Florida CFO Jeff Atwater: 'Taj Mahal' courthouse in Tallahassee 'far worse' than a pricey building. And the judges behind it WON'T talk!

Back in October, TheSunshineStateNews did this interview with then-CFO candidate Jeff Atwater on the subject of the 'Taj Mahal' Courthouse in Tallahassee, who asked why Alex Sink, then the Florida CFO and Democratic nominee for governor, didn't raise red flags about its costs and instead just signed the checks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x16WC96yqqg

See also: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/ and
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSunshineStateNews

-----

Following-up on her excellent reporting of three weeks ago on the new First District Court of Appeals Courthouse in Tallahassee -Florida's state capital for those of you reading this post overseas- which I commented upon here in a December 19th post I titled, with mock humor, Lucy Morgan in St. Pete Times: Why can't anyone remember how a $50-million courthouse now called the 'Taj Mahal' stayed off the radar and got okayed?
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/lucy-morgan-in-st-pete-times-why-cant.html on Saturday, Lucy Morgan of the St. Petersburg Times actually outdid her earlier piece.

She gave readers and observers of all things political in Florida, the shady and the legit, a real bracing wake-up call by giving us a knowing description of what's what in the new Home Sweet Home for the elite judicial set. About the only thing missing are duvets, a private wine cellar and Swedish au pairs to help their kids after school with homework, otherwise, it's all there.

More comments after the article.
-----

St. Petersburg Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1144297.ece

Atwater: Taj Mahal courthouse 'far worse' than a pricey building

By Lucy Morgan, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Saturday, January 8, 2011

TALLAHASSEE — State auditors are questioning more than $1 million in bills submitted for the new $50 million courthouse built by the 1st District Court of Appeal.

"This is one of the great embarrassments for Florida government,'' new Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater said of the building derided as Florida's Taj Mahal. "The audacity and arrogance that was displayed in doing this and their continuing effort to hide the ball has been a complete disservice to hardworking Floridians who deserve better from public officials.''

The day after Atwater was sworn into office this week, he was briefed by auditors who now work for him. He said he will personally inspect every outstanding bill and will allow no payment until he can determine what was purchased. His auditors are continuing an investigation that started under former CFO Alex Sink.

"I now believe it is far worse than just an expensive building,'' Atwater said.

Some of Atwater's questions surround apparent attempts by the court to buy big screen television sets and furnishings for the courthouse with the proceeds of a $33.5 million bond issue that taxpayers will repay over the next 30 years.

"I cannot imagine financing equipment for 30 years that will depreciate over the next three to five years,'' Atwater said.

A former Senate president, Atwater said he has completely lost confidence in the Department of Management Services, the state agency responsible for overseeing construction of the courthouse. Officials at DMS signed off on the questionable purchases the judges requested.

"I do not believe they (DMS) have been straight with the people of Florida, certainly not with our department,'' he said. "They have been disguising what they were trying to get us to sign off on — and I have only been here a day.''

In October the CFO's scathing audit of the project accused the judges of illegally taking control of planning and construction away from DMS and laid much of the blame on the lobbying of 1st DCA Judges Paul M. Hawkes and Brad Thomas.

Auditors are now questioning a number of bills submitted by DMS for Peter R. Brown Construction Co. and Black Box Network Services, the company providing telecommunications equipment to the court. Black Box billed the state $693,450 for services and electronics equipment but has yet to collect $571,105 due to questions raised by auditors.

A $113,450 bill approved by DMS Nov. 29 lists a series of change orders for Black Box installations with charges for "labor'' without details. One of the items listed as labor is for $58,699.01. That is exactly the amount listed on a Sept. 7 bill for 14 TV sets and a $17,364 "restocking fee'' for the return of 16 60-inch TVs.

The St. Petersburg Times obtained the September bill in a records request from DMS, but officials in Atwater's office say they have never seen the September bill and believe the more recent bill that listed the TVs as "labor'' was an attempt to hide what had been purchased.

When the Times asked for bills DMS paid for electronics or furnishings, DMS initially denied any such payments had been made. But when pressed to provide bills submitted by Black Box, the agency produced a copy of the September bill.

