Speaking of negative campaign ads and fliers, Bob Norman zeroes in on Ken Keechl's fight to stay on the Broward County Commission

Speaking of negative campaign ads and fliers as we have been the last few days, it wasn't until after the Dolphins at Bengals ballgame this afternoon -a snooze- that I got around to checking my Dashboard inbox to see what new pieces the blogs and websites I follow most closely had put out since early this morning, when I fell asleep listening to the BBC Radio's 5 live instead of ESPN's SportsCenter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live

If I'd checked earlier, I might've linked to something in my last post that I believe is very worthwhile reading for everyone who comes here regularly, for reasons that I should hardly need to explain, given what I've written about and where we live: in the center of the culture of corruption.

Hallandale Beach in Broward County in the South Florida of 2010, the year where most of the South Florida news media was too busy telling us how bad they have it to actually do much in the way of first-rate or even basic reporting on city and county government, or doing shoe-leather reporting on local political campaigns.

Have so many articles on local campaign races ever been written almost entirely from the air-conditioned confines of One Herald Plaza or East Las Olas Blvd.?
In a word, no.

And forget any worthwhile print or TV investigations between Labor Day and Election day, right?
Oh, wait, didn't I predict that over the long hot summer?
Yes.

I mean how long has it been since the BrowardPalmBeach NewTimes Bob Norman wrote his eye-opening Daily Pulp blog piece about the troubling behavior of Broward School chair Jennifer Gottlieb, and yet the two local newspapers and all 4 Anglo TV stations have preferred to just stay mum.
(Whether that's because of the pronounced aversion among the South Florida news media to go after female pols or govt. officials in quite the same way they go after male pols, is another post for another time, though it clearly does, as I've mentioned here previously. I'm hardly alone in this sentiment, since the lack of thoroughness is particularly pronounced among print and TV reporters in Miami covering public education issues.)

Instead, when not belly-aching and making excuses for their loust coverage, they have have gone DEFCON 1 to cover which celebs are going to the first of 41 Miami Heat home games, a game which at the end of the season, will count for no more than one played on Valentine's Day or St. Patrick's weekend or when they are resting the starters late in the interminably long season...
Which is to say, hardly at all.

The article that is positively must-read is this one by Bob Norman from this morning. It speaks for itself.

-----

BrowardPalmBeach NewTimes
November Surprise: Keechl Camp Hits Gutter
By Bob Norman, Sun., Oct. 31 2010 @ 6:00AM

Broward Mayor Ken Keechl appears to be getting desperate. He's certainly getting dirty.

Keechl camp's last-ditch negative ad campaign goes to a new low. Of course he won't take credit for it since it comes from one of those late-date 527 slush committees funded by a mega-lobbyist, a major developer, a construction contractor, and a county airport vendor.

Read the rest of the post at
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/

Irony: That's a hell of a view.
Did someone fire the webcam?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-webcam3,0,3709944.htmlstory

Rearguard action against Broward County ethics proposals continue; Debra J. Saunders: University of Anarchy and No Consequences at Cal-Berkeley

And you thought summer Sundays were going to be boring?

To me, the key sentence from Debra J. Saunders excellent piece below that I got via The Rasmussen Report on the situation at Berkeley is this one: "Moreover, the rules as written are not enforced consistently."

If you had never heard of the particular problem she opines about out at the home of the University of California's mother-ship campus, you can be forgiven for thinking that this spot-on sentence sounds exactly like one that you or I might used in conversations with friends
to describe the ethical problem, writ large, in South Florida from top-to-bottom, and Broward County and Hallandale Beach in particular.

There's the written law, there's the written and un-written ruies of normal social behavior, and then there's what too many people with power or influence down here -and their pack of cronies- think they can reasonably get away with, often right in front of us, and then look at us
like we're the ones who have a problem.

They just keep nibbling away, never satisfied, undermining our laws and our concept of what local government is supposed to be like thru their sheer ego and avarice.

The larger problem for residents of South Florida is that, in large part, the very elected or appointed people who are actually supposed to enforce those written (and un-written) laws, whether Broward County SAO Michael Satz or Broward County Sheriff Al Lamberti or HB City Attorney David Jove, far too often for a healthy democracy, are either oblivious to what's going on right in front of them, or, sadly, looking the other way, so that "the rules as written are not enforced consistently."

The desultory results of that longstanding inconsistency are pretty obvious all around us, and one of the by-products of that is the sheer level of genuine taxpayer anger among so many people who were previously apathetic about local government.

Fortuitously, while I was writing this, I received a timely email from Charlotte Greenbarg that consists of Comm. Gunzburger's email to Broward County Attorney Jeffrey J. Newton
about the needed Ethics Comm. proposals, the same one I referenced Friday and Saturday in some emails to selected people throughout the area about the rearguard action by some on the County Commission to thwart their implementation, by hook or by crook.
Now you can see for yourself what's what.

On Saturday, in responding to my email of Friday, Comm. Gunzburger reminded me again of her own role to get some real teeth in the Broward Ethics Commission proposals, something I've noted and seen for myself since last year.

Here is what she wrote me:

FYI I wrote a memo to Atty. Newton and distributed it to 2 members of the ethics committee after the vote. That is why the emergency meeting was called.
Sue Gunzburger-


Also, since my blog post of Thursday, the Sun-Sentinel's Brittany Wallman, who, alone, was on top of that recent Broward MPO re-organization story -see my May 20th post re her story, County: MPO is laying off some employees, then bumping up salaries
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/brittany-wallman-is-on-top-of-broward.html- has posted several posts on the Ethics fight on the Broward Politics blog, including one today about Legislative Delegation chair, State Rep. Ari Porth, zeroing-in on Stacey Ritter. Links to those posts of her's are at the bottom.

