Last week, the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics
overruled the former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
Gerald Kogan, while tossing aside the carefully crafted Voluntary
Fair Campaign Practices Procedure. This Fair Campaign Pledge is
designed to allow candidates who feel their opponent has engaged in
unfair campaign practices to lodge a complaint with the COE through
an expedited process. Both parties have to choose to accept the
complaint heard for probable cause within 24 hours.
It's a good process. It means that
complaints can be dealt with quickly and not overshadow a campaign.
It prevents frivolous or baseless complaints from being used as a
campaign tactic and in the case that probable cause is found, puts
that information in the public view.
That's what happened in North Bay
Village in the November 4 election. Incumbent Jorge Gonzalez
complained that a flier challenger Mario Garcia put out unfairly
represented Gonzalez's involvement in a bankruptcy, debt judgments, a
paid trip to Turkey, and Gonzalez's voting record.
Gonzalez made the complaint (C14-51)
and Garcia agreed to the expedited process. Hearing officer retired
Florida Supreme Court judge Gerald Kogan evaluated the complaint and
the response and found “No Probable Cause.”
In the meantime, Gonzalez won the
election against Garcia.
In every single one of the election
complaints, the Commission on Ethics Board has followed the
recommendation of the hearing officer, referring those where probable
cause has been found for further action and dismissing those where no
probable cause was found. In fact, neither Joe Centorino, the COE
Executive Director, nor anyone else can find a single example of the
Board overrruling a “No Probable Cause” finding in any complaint
ever filed in the COE history. Until now.
This brings up a host of questions
without answers.
Why was this complaint uniquely passed
to an entirely separate process? What fault was found in the
hearing that justified that? The hearing on November 17 offers no
clarity on that question because they are held in secret, behind
closed doors. No members of the public are allowed although
Commissioner Gonzalez was invited to stay.
What value does agreeing to the
Voluntary Campaign Practices Ordinance bring a candidate if the COE
staff decides they don't like the result and will arbitrarily
continue to pursue the complaint after the finding? It seems like
none.
Finally, why this unique decision on
this one complaint. Well, again, the COE does not hold public
hearings on why they would overrule a hearing officer. But there is
a long and cozy relationship between the Advocate Michael Murawski, a
resident of North Bay Village, and one side of the politically active
North Bay Village community, a group that strongly supported
Gonzalez's bid for election.
In the past, the COE has already
treated North Bay Village differently. When the COE established that
a commissioner and his wife had both their mobile phones paid for by
North Bay Village over the course of 7 years, they said it was “done
with good intentions” and refused to pursue repayment.
In another complaint against Mr.
Gonzalez for not reporting a gift of tickets to the Miami Heat, they
redacted their own press release to remove references to business
relationships in North Bay Village and imposed no fine, just a $100 penalty to cover the COE costs.
The list goes on. So maybe this is
peculiar to North Bay Village. Maybe North Bay Village is so unique
that the Commission on Ethics needs to invalidate the Voluntary Fair
Campaign Practices Ordinance and summarily overrule the finding of
one of the most respected jurists in the state.
Or maybe it's simply a case that local
North Bay Village resident who also happens to be the Commission on
Ethics Advocate didn't like the outcome and so decided to toss aside
the process to get the outcome he wants? I think it's that one.
Kevin Vericker
November 25, 2014