The judges originally planned to put a 60-inch flat screen in each of 16 judges' chambers but apparently returned the televisions after the Times reported in August on the courthouse's many luxuries. Auditors are also questioning the legality of the restocking fee Black Box requested.

Auditors say they can't immediately determine how many televisions the court is attempting to buy. They sent an inspector out to count after getting a bill for nine. The inspector found the nine sets, plus two more still in boxes. The court was paying $5,978 for each 60-inch television, $2,273 for 47-inch televisions and $3,325 for 52-inch televisions, far more than the price of similar-sized TVs at major electronic stores.

Internal memos indicate auditors could not determine what was being purchased in one December bill for $145,000. When they asked for additional documentation they discovered that $41,000 of the total was for the nine TVs.

Officials at DMS did not respond to detailed requests for comment on Friday.

First DCA marshal Stephen Nevels says the court has 27 televisions in the new building: nine 60-inch monitors; two 52-inch; seven 46-inch; three 42-inch; two 40-inch; and four 17-inch. Nevels said the court has not seen any of the bills that have been handled by DMS.

Atwater is trying to unravel other questionable expenditures. One involves the purchase of art for the new building, and vendors that DMS and the court authorized to provide services that exceed the $100,000 limit on art that state law says can be purchased for a new building.

One of those vendors is Signature Art Gallery, owned by Mary Maida, wife of Tallahassee lawyer Tom Maida. The gallery agreed to frame 400 historical photos in the new building at a cost of more than $357,000, money that was to be paid by construction manager Peter R. Brown. In addition the court has agreed to pay $72,000 for original paintings by seven Florida artists.

The framed photographs include scenes from the 32 counties in Florida's northern district: greased pig contests, tobacco farms, lighthouses, cotton pickers, Tarzan at Wakulla Springs and other historic scenes.

Auditors have refused to approve payment of the bill because it exceeds the $100,000 limit. Some at the court have argued that the photos are not art and should not be included in the amount state law allows for art when a new building is built.

The situation leaves Mrs. Maida, owner of a small gallery in northeast Tallahassee, with a huge unpaid bill. Her husband, a lawyer at Foley & Lardner, has written to lawyers in Atwater's office asking for copies of all records relating to the art.

He has not filed a lawsuit. "I hope we don't have to,'' Tom Maida said when asked about the debt. "We certainly believe she is entitled to be paid by the state.''

It will be up to Atwater to decide. He's trying to determine what the state should do where a vendor has entered into a contract in good faith expecting to be paid for work — but that work violates state law.

Meanwhile Hawkes, chief judge during much of the construction project, and other officials involved in the project have been asked to appear before a Senate budget committee Wednesday to answer questions about the new courthouse. Thomas, the other judge who helped lobby for the project, also was invited. On Friday he notified the committee he will not appear.

"He had no problem coming to lobby for a $50 million courthouse, but now he can't come back to answer questions,'' said committee Chairman Mike Fasano.

Thomas did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment.

Lawmakers approved the money for the project and passed a $33.5 million bond issue that was tucked into an unrelated transportation bill on the last day of the 2007 legislative session. They say they had no idea the judges planned to build such an elaborate building.

The 110,000-square-foot building houses the 1st District's 114 employees. Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady is working on plans to remodel part of the building to accommodate 50 to 60 state court administrative employees, who could move out of rented quarters and save the state about $300,000 a year.

Atwater said he cannot allow the problems with the new building to go unaddressed. "There are people at DMS who tried to stop this, at least tried to bring a level of thoughtful scrutiny to it and it may have cost them their jobs,'' he said.

"We should be championing those people.''

Lucy Morgan can be reached at lmorgan@sptimes.com.

No discount

Though the state was buying in quantity, newly released numbers show taxpayers did not get a break in buying electronics for the Taj Mahal courthouse.