If you know anyone who works at the Miami Herald, be sure to tell them that you appreciate their completely sleeping on this Ethics story this week, with zero news articles in print, plus this misleadling blog post
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/06/will-a-brow-judge-let-commissioners-work-as-lobbyists.html since you know that yet another story about Cuba in the Broward edition of the Herald's Local & State section is a small price for Broward readers to pay.

To paraphrase what others have stated before, in the case of Hallandale Beach in particular and Broward County in general, we may well need some plate tectonics to put us in Cuba before the Herald ever starts putting out a quality product for its Broward residents reflecting where they live.

In the year 2010, while the Herald has a Gay-centric blog and and number of Spanish language blogs, plus ones dedicated to individual TV shows, there are still ZERO Broward-centric columnists and ZERO Broward-centric government/politics blog.
ZERO.

Hardly anyone I know and respect from Broward County bothers to read the Herald's Naked Politics blog anymore because they so rarely have something of interest to Broward County.

Most of the people I know are already hip to the fact that the St. Pete Times Buzz politics blog and the Orlando Sentinel's Central Florida Political Pulse are far superior in every way in their coverage of the rest of the state to the Herald's.

Meanwhile, Broward County remain terra incognita for One Herald Plaza -and it shows every single day you look at the newspaper.

----

Rasmussen Reports
University of Anarchy and No Consequences
A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders
Sunday, June 20, 2010

When activists (who are not necessarily students) were able to delay construction of a UC Berkeley sports center by living in trees for 21 months, there was no review of what went wrong.

When protesters with torches vandalized UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau's home, there was no review.

But when UC police arrested 46 people demonstrating against higher-education cuts by occupying Wheeler Hall on Nov. 20, there were complaints that police overreacted.

And so -- with authorities, not anarchists in the sights -- a review was born.

Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/university_of_anarchy_and_no_consequences

See also: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

------------------------------

From: Sue Gunzburger

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:34 AM
Cc: recipient list not shown:
Subject: Fwd:My Email to Jeff Newton

Many on the commission are trying to water down the ethics code. This is what I sent to our attorney last night.

Mr. Newton:

With little reasonable advance time for review, you submitted a substantive legal memorandum to the Commission for immediate review dated just one day before Tuesday's meeting. In the memo ("Our File: 10-026 - Re: Portions of Proposed Ethics Code that Exceed Charter Authority or are Otherwise Legally Invalid"), you boldly -- and I believe incorrectly -- stated a lobbying ban on the Commission is likely "unconstitutional." This is very troubling.

In said memo, you stated lobbying is a "core First Amendment right" which cannot be restricted except for the narrowest of reasons. You further wrote that a "ban based on the identity of the lobbyist (i.e., County Commissioners, ...)" may be an "impermissible" regulation of speech. You seem to miss that lobbying bans have been routinely upheld and enforced. Congress, the federal executive branch, and the Florida Legislature, even the City Of Hollywood -- among others -- have all adopted long-standing lobbying bans of imposing a ban of varying amounts of years (typically 2 years) during which a former official is prohibited from lobbying his/her former agency or branch of government. These were put in place to prohibit the appearance of impropriety, and all are based upon the identity of the lobbyist (to wit: a former official). To date, not a single one of these bans has ever been struck down by the courts. See:

· Art. II, Sec. 8(e), Florida Constitution - "No member of the legislature or statewide elected officer shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before the government body or agency of which the individual was an officer or member for a period of two years following vacation of office. No member of the legislature shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation during term of office before any state agency other than judicial tribunals. Similar restrictions on other public officers and employees may be established by law." NOTE: The restriction prohibiting current legislators from lobbying "any state agency other than judicial tribunals" is virtually analogous in purpose to the "lobbying down" ban the Ethics Committee suggested we adopt for sitting County Commissioners. Further, the lobbying ban set forth in the Florida Constitution is explicitly based on the identity of the lobbyist (to wit: a "member of the legislature"). Clearly, your analysis was severely flawed if you failed to note in your memo this nearly on-point provision from within Florida's own constitution.

· Section 112.313(9), Florida Statutes - Establishes lobbying bans explicitly targeted at individuals based on the identity of the lobbyist. See the lengthy list of covered job titles encompassed within this section's lobbying ban. I can find no court rulings invalidating, or even questioning, the constitutionality of this provision. Further, many states have virtually identical laws -- all of which appear to remain good law. See: http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=15334

Secondly, I have questions about wasting tax dollars on a declaratory judgment action that appears concerned only with some general, speculative fear of future harm that may possibly occur at some time in the indefinite future. Until the voters enact it and there is a justiciable controversy, the County cannot in good faith make any showing of a real threat of immediate injury. If and until such time that the voters enact the proposed Commission Ethics Code, any declaratory judgment action would appear unripe for court review. See: State v. Florida Consumer Action Network, 830 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1^st DCA, 2002). What is the purpose of going to court to expend significant tax dollars to challenge reforms that have yet to even be adopted by the voters? This makes no sense from a public policy perspective.

