And Once Again In The News...

Norman Powell - North Bay Village Attorney
who left a gun in his airport carry on

In today's Herald, North Bay Village once again shines as the Herald reports that our village attorney, one Norman Christopher Powell had a bit of a run in at the Miami Airport in February.  

Seems he was sending his carry on through the scanner and the TSA noticed that he had a gun in the bag.  

When asked why he didn't disclose this to the commission during his contract negotiations, Powell is quoted  saying 

“I don’t believe I mentioned it because I didn’t really think it was important,” said Powell. He said he has had a concealed weapons permit for years. “Basically it was simply the weapon was improperly stored. I paid a fine and moved on.”

But you know a lot of people do think it's important.   You know, bringing a gun on the plane.  The TSA usually fines the carrier about $3,000 and can be up to $13,000 and Powell says he "paid a fine" not mentioning the amount and "moved on."   

This same man, an attorney, has an interesting timeline with just such lapses.  Let's review.  

Earlier this year, at his direction, the police force began scanning attendees at commission meetings for weapons because Powell thought it was important not to bring a gun into the commission chambers, even though it is legal.   Was Powell the only armed person in the room?  

BUT HE DIDN'T THINK BRINGING A GUN ON TO A PLANE WAS IMPORTANT.  

In February, Powell added a new condition to the application for commission appointment requiring people who wanted to be considered for commission appointment to sign a form that would allow disclosure of all police and legal issues, including expunged and sealed records.  Our charter would need to be changed for this to be legal but Powell made sure it was a condition of application because laws be damned, the commission has a right to know.  

BUT HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE HIS OWN LEGAL PROBLEMS.

In September, he took a complaint about a routine video diary, which incidentally showed a public figure doing public work, and tried to make it an FDLE case.  The end result of this non-issue was the intimidation and eventual resignation of Yvonne Hamilton, our longest serving and best public servant in what looked like the classic definition of a hostile work environment, led by Andreana Jackson.    

BUT HE DIDN'T THINK FORGETTING ABOUT HIS GUN AT THE AIRPORT WAS IMPORTANT

Then, unrelated to the weapons charge, Powell filed a personal ethics complaint against a lawyer from Brant Miller and Olive and now has contracted high priced attorney Ben Kuehne to litigate it.  There is a big question as to whether or not this is a personal complaint or a Village complaint.  Actually, by its nature, it's a personal complaint.  If there is cause to believe that Village ordinances have been violated, then the Village needs to prosecute under its own statutes. 

DID POWELL FORGET HOW THE LAW WORKS?

Powell also fired our labor attorneys, claiming authority under the Village Charter without explaining where, but which is specifically excluded from his contract which reads 

The Attorney’s services do not include Labor Relations services, employment and personnel issues, labor arbitrations or collective bargaining. These services will be provided by the Village’s Labor Counsel. 

 MAYBE HE FORGOT ABOUT HIS CONTRACT LIKE HE FORGOT ABOUT HIS GUN?

So to summarize:

• Norman Powell tried to bring a gun through airport security, got caught, paid an undisclosed fine.  
• Norman Powell never disclosed this issue to the commission even while he was at the same time creating and negotiating his own contract.   
• Norman Powell imposed extraordinary disclosure requirements without Charter support but didn't follow his own.  
• Norman Powell created and implemented a security protocol designed for exactly the same purposes he ignored and dismissed as "not important."  
• Norman Powell fired attorneys in spite of his own negotiated contract removing him from that area.  

Now Norman Powell is suing me for bringing his shortcomings up, issuing subpoenas that have the net effect of punishing people he does not like, does not recuse himself when the subject of his own employment is considered by the commission, and we should continue to pay him why?  

I forget.  But don't forget to check out Stephanie Kienzle's blog for another perspective on the issue.  

Kevin Vericker

December 18, 2018