$5,978 Price per 60-inch TV

$3,325 Price per 52-inch TV

$2,273 Price per 47-inch TV

$17,364 "Restocking fee'' for state to return of 16 60-inch TVs, more than $1,000 apiece

$357,000 Cost to frame some 400 historical photos, about $890 each

Source: Office of Chief Financial Officer

Reader comments at:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1144297.ece#comments

-----

So, three weeks later. the lap of luxury in Tallahassee paid for by Florida taxpayers begins to get described in detail...

I can only imagine what a proposed new Broward County Courthouse -forced down the throats of protesting taxpayers- would be like with all the prima donna judges in this area.

That proposed County courthouse, adamantly opposed by the vast majority of Broward County's citizen taxpayers, but popular with the small clique of downtown Fort Lauderdale's business, legal and lobbying community, for reason that should be obvious, is an explosive subject I've written about many times, even while the Miami Herald has been positively obsequious and sycophantic in their news coverage, practically serving as a stenographer for the proponents of the plan.

See Commission Forgets People, Goes With Courthouse By Bob Norman, Tue., Feb. 2 2010 @ 6:20PM http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/02/broward_county_courthouse.php

That great post, includes this gem:

Last year, Ritter created her own hand-picked "Broward County Courthouse Task Force" and installed her friend and fellow courthouse backer, Commissioner Ilene Lieberman, as the chairwoman.

Not surprisingly, the task force just came back with exactly what Ritter and Lieberman wanted: a recommendation to build a new courthouse without asking the permission of the public. The task force report also includes a convoluted half-baked plan to pay for it.

And Ritter and Lieberman are real cocky about it too, treating it all as a done deal. But you have to understand that Lieberman might have more than altruistic motives to rush this project forward. In 2005, she and lawyer husband Stuart Michelson, who serves as the Sunrise city attorney, bought an office suite close to the courthouse (at 800 SE Third Avenue) for $1.35 million.

Wow!

I've discussed here how the so-called 'Courthouse Task Force' was intentionally stacked with supporters of the plan, not well-respected, open-minded community reps with no personal or professional conflicts.
No, that would have been too easy!

Instead, people selected for it had personal agendas from the beginning, and some even stood to profit from it in a manner that would not be ethically or legally acceptable with a similar proposal for any other building in this county.

In fact, the task force DIDN'T even follow the county's own rules and provide public information about their public meetings prior to them taking place, as the last meeting's agenda and related information were NOT posted to the county's website until many hours AFTER it was over.

Oversight or intentional?

In my letter to Broward County Administrator Bertha Henry complaining about these violations, I made the case for intentional by simply reciting the known facts, which were overwhelming.

And in case you forgot, the chair of that Broward County Courthouse Task Force, appointed by the Broward County Commission itself, was none other than Broward County Commissioner Ilene Lieberman, a woman who owns property near the proposed site in downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Really.

Here are HBB links to past posts of mine on her ethics as well as this subject:

http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=7001629133953783160&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=Ilene+Lieberman

http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=7001629133953783160&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=Broward+Courthouse+Taskforce

http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=7001629133953783160&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=Broward+County+Courthouse+Taskforce

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that's how things are DONE in Broward County, Florida, U.S.A. in the early years of the 21st century.
In broad daylight.

The mind literally reels at the excess just waiting for Broward taxpayers if a new county courthouse is built in the location favored by the powerful few and well-connected, who are mostly Secret Santas for each other, even if they don't personally celebrate Christmas.

What are friends for?

IF there ever is a brand-new courthouse in Broward, it needs to be on/near or adjacent to U.S.-1 so that a future FEC rail line commuter train station is close-by, and logic and reason actually enter the public planning conversation for a change.
http://www.sfeccstudy.com/

If you aren't going to consciously locate venues that attract lots of foot traffic, like stadiums, arenas, shopping malls, govt. buildings like county courthouses or county HQ, near safe and well-designed mass transportation hubs to cut down on the number of vehicles on the roads, and create some positive business synergy and efficiency -and make everyone's life simpler while saving money on parking fees- what's the point in pretending there's any kind of logical, well thought- out County/regional transportation policy?

I don't know about you, but personally, I'm tired of pretending that myopic mediocrity in South Florida government planning is satisfactory.