Finally, I have serious concerns about whether the County is the appropriate party to bring the declaratory judgment action seeking to undermine the proposed ethics reforms. Are you proposing -- even if done through contracted outside counsel -- that the County retain outside counsel to bring a legal challenge against the County (i.e., our own Ethics Committee, for which the County Attorney is also legal counsel). Doesn't this raise ethical questions of bringing a lawsuit in which "the fix" is in place, and undermine public confidence? Wouldn't your office also be the legal entity responsible for defending the provisions in court (i.e., the entity against which you are filing the declaratory judgment action)? If yes, it would seem that the “adverse” parties we essentially agents of one and the same master, seemingly intent on derailing ethics reform. It further suggests the two sides would be able to enter into manipulated and deceptive stipulations in court while posting as faux "opposing" parties with the goal of invalidating the reforms. If not an actual ethical conflict for your office, it certainly doesn't pass the smell test for avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest. Further, wouldn't the appropriate party to bring a declaratory judgment action and bear the costly financial burden of the suit be a member of the public (or perhaps one of my colleagues, if s/he feels so inclined) who seeks to invalidate a portion of the Commission Ethics Code once it has been adopted? I simply do not understand why the County is seeking to act as a legal roadblock to thwart the public's very appropriate desire to enact significant ethics reforms for the County Commission.

Let me be very clear: I fully support enactment of the entire proposed County Ethics Code. I am very disturbed by this legal attack -- seemingly coordinated with the assistance of your office -- seeking to undermine these important ethical reforms.

Please share with me your thoughts on the concerns I expressed above.

Sincerely,

Sue Gunzburger
Vice Mayor

-----
Broward Politics blog
Broward political ethics reform vaporizing
Posted by Brittany Wallman on June 19, 2010 08:11 AM

Broward voters asked for a wholesale cleanup of county government, and it appeared a sure thing. Until now.

The political ethics reform that voters demanded two years ago is headed not to the ballot, not to the Broward County Commission rule books, but to courts.

Read the rest of the post at:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/06/broward_political_ethics_refor.html

-----

Broward Politics blog
Broward delegation chairman singles out county's Ritter
Posted by Brittany Wallman on June 20, 2010 09:13 AM

Broward delegation chairman Rep. Ari Porth, D-Coral Springs, singled out Broward County Commissioner Stacy Ritter in a recent op-ed column in our newspaper.

I'm re-publishing it now because Porth lambasted commissioners in a written statement today for sending proposed ethics reform to court rather than passing it. He accused commissioners of opposing state efforts at corruption reform, and when I asked his office to name names, this is what they sent.

Read the rest of the post at:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/06/broward_delegation_chairman_si.html

IMPORTANT: Broward County Ethics Commission meeting FRIDAY, June 18th at 9 a.m. in Room 430 at County Govt. HQ

Somewhat unexpectedly, I now find myself suddenly planning on being at Broward County Govt. HQ first thing in the morning.
Surprise!

Thanks to a head's-up from Charlotte Greenbarg and Robert Wolfe, me, my camera and some McDonald's coffee will be attending tomorrow morning's just-announced Broward County Ethics Comm. meeting that's in response to some members of the Broward County Commission trying to figure out some means to create legal obstacles to their required vote in less than two months on the proposed ethics package, so they can say that it wasn't really them stalling, it was just some Judge who prevented them from doing something that's LONG, LONG OVERDUE.

That attitude certainly explains a lot about what passes for public service and democracy in this county, and the county's citizen taxpayers lack of trust and respect for them.

It's my hope that by contacting you now, at least some of you all might get the chance to make an appearance and let your voice be heard -in-person.

If you choose to do so, you can also send something to the Committee's county liaison Monica Cepero, at the email below and request that it be read and made part of the public record.

This afternoon's Broward Politics blog contained a post from Brittany Wallman dealing with an excellent and insightful response from Robert Wechsler to the unexpected news yesterday -at bottom- that some legal skull-duggery was being tried at the Eleventh Hour.

You may recall that when I first started attending the Ethics meetings last year, I first encouraged you all to check out and Bookmark Mr. Wechsler's excellent www.cityethics.org website.

As you might guess, I also send him some things from time-to-time that I think fall within his wide-ranging ethics beat, so he can connect-the-dots more clearly on what's going on down here in the county, as well as closer to home in Hallandale Beach, where the state's Sunshine Laws are just considered Suggestions by those wielding power at City Hall.

I also have a response from Comm. Ken Keechl at the bottom that Charlotte just shared with me, too.

For more on the Ethics Commission and their proposals: http://www.broward.org/EthicsCommission/Pages/Default.aspx

-----

Broward Politics blog
Ethicist/blogger critical of Broward County Commission's latest move

Posted by Brittany Wallman on June 17, 2010 03:09 PM

Robert Wechsler, an ethicist with a blog called cityethics.org, weighed into the mire that Broward County's proposed ethics reform ordinance is stuck in.

Read the rest of the post at: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/06/ethicistblogger_critical_of_br.html#comments

------

From: Cepero, Monica [mailto:MCEPERO@broward.org]

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:03 PM
To: 'Alfreda Coward'; 'Carl Shechter'; 'Comm. Carl Shechter'; 'Felicia M. Brunson'; 'Howard Bakalar'; Jardine, Arlene; 'Julie Lakosky'; 'Kenneth Fink'; Leu, Leah; Cepero, Monica; 'Neal de Jesus'; 'Paul White'; Robert Wolfe; 'Robin Rorapaugh'; Russo, Jean; Seff, Bradley; Teitler, Robert; 'Washington Collado'; 'William Scherer'
Cc: Newton, Jeffrey; Henry, Bertha; Madison, Pamela; Bieber, Josephine; Jardine, Arlene
Subject: Ethics Commission Meeting called for THIS FRIDAY, June 18, 2010 at 9am
Importance: High

Chairman Neal de Jesus, of the Broward County Ethics Commission has called a meeting of the Ethics Commission for THIS FRIDAY, June 18^th at 9am. It will be held in room 430 of the Government Center (same room all of your meetings were held in).

