would govern and go into effect when
a formal solicitation is issued and remains in place until the city manager makes his or her written
recommendation to the city commission or at the time that the solicitation process is terminated by the city
manager.
The proposed ordinance furthers public health, safety, and welfare by helping provide financial oversight to
public funds.
Estimate of Direct Economic Impact on Private/For Profit Businesses:
a. Estimate of Direct Business Compliance Costs:
The proposed ordinance would result in $0 direct compliance costs to businesses if the ordinance is
enacted.
b. New Charges/Fees on Businesses Impacted:
The proposed ordinance does not impose a new fee or charge for which businesses will be financially
responsible.
c. Estimate of Regulatory Costs:
The proposed ordinance changes do not present foreseeable or anticipated cost in regulatory expenses.
1 This Business Impact Estimate is provided to comply with the requirements of Section 166.041(4), Florida Statutes. Please
note that this Business Impact Estimate may be revised following its initial posting as new information or feedback becomes
available.
Meeting Date: November 4, 2024 Agenda Item No.
10
Exhibit “A”
Good Faith Estimate of Number of Businesses Likely Impacted:
The estimated number of businesses likely to be impacted by the ordinance is estimated to be 0
Any Additional Information:
None
Applicable Exemptions2:
This Business Impact Estimate is not required for ordinances that fall under the following exemptions:
☐The proposed ordinance is required for compliance with Federal or State law or regulation.
☐ The proposed ordinance relates to the issuance or refinancing of debt.
☐The proposed ordinance relates to the adoption of budgets or budget amendments, including
revenue sources necessary to fund the budget.
☐The proposed ordinance is required to implement a contract or an agreement, including, but not
limited to, any Federal, State, local, or private grant, or other financial assistance accepted by
the municipal government.
☐ The proposed ordinance is an emergency ordinance.
☐ The proposed ordinance relates to procurement.
☐ The proposed ordinance is enacted to implement the following:
☐Development orders and development permits, as those terms are defined in s. 163.3164,
and development agreements, as authorized by the Florida Local Government
Development Agreement Act under ss. 163.3220-163.3243;
☐Comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulation amendments initiated
by an application by a private party other than the municipality;
☐Sections 190.005 and 190.046, Florida Statutes, regarding community development
districts;
☐Section 553.73, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Building Code; or
☐Section 633.202, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Fire Prevention Code
Prepared By:
Name: Alfredo Riverol
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: October 25, 2024
Posted on City’s Website:
Date of Posting: ____________
2 If one or more boxes are checked under this section, it indicates that the City has determined that a business impact estimate
is not required by state law for the proposed ordinance, but the City is providing the business impact estimate as a courtesy.
11
Exhibit “A”
12
6A .............................................................................................MIAMI HERALD FRIDAY OCTOBER 25 2024
to Michael’s political com-
mittee.
That same day,A Stron-
ger Florida contributed
$7,500 to a political com-
mittee run by Sen.Danny
Burgess,R-Zephyrhills.
The next day,Burgess filed
a companion bill in the
Florida Senate.
Burgess and Michael did
not respond to The Trib-
utary’s requests for in-
terviews about their cam-
paign finances.
In May,the bill passed
by a vote of 108-6 in the
House and 35-5 in the
Senate.
In the month after the
bill was signed by Gov.
DeSantis,A Stronger Flor-
ida donated to political
committees supporting at
least three of the bill’s
co-sponsors:Reps.Juan
Carlos Porras,Carolina
Amesty and Lopez.Since
2023,Lopez and her politi-
cal committee have re-
ceived $11,000 from A
Stronger Florida.
Diaz,Lopez’s campaign
advisor,said in his written
statement that A Stronger
Florida “has no ties to Rep.
Lopez or her campaign,”
and she “cannot answer
questions regarding the
committee’s donors or
contributions.”
A Stronger Florida also
contributed to committees
run by four of the Miami-
Dade School Board’s nine
members.Miami-Dade is
one of only two Florida
counties with a BusPatrol
contract.
It also gave $267,500 to
the Republican Party of
Florida and another
$150,000 to the Florida
Republican Senatorial
Campaign Committee.
BusPatrol gave an extra
$150,000 to the commit-
tee this month.The com-
mittee has not yet reported
how it has spent that
money.