Nothing like a romantic weekend getaway at the Stacy Ritter suite at the Westin Diplomat! Esp. when your political contributors are paying for it.

Above, June 3, 2010 photo by South Beach Hoosier of the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa, Hollywood, FL. It's located about three miles from me, on the the beach. This view is from SW of the hotel as seen from State Road A1A thru a slightly wet car window.

Bob Norman's recent spate of stories on Broward County Comm. Stacy Ritter and her days of reckoning with the Florida Comm. on Ethics have been esp. instructive, not only in depicting the unappealing aspects of the dysfunctional Broward County political culture and the rather creepy and sordid people who inhabit it, but also the resolutely galling sense of entitlement of folks like Ritter and what they believe passes for normal.

His latest dispatch, below, is no exception.

BrowardPalmBeach New Times
Daily Pulp blog
More Ritter-Klenet Campaign Expenses: $2,189 At Diplomat Hotel
By Bob Norman,
Sunday, December 5 2010 @ 11:27AM ​

Among the many whopping charges reimbursed by Stacy Ritter's 2008 campaign account for herself and her lobbyist husband Russell Klenet were two at the swank Diplomat Hotel & Spa totaling $2,189.14 -- including one for $1,889.31.

Over $1,000 was spent during four shopping trips at The Fresh Market, an upscale grocer that happens to have a notably fine wine and meat selection.

Curiously, the couple like to have alleged "campaign dinners" in Boca Raton in Palm Beach County. A visit to Chop's Lobster Bar in Boca Raton ran $682.20. Another dinner well outside of the district happened at Emeril's Miami Beach where a $769.80 charge was racked up. Let's not forget the $156.89 charge for a limo service, Carey International, Inc.

Read the rest of the post at:
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/12/stacy_ritter_campaign_expenditures.php

Archives of Bob Norman columns:
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/author.php?author_id=202

Broward Comm. Stacy Ritter plays her indignant card -again- in Sun-Sentinel's Broward Politics blog video of her sounding off on "paparazzi''

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5d2utn39w&hd=1

Broward Politics YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BrowardPolitics
Website: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/

Below, some other politically-oriented or current events-themed YouTube Channels you may want to peruse or subscribe to, like yours truly.

I'm still subscribed to The Hotline TV and Sayfie Review, but neither has posted anything new in one month and four months respectively.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HotlineTV
http://www.youtube.com/user/sayfiereview


MyActsofSedition YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/actsofsedition
Website: http://www.myactsofsedition.com/

Change Hallandale Beach YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Butler1Mike
Website: http://www.changehallandale.com/

BrowardPalmBeach NewTimes YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BrowardPalmBeach Website: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/

Newt Gingrich YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ngingrich

Red Eye Recap YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedEyeRecap
Website: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/red-eye/index.html
Red Eye airs weeknights at 3am ET, 12am PT, on Fox News Channel.

I'm always saying here that "seeing is believing" -yes, you can quote me on that- but since so many South Florida print/TV reporters I've talked to in the past have expressed interest in shedding a well-needed light on some of these problems, often after hour-long, in-person conversations at their studios, news rooms or over at Panera's, only to actually do nothing
about making that story idea a reality, more direct action is necessary.
Well, I'm eliminating the middle-man -the South Florida news media.

After Thanksgiving, as part of some changes and additions I'm making to the blog and to the Hallandale Beach Blog YouTube Channel, which I have greatly under-utilized thus far, I will finally get those videos I've been promising here since... well, quite a while ago.

I plan on finally posting key highlights (or low-lights) of not only Hallandale Beach and Hollywood City Commission/CRA meetings, Broward County Commission meetings, and the myriad South Florida civic meetings I hit, but also video of some longstanding Quality-of-Life problems throughout SE Broward and NE Miami-Dade that have proven troublesome or irritating to local citizen taxpayers, and which in many cases, have largely been ignored by the appropriate authorities, or incompetently managed.
No more.

While that will principally be in Hallandale Beach, Hollywood, Aventura and the odd world north of North Miami Beach, Home of the Chargers, I will also be posting video of what I observe and find troubling in Miami, Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale and other parts of South Florida as well.