The meeting will be sunshined from 9am-11am.

Please let me know as soon as possible of your availability to attend, as we will need a physical quorum in order to proceed with the meeting. Please copy my assistant Arlene Jardine on your response as well, as she is helping coordinate the meeting.

Thank you,

Monica

Monica Cepero

Assistant to the County Administrator

115 S Andrews Ave,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Phone 954 357 7354

------------------
From: Keechl, Ken
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:13 PM
To: 'Charlotte Greenbarg'
Subject: RE: 6/16/10 Broward Politics blog: Broward commissioners accused of derailing ethics reform

Charlotte

I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I intend to vote for the original ordinance as presented by the Ethics Commission You know me better than that. I have said this from day one-over and over. I voted in favor of the lawsuit (9-0) so the judge could rule that the ordinance is legal. However, after thinking about it more, I doubt that any court could rule on this by the deadline for the vote: August 10. I truly don’t believe anyone was trying to derail the ordinance. Thanks.

Broward County Mayor Ken Keechl,

District 4 Commissioner

From: Charlotte Greenbarg
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:00 PM
To: 'Charlotte Greenbarg'
Cc: Jones, Albert; Wasserman-Rubin, Diana; Lieberman, Ilene; Rodstrom, John; Keechl, Ken; Jacobs, Kristin; Lois Wexler; Ritter, Stacy; Gunzburger, Suzanne
Subject: FW: 6/16/10 Broward Politics blog: Broward commissioners accused of derailing ethics reform
Importance: High

Read Sue Gunzburger's excellent rebuttal to the effort to derail ethics reform. Let them know how you feel.

Charlotte

---

From: hallandalebeachblog@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:58 AM
Subject: FYI: 6/16/10 Broward Politics blog: Broward commissioners accused of derailing ethics reform

Reader comments below are as of 11:45 a.m. Thursday

Broward Politics blog
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/06/broward_commissioners_move_on.html

Broward commissioners accused of derailing ethics reform

Posted by Brittany Wallman on June 16, 2010 11:55 AM

Are Broward County commissioners attacking ethics reforms aimed at them? That's what some are accusing them of.

Latest info re 4/27 Broward County Commission meeting re unpopular Diplomat LAC proposal

Thanks for asking about that recent email of mine, since I
was going to write about it on Sunday, anyway.

Here's the short story, as I understand it, on how the Broward
County Commission meeting on the Diplomat LAC got
moved back to April 27th -again!:

The vote was originally scheduled for April 27th as the 4th
Tuesday of the month is when the County usually hears
land-use issues.

Comm. Ilene Lieberman apparently said that was bad for
her because she'd be in Tallahassee for the Legislature's last
week, so she wanted it to be changed, because she is clearly
in favor of the project.

Diplomat attorney Debbie Orshefsky said that she would
like it to be postponed until May 11th, since she obviously
wants Lieberman there in-person to vote YES and break
the 4-4 tie of March 23rd.

Comm. Ken Keechl said that because of their own rule about
land-use meetings, it would have to be either April 27th or
May 25th.

If held on May 25th, it would likely miss the deadline for
Group I transmittal to the FL Dept. of Community Affairs
(DCA), which was the target that HB City Manager Mike Good
was shooting for when he began this steamroller effort of his
last year, without any input from our city's elected
officials, I remind you.

Word is that other development projects around the county
that have already received approval from the Broward County
Commission are VERY concerned about the controversial
Diplomat project creating a real bottleneck for them, since
the applications are sent en masse to Tallahassee, not
individually as they are approved.

I don't have a list of those previously-approved projects,
but I'd be willing to bet that some of them are ones that
Debbie and Greenberg Traurig have handled, so they
are well-aware of the ticking calendar.

I've been told by someone that an effort was made to find
out if there was any support at all on the Commission to
have a vote to change the date of the Diplomat meeting
to the 11th as Debbie wanted, but that a fifth vote could
NOT be found to make
that change.

Furthermore, I've heard that the Diplomat may well
pull their proposal the day before, on April 26th, IF
they believe they won't have a fifth and deciding
affirmative vote on the Commission.

That's no reason for us to waste any time, though,
and stop our efforts. This past week, I was able to
discover some pretty damning information that, combined
with information I previously uncovered, will show rather
conclusively that the Diplomat's over-confident proponents
and apologists all over the county -and much closer to home-
have played fast-and-loose with the truth, and I have the
proverbial Smoking Gun that proves it.

I'm going to post this delicious information on my blog on
Monday and suggest that you check it out for yourself,
since seeing is believing.

It's the irrefutable proof that I've been looking for that,
sadly, proves that the caliber of people involved in this
effort were just as duplicitous as I initially said they were
last year.

And -shocker!- they'll even lie to South Florida
news reporters without even breaking a sweat!

That the particular person I've caught in an obvious and
self-serving lie is an attorney only adds to my delight,
since our side in this David vs. Goliath debate has
never had any resources to speak of, let alone, the luxury
of having any attorneys working on behalf of the many
Hallandale Beach and Hollywood citizens opposed to this
out-of-scale project for the simplest reason of all:
Quality-of-Life.

Something that far too many people at Hallandale Beach
City Hall could genuinely care less about if it means they
can get their hands on MORE MONEY.

That's why they've tried so hard to fix this process from
the very beginning, and to keep the germane information
out of the public's hands, something I reminded the County
Commission myself when I got my chance to speak last month.
It wasn't by accident, it was City Hall's plan all along.