This year,the Senate
passed a second bill,this
time expanding BusPa-
trol’s ability to make
money from citations.
When the bill went to the
House,Lopez voted for it.
It authorized school-bus
cameras for private and
charter schools and allowed
revenue-sharing through
the fines collected from
traffic violations recorded
through the detectors.This
expanded model could
bring in millions in revenue
for BusPatrol.
This year marks the first
election since BusPatrol
ramped up its donations.
BUSPATROL’S
HIDDEN PAST
BusPatrol has portrayed
itself as a fast-rising com-
pany,securing contracts
with school districts across
16 states.
In 2017,a company
called Force Multiplier
Solutions Canada Inc.
changed its name in Cana-
da to BusPatrol Inc.In the
U.S.,Force Multiplier Solu-
tions’leaders formed new
entities across the country
bearing the name BusPa-
trol.
BusPatrol has claimed it
has no connections to
Force Multiplier Solutions
and has tried to distance
itself from that name.
In 2018,Force Multiplier
Solutions CEO Robert
Leonard was convicted in a
corruption scandal that
took down public officials
and resulted in the closure
of a county agency.A fed-
eral prosecutor told the
judge this was “likely the
largest domestic public-
corruption case in history.”
Leonard pleaded guilty
to paying more than $3.5
million in bribes to the
agency’s former superin-
tendent and a Dallas City
Council member.
After the conviction,
another investigation,this
time by a Maryland coun-
ty’s inspector general,
criticized the Montgomery
County school district for
transferring a contract
from Force Multiplier
Solutions to the newly
named BusPatrol.
“While BusPatrol and
FMS may technically be
different corporate enti-
ties,they remain at the
same address,with the
same telephone number,
and using the same equip-
ment on the same con-
tracts,”the 2019 report
said.“The president of
FMS is now the president
of BusPatrol.…The cur-
rent CEO of BusPatrol is
listed in Canadian legal
documents as being a
Co-Director of Force Mul-
tiplier Solutions Canada.”
BusPatrol’s founder and
former president,David
Poirier,who has since left
BusPatrol,told The Trib-
utary he has no ownership
interest in the company
and declined interview
requests.
When a Maryland state
delegate raised these con-
cerns last year,BusPatrol
denied any connections to
Force Multiplier Solutions
or its convicted CEO.The
company even went so far
as to say BusPatrol’s form-
er CEO,Jean Souliere,
“was never …related to
FMS in any way”even
though he had served as a
director on Force Mul-
tiplier Solutions’s board.
Souliere did not respond
to a request for comments.
LEGISLATURE EVADES
ETHICS AND RECORDS
REQUIREMENTS
Because the work of
Lopez’s son overlaps with
public policy —both as the
Miami mayor’s former
chief of staff and his newer
role at BusPatrol —any
messages related to those
jobs should be public,but
she denied having any
communications,including
with her son,that mention
“BusPatrol”or her son’s
name.
Lopez also said she
didn’t have any calendar
records with BusPatrol or
any of their lobbyists.
Florida’s Constitution
requires legislators’re-
cords to be public,but the
Legislature has exempted
itself from most public-
records laws.Instead,
legislators get to decide for
themselves what’s a record
of “archival value”and act
as the custodians for any
records not maintained by
the House’s Office of Open
Government,according to
House rules.
In addition to setting a
different standard when it
comes to public records,
the Legislature has also set
a different ethics standard
for itself,according to
Caroline Klancke,the
executive director of the
nonprofit Florida Ethics
Institute.Voting-disclosure
requirements are more
robust for local officials
than legislators,she said.
A search of the House’s
daily journals and a public-
records request showed
that Lopez never disclosed
her conflict when she vot-
ed on the 2024 bill.
According to a list of
penalties recommended by
the state ethics commis-
sion since its founding,the
maximum penalty for not
disclosing a voting conflict
has been a $4,000 fee.
The lack of real conse-
quences for conflicts of
interest could leave the
Legislature susceptible to
corporate influence,said
Rosenson,the UF profes-
sor who is an ethics expert.
“When members are de-
pendent on [campaign]
donations from companies,
that can create an ethics
problem and a dependence
on those companies.”
FROM PAGE 5A
LOPEZ
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
In Florida,BusPatrol has spent $680,000-$1.4 million lobbying the legislative and
executive branches in the past four years.
13