Please check back there again soon: http://www.youtube.com/user/HallandaleBeachBlog

Bob Norman's take on the 28 charges against Broward County Comm. Stacy Ritter, noted misanthrope

Commissioner Stacy Ritter's Nov. 10th video press release concerning findings of the Florida Elections Commission on an elections violation complaint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDU4a1rsYA

Bob Norman of the BrowardPalmBeach NewTimes is really on top of things in Broward County today, even more so than usual, as he reports that Broward County Comm. Stacy Ritter, the same indignant person who sent a comment to my blog in June telling me that I should've contacted her to get her side of a story before I simply linked to a newspaper story on ethics legislation by the Sun-Sentinel's Brittany Wallman -featuring a quote from FL State Rep. Ari Porth, as if Ritter would've even responded- now thinks it might be time to prevent Broward County citizens and interested parties from taking photos of the County Commission during public meetings.
Yes, the same Commission that supposedly works for them.
My post from June:
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/broward-county-commissioner-stacy.html

Ritter seemingly only wants a taxpayer-paid photographer who serves as a PR tool for the ruling political class to be allowed to snap-snap at public meetings.
Perhaps that person, whoever it is, knows Ritter's 'good side.'

The side Ritter certainly didn't show when she showed nothing but contempt when she ripped my friend, Charlotte Greenbarg, President of the Broward Coalition -who wanted the most stringent and far-reaching ethics legislation possible- when Ritter appeared before the Broward Country Ethics Commission.
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/bestof/2009/award/best-political-activist-845585/

Almost as if Ritter didn't even consider that her comments at a public meeting of great civic importance would be recorded, or that a transcript would be made.
Typical.
As I remarked later:

I wonder if Comm. Ritter is still angry about the public finding out via my email to Bob Norman of the Broward Palm Beach New Times a few months back about what she said about civic activist and Broward Coalition President Charlotte Greenbarg before the Broward Ethics Commission, one of the few meetings of theirs that I missed towards the end, where I was often the only member of the public present for the entire meeting?

Knowing that nothing actually beats seeing her own sarcastic words in print, I emailed those indignant words of Ritter's over to Bob Norman, who had the good sense to run them in his January 25th, 2010 blog column for everyone to read for themselves.http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/01/monday_quick_takes.php

Personally, after being back down here for seven years, and having attended many Broward County Commission meetings, I have yet to see a good side of Ritter's personality, or even see some sterling quality demonstrated by her that commends her for her current job.
But then that pre-supposes that one actually exists.
-----
BrowardPalmBeach NewTimesStacy Ritter Hit With 28 Election Charges, Complains She Feels "Stalked"
By Bob Norman, Wednesday., Nov. 10 2010 @ 3:00PM

The Florida Elections Commission found probable cause this morning to charge Broward County Commissioner Stacy Ritter with 28 election violations.

​The nature of the charges aren't clear, but they are based on a voluminous complaint filed by Hollywood attorney Brenda Chalifour, who was present at this morning's hearing at the Senate Office Building in Tallahassee.

Ritter did not attend the hearing, though her Tallahassee lawyer, Mark Herron, was there in her stead.

Read the rest of the post at:
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/11/stacy_ritter_hit_with_28_elect.php76 comments as of 9:40 p.m.

See also:

Previous NewTimes articles on Stacy Ritter:
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/search/index/collection:all/keywords:%22Stacy+Ritter%22/limit:50/

Previous Hallandale Beach Blog posts re Ritter: http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Stacy%20Ritter

Stacy Ritter's YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/stacyritter3

Latest on Broward County ethics debate, inc. Verbatim Minutes of June 18th, 2010 Broward County Ethics Commission meeting

In case you never got around to seeing it the first time I mentioned it, please take a moment to look at Robert Wechsler's excellent take on the transparently self-serving excuses being foisted on Broward's citizen taxpayers in the fight against getting meaningful ethics legislation here with real teeth, and consider bookmarking his blog, too.
http://www.cityethics.org/Blog-RobWechsler

The Broward County Commission Should Not Be Challenging the Constitutionality of a Lobbying Provision
http://www.cityethics.org/content/broward-county-commission-should-not-be-challenging-constitutionality-lobbying-provision

(He had a newer post on Monday relating to something I have below,
A Second Constitutionality Opinion in Broward County, Just Like the First http://www.cityethics.org/content/second-constitutionality-opinion-broward-county-just-first

His first post was written on the 18th, the same day as the Broward Ethics Commission meeting -which I missed, unfortunately.