I hope you'll be able to find time to attend Comm. London's
Resident Forum meeting on Tuesday at 6 p.m., as I fully
expect that it will be full of residents eager to hear more
details about what's really been going on behind-the-scenes
with the HB City Hall spies, Diplomat apologists and dupes
of Mayor Cooper -like her longtime friend Alex Berkovich's
not-so-subtle performance at last month's meeting, where
he actually got-up from his chair about 30 minutes into the
meeting and went out to the hallway to talk to Mayor Cooper,
and then came back in a few minutes later and said that he
had "heard" that the Diplomat was, perhaps, willing to
modify their position a bit.

I guess a little bird had told him.

Many of them will likely show-up anyway, despite
what we already know about them, or have learned
subsequently, because, quite frankly, they can't help
themselves.

Plus, of course, NONE of the other Hallandale Beach City
Commissioners are willing to actually meet citizen taxpayers
in regularly-scheduled monthly meetings without City Hall
staff present to whisper in their ears.
Except Comm. Keith London.

(Perhaps Debbie Orshefsy and Suzanne Friedman and
their PR worker-bees will even make another appearance,
just like in January!)

Is there a more obvious duplicitous dupe than Cooper-acolyte
and HB City Commission candidate Alexander Lewy,
someone who has continually bad-mouthed Comm. London
behind his back for YEARS (and on his Facebook page),
and who calls the public policy meetings that I and so many
others attend, pointless, yet Lewy continues to show-up
at them as if we were none the wiser about what a low-rent
character he truly is?
I think not.

Trust me when I tell you, that duplicitous attorney and
Lewy are about to get the public drubbing and unmasking
of a lifetime this week, and the best part of all is that it's
100% true and verifiable.

That's always been the hurdle for the Diplomat:
they have to lie in order to have a chance to win,
we just have to tell the truth to have a fighting chance.

However it goes on Tuesday night, I'll have my video-camera
with me, ready to record the action, low-lights and hi jinks
that may flare-up with the other side, still clearly upset that
weeks later, we are STILL around.
And now carrying the fight to them.

That's certainly not the way they planned it at Hallandale Beach City Hall last year!

Don't forget to bring your popcorn!

Also, please don't forget about the United Condominium
Association of Hallandale Beach and their monthly meeting
on Thursday the 22nd, at 7 p.m., in the ballroom of the
MarBay Hotel on Diplomat Parkway, with the Diplomat
LAC the main topic du jour.

Adios!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: FYI re 2010-04-21 HB City Commission re Flex Units in Diplomat LAC

David, where did you hear the county meeting was moved to May 11th?

----------------
April 12th, 2010

The ad below about the April 21st City Commission meeting ran
in Sunday's Miami Herald.

If you haven't already heard, the Broward County Commission
meeting that was scheduled to re-hear the Diplomat LAC's
incompatible proposal on April 27th, has now been moved to
May 11th.
One month from tomorrow.

By the way, do you think The Masters Golf Tournament the past
week would've looked better or worse on TV for home viewers
IF there'd been constant shots of giant 25-30 story condo towers
looming over the magnolia trees?
Something like this rendering, perhaps?

Above rendering courtesy of Don Boudria
Looking east towards the Intracoastal and Atlantic.

You'd probably have thought that the condo towers seemed
pretty incompatible with what the folks at Augusta
National seemed at pains to keep emphasizing:
nature and green, green everywhere.

Yeah, that's what I'd think, too!

Here's a question I wish I'd thought of asking Debbie Orshefsky
a few months ago:
Are there ANY golf courses in the entire state of Florida where
the respective county approved buildings this TALL to be located
THAT close to an existing residential neighborhood and golf course,
as part of a LAC?

My own guess is that if there were, Debbie would've mentioned it
a few dozen times by now; she hasn't.
I don't think that's a coincidence.

South Florida news media ignores Broward Courthouse Taskforce shenanigans planned for Tuesday by Usual Suspects, not taxpayers; Judge Victor Tobin enlists legal eagles to come to rescue

So, did you hear about the Broward County Commission meeting on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. where the future of the Broward Courthouse will be discussed?
Hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.

If not, don't worry, that's the way the Broward County Commission wants it.
In that regard, they rely heavily on the apathetic South Florida news media, who'll no doubt make
excuses, after-the-fact, for why they haven't mentioned this topic AT ALL before the meeting
actually happens.

Meet the New Media, Same as the Old Media!

Here's how it looks on tomorrow's agenda, but I have it printed out in full at the bottom.

15.				MOTION TO DISCUSS and determine the method of financing for the new courthouse complex.
Attachments
	Exhibit 1 - Final Report 2009
	Exhibit 2 - Master Plan Phases 1 - 3
	Exhibit 3 - New Courthouse - Conceptual Footprint
	Exhibit 4 - Summary of Borrowing Options
	Exhibit 5 - Comparison of Voted & Non-Voted Debt

Consider this.
This is what Comm. Ken Keechl said exactly a year ago about the Courthouse.
Sounds pretty realistic.
http://www.broward.org/kenkeechl/02_09_newsletter.pdf

But that was before the rigged Broward Courthouse Task Force, under Comm. Ilene Lieberman,
had time to really work in earnest to figure-out some way that they could legally evade the referendum that would be required if the Commission voted to make this a bond issue, with voters getting the ultimate thumbs up or down.
And we know that would be a heavy thumbs down, don't we?


Broward County Courthouse, with jail north of it, to the left. With delightful river-views!