I have the Minutes to that meeting, including the Verbatim Minutes, the Real McCoy as it were, to use a phrase I've never used in a blog post before.
Guess I'm just in an idiomatic mood!

While not exactly a Stieg Larsson page-turner, it makes for some interesting reading.

I've also included Brittany Wallman and Scott Wyman's spot-on Broward Politics posts from Friday and Monday afternoon on the latest development in the ethics power play that has slowly morphed into a morality play -and jobs bill.
That is to say, jobs for the commissioner's spouses and family if they can finesse it.

You also want to be sure to read the reader comments, too, since one of the folks who read it and had something to say is Comm. Stacy Ritter.
She and that "gifted" golf cart and what many Broward citizens believe is her larger-than-life sense of entitlement were the subject of Michael Mayo's Mayo on the Side blog column on Friday, also at the bottom.

And not that you asked, but I like the Netherlands to win the World Cup.

I have a few World Cup-related posts on the way that I've heretofore chosen to keep in Draft, including one on the England National Team (ENT) that I'll be calling, modestly,
The Bungle in Bloemfontein: How English football culture's weaknesses were exposed again, with nary a silver lining to be found.

1. June 18th, 2010 Broward County Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes http://www.broward.org/EthicsCommission/Documents/06182010Minutes.pdf

2. June 18th, 2010 Broward County Ethics Commission Verbatim Minutes
http://www.broward.org/EthicsCommission/Documents/06182010MinutesVerbatim.pdf

Code of Ethics Ordinance - Final Approval
http://www.broward.org/EthicsCommission/Documents/CodeofEthics2010%20-%20Final%20%20Approved.pdf

-----
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Broward Politics blog
Broward's ethics ordinance legally wobbly but could be adopted, lawyer says

Posted by Brittany Wallman on June 28, 2010 04:25 PM

The proposed cleanup of Broward County government could move forward despite questions about its constitutionality, under a scenario proposed by an outside attorney hired by the county.

Attorney Bruce Johnson weighed in Monday with a memo to the county, saying that parts of the proposed overhaul of Broward County Commission ethics rules would probably not withstand a constitutional challenge. The problematic part, in particular, he said, is a proposed lobbying ban in Broward that would apply not just to county commissioners but also to their family members and spouses or domestic partners.

Read the rest of the post at:

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

-----

South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Broward Politics blog
County attorney defends role in ethics code controversy

Posted by Scott Wyman on June 25, 2010 09:00 AM

Nothing to see here. That’s the official response from Broward County’s attorney concerning the week of controversy that surrounded the botched move to go to court over long-sought ethics reform.

In a memo sent to county commissioners Thursday, County Attorney Jeff Newton rejected allegations that he had been part of a conspiracy to derail reform. He said the concerns he raised about the ethics legislation was, instead, a legitimate response to an inquiry made by Commissioner Ilene Lieberman before the June 15 board meeting.

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

South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Michael Mayo
Mayo on the Side blog
Stacy Ritter: Husband asked for golf cart from developers

Posted by Michael Mayo on June 25, 2010 11:37 AM

Before she was elected to the Broward County Commission in November 2006, Stacy Ritter got a golf cart from the father-and-son developer team of Bruce and Shawn Chait.

"I didn't ask for it," Ritter told me this week. "Russ asked for it."

Russ is her husband, lobbyist Russ Klenet.

Read the rest of the post at:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/mayo/blog/2010/06/stacy_ritter_husband_asked_for.html

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

Broward Comm Albert Jones and the future of the incompatible Diplomat LAC -and what does he really know about the lies spread by HB's Anthony Sanders?