You can be excused for wondering why you haven't heard anything about Tuesday morning's Commission meeting that will discuss the Courthouse.
It's not your fault.
Really.

Neither the Herald or the Sun-Sentinel have mentioned this subject in print or online since last September, when the Guest Op-Ed below, purported to have been written by Comm. Stacy Ritter, was published in the Sun-Sentinel.
Whether she actually wrote this or just signed it is not the point.
The real point is that once again, on something very important, South Florida's news media has shown they were sleeping on the job.

Not that anyone in local TV has anything to brag about in this.
Are you kidding?

Did you EVER see anything last year on TV about the ties that the members of the Lieberman-led Taskforce had to the Broward legal establishment here, who desperately want a brand new pony?
Preferably, with a brand-new barn and a lifetime supply of feed.
On your dime.

Nope.
There never was one

Did you ever read in the newspaper or see anything on local TV about how Comm. Lieberman put herself on the committee, and thus ends up with two votes on this matter?

Ever read or hear anything about why Comm. Stacy Ritter appointed Bruce Rogow to the Courthouse Task Force after she'd earlier appointed him to the Charter Review Commission, which
just ended in 2008?

Is there really such a complete lack of qualified people in Broward County -or genuine fear of diversity of opinions?- that the same old faces have to appear, over-and-over?

Bruce Rogow, really?
The same guy who continually made ridiculous alibis and excuses for Broward's elected officials, over-and-over, in the Charter Review Committee meetings?

The same Bruce Rogow who was recently making $375 an hour off of Hallandale Beach taxpayers for reasons that most of the HB City Commission still can't logically explain?
Yes.

In case you forgot, that's the same Lieberman I continually wrote about last year on my blog
that didn't follow basic aspects of the state's Sunshine Laws, and instead, tried to fool
the public by arranging for the agenda and assorted public docs for the last meeting, which should've been online days before, to be placed online HOURS AFTER the
last meeting was over.
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Ilene+Lieberman

Really.
Not that they actually had the final public meeting listed online days before the meeting, since they didn't, and which I wrote about at the time.
And Lieberman was the one in charge -the Chair.

The answer to that long-winded question is also a big fat NOPE.
There never was one story about any of those aspects of the Task Force
Now you know the truth.

There you have it, a snapshot of South Florida's not so gung-ho news media, circa February 2010
-asleep at the wheel.

The Jordana Mishory article from the Daily Business Review last week that I link to below features one of the most gallingquotes you'll ever see.
In case you've been under a rock, Judge Victor Tobin is the genius in charge of the statewide task force investigating corruption.

Mishory writes: "He also encouraged the lawyers to run for state Legislature, saying nonlawyers in Tallahassee don’t understand the justice system and the separation
of powers."

So now you know what citizen taxpayers are really up against.
I'll be at the meeting tomorrow afternoon for the public session that starts ar 2 p.m., filming the drama surrounding Agenda item 15.
Should be pretty interesting to watch the Broward Commissioners engage in verbal gymnastics to do
what they always wanted to do, despite Broward citizens being unalterably opposed by large margins.

But the reality is this -the Commissioners have contributor friends who need the contracting work,
so don't be surprised to hear some pretty crazy news emerge from Andrews Avenue tomorrow.


South Florida Sun-Sentinel
BROWARD COURTHOUSE NEEDS REPLACING NOW

September 30, 2009

When I became Broward County's mayor almost a year ago, I made rebuilding our courthouse a priority.

We are one hurricane away from not having a courthouse. Engineers say that the roof could blow off in a moderate hurricane, leaving us with no place to handle trials. In that case, we would be forced to replace the courthouse during an emergency at whatever cost is charged.

Almost everybody who steps into the aging building, from witnesses to the Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board, has repeatedly said a new courthouse is needed.

Why? The courthouse is the lynchpin of Broward's public safety, where everything from divorces to traffic tickets is decided. If you get robbed, or are hurt in a traffic accident, justice is found at the courthouse. The problems with the 60-year-old building are myriad and threaten public safety.

Because of overcrowding, criminal defendants are in close contact with the public. There are rats, roaches and corroding pipes, which leak sewer water. Bathrooms are often out of order. The aging elevators sometimes require two dozen service calls a week. The overloaded electrical system dates back to the 1950s.

In 2006, voters turned down a $500 million-plus courthouse plan. Voters believed it was too big and too expensive. Since then, the courthouse has gotten worse - closed at least three times because of burst pipes. The flooding caused ceilings to collapse, electrical equipment to fail and required extra deputies to transport prisoners to makeshift courtrooms.

To keep patching the building together is costly and wasteful. With this in mind, I appointed a task force under County Commissioner Ilene Lieberman to tackle this decades-long problem. To insure the public that those on the task force would not benefit financially, no one doing business with the county was a member. After multiple public hearings and hours of expert testimony, the task force developed a sensible plan:

Smaller and less expensive than the 2006 rejected proposal, it would cost $328 million, down from more than $500 million. It will be 17 stories rather than 25 stories, and 675,000 square feet, rather than 893,000 square feet.

It is doable. The County Commission approved the plan in early August. We already have $120 million set aside to pay for the building. As time passes, the need for a new courthouse only increases, and will just get more expensive the longer we wait. We need it now.

Stacy Ritter is mayor of Broward County.

---------
FYI: Jordana Mishory is a Medill grad.
Daily Business Review
Broward Courthouse
Chief judge considers legal remedies if county rejects bond
By Jordana Mishory
January 22, 2010

Broward Chief Circuit Judge Victor Tobin is recruiting lawyers to attend a Broward County Commission meeting on a bond issue for courthouse construction and is considering legal remedies to ensure the county provides a safe and adequate building, he said Thursday in his state of the circuit speech.

Tobin said drastic matters may be needed to deal with the decrepit wing of the downtown Fort Lauderdale courthouse, but he stopped short of threatening a lawsuit.

Read the rest of the story at:
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=60007

See other DBR stories on the Broward Courthouse at:
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/related_news.html?cluster_id=980


http://205.166.161.204/agenda_publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get_month=2&get_year=2010&dsp=agm&seq=4651&rev=0&ag=165&ln=27918&nseq=&nrev=&pseq=4696&prev=0#ReturnTo27918

AI-4651			Item #: 15.
Broward County Commission Regular Meeting
Date: 02/02/2010 Director's Name: Pete Corwin Department: County Administration
Information
Requested Action
MOTION TO DISCUSS and determine the method of financing for the new courthouse complex.
Why Action is Necessary
Board direction is required to determine how to fund the new courthouse complex.
What Action Accomplishes
Provides staff direction to take the necessary steps to finance a new courthouse.
Is this Action Goal Related
Previous Action Taken
Summary Explanation/ Background
Background On August 5th, the Board approved the Courthouse Task Force’s final report (Exhibit 1). The Board agreed that a new courthouse should be constructed on County owned land at the corner of SE 6th Street and SE 1st Avenue; which is the site of the 400 space Judicial Garage. The Board also amended the agreement with Spillis Candela, Heery, Cartaya Joint Venture to design the new courthouse. The Board discussed the Task Force recommendation to fund the courthouse utilizing non-voted debt and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of voted and non-voted debt; however, the Board postponed a decision on financing the courthouse. The Mayor directed staff to bring the issue to the Board for determination. Project Status The consultant team has completed the architectural program totaling 674,000 sq ft to meet the space needs of the courthouse agencies plus one shell floor (34,000 sq ft) to provide for future expansion. The team also developed a master plan (Exhibit 2), consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force. The master plan provides for a judicial campus on County owned property that will meet the space needs of the courts for well over thirty years. The consultant team also developed over 30 design schemes for the courthouse footprint, which were reviewed by County staff with input from the courts. After detailed analysis using selection criteria which included site constraints, building and functional efficiency, natural lighting, way-finding, best practices, and cost , the team selected an “L” shape footprint (Exhibit 3) as the preferred conceptual configuration for the building. The 20 story structure will include 74 litigation spaces for judges and general masters; provide secure separation of the public, judges, inmates and juvenile detainees; centralize Court Administrator functions; include space for Clerk of Court and State Attorney functions; and will be an environmentally friendly and energy efficient building designed to achieve LEED certification. The consultant team has initiated the schematic design phase of the project during which they will complete architectural massing and elevation studies to represent the preferred design solution for the building. Conceptual floor plans will be developed for each level during this phase, responding to the architectural program requirements. Preliminary project descriptions, with a narrative of engineering systems and material selections, will be provided so that a more detailed project cost can be prepared. Schematic design will be completed in mid-March and will be followed by the design development and construction document phase to produce the design drawings used to bid the project. Since these drawings must conform to the most current building codes, staff does not recommend proceeding with design development until a financing plan is in place. If the project is delayed pending financing, the design development drawings would likely require significant and potentially costly modifications. Project Costs The following provides a summary of the $328 million projected project costs: • Courthouse, Demolition, Landscaping, Connectors and 120 Secure Parking Spaces ($281.5 million) • 1,380 Parking Spaces ($34.5 million) • Remodel Midrise ($4 million) • Additional North Regional Parking ($8 million) Staff and the consultant team is committed to designing the project within the project budget including the prospect of bidding the project next year at a time when the construction market is expected to remain “soft”. In addition, the project estimate does not include a separate allocation for public art since the consultant team will integrate art into the design of the new courthouse. The cost to add parking to the North Regional Courthouse may be less than projected if we can add capacity within the existing structure. As the project has taken shape over the past several months, several items have been indentified that will have to be taken into consideration when designing the courthouse and developing the detailed project budget. The initial project budget did not contemplate any remodeling in the East or North Wings. As the consultant completed the space program, it became clear that several State Attorney units that support judges in the North Wing (felony courts) should be located in the East or North Wings. By consolidating Court Administration and the administrative functions of the Clerk of Courts in the new courthouse, space can be freed up in the East and North Wings for the State Attorney. The team also identified additional work necessary to make the East Wing functional after the old courthouse is demolished. With the assistance of our construction project manager (Weitz), staff and the consultant team will design the courthouse so that the project is completed at or under the project budget. Financing the New Courthouse The County has $60 million in the budget for courthouse capital projects plus $60 million for a new jail which is not needed due to reductions in the inmate population. If additional jail capacity is needed in the future, the 700 bed Stockade can be reopened. By utilizing $120 million in cash, the County can reduce the amount of borrowed funds needed for the projects to approximately $208 million. The key policy questions for the Board to address are: • What is the best time and method to borrow the $208 million to finance the project? • What funds will be used to pay the annual debt service on the bonds? • What is the impact of the annual debt service payments on the millage rate and taxpayers? The County’s Financial Advisor prepared a summary of several borrowing options (Exhibit 4). While there are several options available to the County for financing the courthouse project, the fundamental choice is between voted and non-voted debt. There are pros