Obviously, I've been talking to people all over the
county a lot about the Diplomat LAC proposal,
which, as I constantly remind everyone I speak
to about it, Hallandale Beach City Hall only placed
on the city's website for citizens to read 28 hours
before the first vote in mid-December.

One of the sub-plots that's come up is how this
may affect former Dania mayor and current
interim Broward Commissioner Albert C. Jones'
political future, if any, as he seeks to get elected
to a position he was appointed to by Gov. Crist.

There are some larger issues for people all over
the county to contemplate.

If, by virtue of his YES vote on March 23rd,
he believes that it is perfectly acceptable for
25-30 story residential buildings to be located
adjacent to single-family residential areas,
some only 25 feet away, will he also be voting
this same way for future development applications
in the rest of Broward County, including
the cities of Fort Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines,
Hollywood, Coral Springs, Miramar, Plantation,
Sunrise and Davie, as well as the entirety of the
Broward Commission District he hopes to
represent in the future as an elected
Commissioner?

If not, why then is he forcing Hallandale Beach
and nearby Hollywood citizens to bear this
particular burden when they are opposed to it,
and are already physically hamstrung by not
only having geographical barriers, but also
among the single worst traffic to be currently
found in all of South Florida?

How is it that he imagines having thousands
more residents in that area will not directly
affect the ability of people to evacuate when
the sites in question are ALL mandatory
hurricane evacuation areas?

There are many questions you could ask him,
but this might be the first

Please explain your rationale for your
March 23rd vote and why Broward residents
should not expect you to vote similarly for
future applications if you are elected.
Or, do you plan to make exceptions for other
cities, but not in this particular case with respect
to Hallandale Beach and Hollywood residents?

Another question to ponder is why would
politically-active Broward residents who live
outside of the 9th District currently represented
by Jones, especially in Hollywood or Hallandale
Beach, consider making small campaign
contribution to him if he is a solid vote FOR
developers' out-of-scale plans of a sort that
caused the Broward Planning Council's
professional staff to recommend DENIAL
of the proposal?

Well, they wouldn't if he votes for the Diplomat
on April 27th whereas they might consider it
if he votes against it.
Hmm-m-m...

Then again, if he votes for the Diplomat,
it's highly likely that they and their law firms,
lobbyists and consultants will show him
some love with campaign contributions
while those very same politically-active
residents of the county will contribute to
one of his many opponents.
That's politics: votes matter.

I personally think that April 12th or so is
plenty of time for him to have decided what
he's going to do, one way or the other on
the second go-round with this.

If he appears set on rejecting the community
again, as far as I'm concerned, that's it for
him and I personally plan to go to Plan B
with Comm. Jones.

That's the plan where his opponents
start asking these questions publicly
themselves, and he doesn't get elected.

According to the website of the Broward County
Supervisor of Elections (SOE) Jones still
does NOT appear on the official candidates list.
http://www.browardsoe.org/electioncandidates.aspx?eid=89

That same website notes that as of today,
the registered voters here break down as follows:
Democrat: 544,329
Republican: 243,802
Other: 240,806
Total: 1,028,937

Nobody here but us scorpions:
For what it's worth, if anyone out there was
thinking of whom they could contact on the
Commission to try to prevent this proposal
from going thru, I believe that any time
and energy directed at Ilene Lieberman or
Stacey Ritter is completely wasted.

That's especially the case after many people
from around the county who have dealt with
them in the past, inc. elected officials,
have contacted me and said that after hearing
and reading what's already transpired, they
agree with me that Lieberman and Ritter
literally can't help themselves.

You know, like the scorpion and the frog.
Except in this case, they're both scorpions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

These two still imagine themselves able to
pick and choose economic winners and losers
throughout the county based on whom they
know or who is involved in a project, i.e.
crony capitalism, the preferred method
employed at Hallandale Beach City Hall
to dispense taxpayer and CRA funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

The Rodstrom Factor:
The fact that we never heard any specifics about
why some people in Broward thought Comm.
John Rodstrom would abstain last Tuesday
-just a feeling?- and still can't say, is sufficient
proof to me that Rodstrom is also a lost cause.

Rodstrom is also involved with the Margaritaville
bid in Hollywood's Johnson Street RFP that
I personally find so unattractive and objectionable,
and may will be at Hollywood City Hall on April 7th
at 4 p.m., when the entire City Commission sees
the presentations and formally asks questions for
the first time.
I'll be there also, of course.

To me, for better or worse, the entire fight for
the Diplomat LAC proposal lies with Comm.
Albert C. Jones.
Period.

It would be great if someone could convince
Jones that what is really going on in HB, with
Sanders & Co. seemingly trying to benefit either
financially or professionally -or both- from every
single proposed project in HB, thru so-called
'job programs' -regardless of how many
actual jobs are created, and to the apparent
exclusion of other groups involvement-
is not our opinion, it's a verifiable fact.

But you have to be willing to admit that
seeing is believing.

Some well-informed people throughout the county
tell me that just as is true with Comm. Diana
Wasserman-Rubin, Comm. Jones does NOT
really want to ask too many questions about HB
Comm. Anthony Sanders.

You know, like the entire South Florida news media,
save Sun-Sentinel columnist Michael Mayo?

Whether about the curious sale of his family property
to the city for far more than its appraised value
-for purposes that are still not at all clear-
or ask why so many of his associates and pals
seem to be getting sweetheart deals from the city
that seem absurd on their face and unpopular
with taxpayers.

For instance, City Manager Good deciding on
his own, without any input from the elected City
Commission, to give $25,000 to someone for
a summer camp that is not a non-profit.

Something that elected city commissioners only
found out about a week after the fact.

So, does anyone out there have any idea of how
much money in grants or loans that brother-and-sister
act Deborah Brown and John Brown have
separately received from the City of HB over
the past few years?

She's the woman, of course, who got the $25k
last year without the public or elected officials
knowing about it 'till it was too late.
See http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Hallandale-Beach/deborah-brown-P1332185.aspx

Until a few weeks ago, I just assumed that Zamar
was a non-profit, but since it's incorporated,
it's clearly not, so why did they get the money
instead of someone else?
Better yet, if you have nothing to hide, why was
this kept from the public?

The fact that the city's CRA has been used as
an ATM for so long by HB City Hall for their friends,
and more recently, by Sanders' myriad acolytes,
without actually alleviating poverty or blight,
is going to come out sooner rather than later.

Comm. Jones needs to decide if he supports
the empty promises of the Diplomat and their
apologists like Sanders, or concrete results.

It's time for him to be a Profile in Courage
and do the right thing, or seal his fate with
Broward voters. Late this afternoon I was
informed that: Comm. Sanders was STILL
going around town, esp. churches, saying
the Diplomat LAC is good for "their community,"
but people who know the true facts are downright
insulted by the drop-in-the-bucket proposal
for Affordable Housing, and the Diplomat's
clear preference to not have the affordable
housing actually be at their actual site.

Naturally, they want to export it off-site just like
Gulfstream Park, Magna and Forest City did.
So, who profits from this, exactly?

Despite what you may have heard elsewhere.
the Palms Coalition decided not to support
the Diplomat LAC proposal as a group.

I'll bet that even Diana Wasserman-Rubin
knows this, but will she actually show-up at
the NW quadrant meeting on Monday at
6:30 p.m., at the city's Hepburn Center,
to see what the community actually thinks
about this?

It should be interesting to see what sort of
turn-out they get from their paid puppets,
or even whether the South Florida news media,
esp. TV, continues their apparent boycott of
this compelling story.

In fact, perhaps because it is scheduled for NW,
the news media will show-up, albeit, like the
much-needed military support that was too late
getting to Custer.

One thing you can count on though is that
the Diplomat's interests will be employing
a full-court press at this meeting to try to
spin it their way, with the same invisible faces
we never see at City Commission or CRA
meetings suddenly popping-up and telling
us how much they want it.

Some people will always put their own financial
interests ahead of the community's greater good,
and that's exactly what we'll see on Monday night.

I'll tell you who those people are.