and cons of each method. Voted debt (General Obligation bonds) has several advantages. Debt service is paid with property taxes that are not included in the County’s General Fund and operating millage rate; interest rates are lower than non voted debt; and no debt service reserve is required. The key advantage to non-voted debt is that financing can proceed immediately allowing the County to take advantage of a very soft construction market; take advantage of historically low interest rates; and utilize Build America Bonds before they expire December 31, 2010. Non-voted debt service payments are paid with general revenues and the millage required to fund debt service is included in the General Fund under the 10 mill cap limitation. The total debt service on $208 million ranges from $12 to $14 million per year. The Court Facilities Fee can be used to pay $5 million per year of the debt service on the bonds ($1million/year from rent savings plus $4 million/year from increase in the fee). Therefore, by utilizing $5 million/year in courthouse facilities fees, the amount of property taxes needed to support the bonds is reduced to approximately $7 to $9 million per year. A key variable in the annual debt service payments is whether the County issues Recovery Zone and Build America Bonds (BABs), which can significantly lower borrowing costs, but must be issued by December 31, 2010. The County has been allocated $40 million in Recovery Zone Bonds which provide a 45% credit towards interest payments. There is no limit on the amount of Build America Bonds that can be issued and they provide a 35% credit towards interest payments. The reduction in interest payments are based upon the Federal Government providing “rebates” and carry the risk that the Federal Government will suspend or eliminate the “rebates”. As shown in Exhibit 5, the annual rebate averages approximately $3 million per year. The Federal program is available for both voted and non-voted debt; the bonds are taxable; and bonds must be issued no later than December 31, 2010 unless the program is extended by Congress. The County’s Financial Advisor compared four borrowing scenarios based upon current market conditions: • Voted Debt with Build America Bonds • Non-Voted Debt with Build America Bonds • Voted Debt without Build America Bonds • Non-Voted Debt without Build America Bonds Based on current market conditions, Exhibit 5 calculates the total amount borrowed (including issuance, underwriters costs, and revenues); total average annual debt service; tax supported annual debt service (netting out the Courthouse Facility Fee and Federal interest “rebate”); the “all in” interest rate (TIC); and total debt service. The following chart summarizes the annual debt service and “all in” interest rate for each alternative: OPTION ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIC • Voted Debt with BAB’s $6.9 million 3.85% • Non Voted Debt with BAB’s $7.5 million 4.11% • Voted Debt w/o BAB’s $8.1 million 4.68% • Non Voted Debt w/o BAB’s $9.3 million 5.34% Based on current market conditions, the lowest cost option would be voted debt utilizing Build America Bonds; however, a non-voted issue utilizing Build America Bonds is more attractive than a GO issue without Build America Bonds. Policy Questions Given the information presented above: 1. What is the best time and method to borrow the $208 million to finance the project? Voted debt offers lower borrowing costs, but if the Board elects to finance the project with voted debt and voters do not approve the bond issue, the County could miss historically low interest rates, BAB rebates from the Federal Government and a soft construction market. 2. What funds will be used to pay the annual debt service on the bonds? The total debt service payments on $208 million will be approximately $12 to $14 million per year. Courthouse Facilities Fees will provide approximately $5 million per year. If voted debt is utilized, the difference will come directly from property taxes. If non-voted debt is utilized, general revenues will be pledged to make up the difference which ultimately impacts the general fund tax rate. If the debt is incurred in the next 3 years, the increase in debt service payments can be offset by a $36.4 million per year decrease in voted debt service payments. In FY 10, total annual debt service taxes are $74.4 million and in FY 14 they will decrease to $38 million. These scheduled decreases in payments will occur as follows: • FY11 $17.3 million • FY12 $11.3 million • FY13 $7.8 million Total $36.4 million 3. What is the impact of the annual debt service payments on the millage rate and taxpayers? No matter which method of borrowing (voted or non-voted debt) is used, there will be an increase in debt service payments. If the debt is “voted”, the additional $7 to $9 million will be offset by the programmed $36.4 million decrease in existing voted debt service payments and likely result in a decrease in the “voted” millage rate depending on the tax roll for that year. If the debt is “non-voted”, the impact on the County operating budget and millage rate cannot be determined at this time, given the number of variables such as the tax roll, other increases/decreases in revenues and expenses, and the Board’s tax policy. The impact of the additional $7 to $9 million on the budget by itself would not require a supermajority vote since the County has developed ample capacity under the State-mandated maximum millage calculation by significantly reducing the County’s ad valorem tax levy each year for three years. The following summarizes the impact on the average taxpayer based on the current combined millage rate (voted and non-voted) and current average taxable values: • Current millage rate 5.3889 (4.889 operating plus .5 mills debt service) • Less .25 mills decrease in voted debt service payments ($36.4 million/year) • Plus .05 to .06 mills for new courthouse debt service payments ($7 to $9 million/year) • Total millage rate – 5.1889 to 5.0789 (3.5% to 3.7% decrease) • The impact of the $7 to $9 million debt service payment on the average homeowner would be $8 per year, which would be offset by the reduction of $37 per year in voted debt service payments over three fiscal years. The Courthouse Task Force met on January 22nd and voted to reaffirm their recommendation that the Board utilize non-voted debt.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact/Cost Summary:
Total cost of courthouse projects is $328 million. There is $120 million available in the Capital Program in the courthouse and jail projects. The balance ($208 million) will be financed and supported by revenues generated in the Courthouse Facilities Fund and general operating revenues.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Final Report 2009
Exhibit 2 - Master Plan Phases 1 - 3
Exhibit 3 - New Courthouse - Conceptual Footprint
Exhibit 4 - Summary of Borrowing Options
Exhibit 5 - Comparison of Voted & Non-Voted Debt