WALKING CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- Controversial WILLIAM L. PROCTOR, State Representative (R-20th), Flagler College Chancellor (and longtime President), longtime Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Chairman, FSU Interim Athletic Director -- Has WILLIAM L. PROCTOR now shown his true colors, embroiling the School for the Deaf and Blind in A Scheme to Hire Two Firms to Do Illegal Lobbying, 2011-2012 in Support of Eminent Domain?
SIDNEY F. ANSBACHER, Senior Partner in GRAYROBINSON:
Registered as FSDB Lobbyist 2011-2012, in Violation of F.S. 11.062, Faces Potential Two-year Ban on Lobbying?
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:51 PM
To: bmarshall@gray-robinson.com; 'Sidney F. Ansbacher'
Cc: huttol@fsdb.k12.fl.us;
Subject: RE: FSDB's Lobbying for Eminent Domain Legislation, in Possible Violation of F.S. 11.062; Open Records Request No. 12
Dear Messrs. Marshall and Ansbacher:
1. I wrote you both on February 9, 2011.
2. You did not respond.
3. Do we infer correctly from your three (3) days’ silence that you have no choice but to concede that your lobbying work for FSDB was illegal?
4. Is it fair to say that GRAY ROBINSON must withdraw from representing FSDB? Will you please fax or E-mail me tomorrow a copy of any refund check that GRAY ROBINSON is sending to FSDB?
5. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON is a “person” within the meaning of F.S. 11.016(d)?
6. Do you agree that, since GRAY ROBINSON is a “person,” and as a result of Mr. Ansbacher’s illegal lobbying activities at the behest of Rep. Wm. L. Proctor (former FSDB Chair for fifteen years), every single one of GRAY ROBINSON’s 250 lawyers could be barred from lobbying for two (2) years -- including some 21 who have registered as lobbyists during 2011 or 2012?
7. By copy of this E-mail to FSDB President Danny Hutto, I am requesting that FSDB kindly provide all requested records tomorrow morning, without any further delays.
8. Senator Wise’s committee hearing on eminent domain is 2/14 at 1:30 PM – less than 48 hours from now. Time is of the essence.
9. We need the requested documents for committee testimony and other First Amendment protected activity.
10. Meanwhile, will FSDB please advise us tomorrow morning whether the FSDB eminent domain bill is being withdrawn?
11. FSDB’s answers to these questions will affect many our travel plans, and potentially those of many other people here in St. Augustine and St. Johns County, including public officials and private citizens who are concerned about abuse of eminent domain powers affecting two (2) neighborhoods protected by the National Register of Historic Places.
12. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these urgent matters.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Ed Slavin
Three days earlier I wrote the head of the 250-lawyer GRAY ROBINSON firm:
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:49 PM
To: 'bmarshall@gray-robinson.com'
Cc: 'Sidney F. Ansbacher';
Subject: FW: FSDB's Lobbying for Eminent Domain Legislation, in Possible Violation of F.S. 11.062; Open Records Request No. 12
Dear Mr. Marshall:
Please call to discuss.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ed Slavin
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:32 PM
To: 'Sidney F. Ansbacher'
Cc: 'huttol@fsdb.k12.fl.us'
Subject: FSDB's Lobbying for Eminent Domain Legislation, in Possible Violation of F.S. 11.062; Open Records Request No. 12
Dear Mr. Ansbacher:
1. Thank you again for your kind assistance this past week.
2. Please provide, as FSDB Open Records request No. 12, GRAY ROBINSON’s retainer agreement with FSDB, and any and all documents reflecting communications leading to its formation, modification, interpretation or cancellation[.]
3. Will FSDB please add to its agenda for the February 10, 2012 meeting an item to consider whether GRAY ROBINSON’s retainer agreement with FSDB must now be rescinded and cancelled, nunc pro tunc, with a full refund to be paid by GRAY ROBINSON to FSDB? Please see Restatement of Contracts, 2d, Section 178 (Contract Violation of Public Policy), which states in haec verba:
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178 (1981)
§ 178. When A Term Is Unenforceable On Grounds Of Public Policy
(1) A promise or other term of an agreement is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if legislation provides that it is unenforceable or the interest in its enforcement is clearly outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy against the
enforcement of such terms.
(2) In weighing the interest in the enforcement of a term, account is taken of
(a) the parties' justified expectations,
(b) any forfeiture that would result if enforcement were denied, and
(c) any special public interest in the enforcement of the particular term.
(3) In weighing a public policy against enforcement of a term, account is taken of
(a) the strength of that policy as manifested by legislation or judicial decisions,
(b) the likelihood that a refusal to enforce the term will further that policy,
(c) the seriousness of any misconduct involved and the extent to which it was deliberate, and
(d) the directness of the connection between that misconduct and the term.
4. This is the same contract law principle that persuaded our Anastasia Mosquito Control Commission of St. Johns County (AMCD) to vote unanimously cancel, in August 2007, its controversial contract with BELL HELICOPTER (a division of TEXTRON) for purchase of a $1.8 million no-bid luxury jet helicopter, in violation of AMCD’s purchasing policy.
5. With the informed support of St. Johns County public opinion, our AMCD voted unanimously to cancel the contract, and it won a full refund of its deposit on the illegal purchase of a helicopter without competitive bidding.
6. This was one of the proudest moments in recent St. Johns County history – our AMCD voted 5-0 to cancel the helicopter contract, thereby rejecting the “culture of corruption” that too long festered here, in a place that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called in 1964 the “most lawless” city in America.
7. Do you agree that -- due to GRAY ROBINSON’s lobbying for FSDB, in possible violation of F.S. 11.062 --- GRAY ROBINSON must now immediately cease and desist from all lobbying on FSDB’s eminent domain bill?
8. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON and you must cancel your lobbying registration for FSDB, nunc pro tunc?
9. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON must advise our Legislature, Governor and Attorney General of its illegal lobbying and hire an outside law firm to investigate how this happened?
10. Do you agree that FSDB and GRAY ROBINSON should also self-report its conduct to the Florida Commission on Ethics?
11. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON cannot and must not give any legal advice to FSDB on the legality of GRAY ROBINSON’s questionable retainer?
12. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON cannot and must not advise FSDB on the sequelae of GRAY ROBINSON’s illegal lobbying on FSDB’s behalf, e.g., the potential loss of FSDB’s ability to lobby the Florida State Legislature for two (2) years?
13. Do you agree that GRAY ROBINSON should immediately notify its legal malpractice carrier of a possible claim by FSDB?
14. Do you agree that, since you and GRAY ROBINSON registered as lobbyists on FSDB’s behalf, this same two (2) year penalty could potentially apply to both you and to every single one of GRAY ROBINSON’s 250 lawyers?
15. I have not yet received promised FSDB Open Records cost estimate, as you promised. I do look forward to receiving it.
16. Is FSDB agreeable to waiving any and all fees in the public interest?
17. Or will GRAY ROBINSON agree to pay any search or copying fees as part of its commitment to pro bono work. This will help clear the air about FSDB’s 30 year history vis a vis Nelmar Terrace and Fullerwood neighborhoods, including other possible illegalities that you and I have not yet discussed in detail.
18. Will FSDB kindly agree to place all of the records that I have requested, February 3rd to date, upon FSDB’s website, without charge?
19. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
20. I have read your bio and you have a very interesting background.
21. I look forward to meeting you at tomorrow’s FSDB board meeting.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
earlier that day I wrote:
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:49 PM
To: 'Sidney F. Ansbacher'
Cc: 'huttol@fsdb.k12.fl.us';
Subject: Proposed Late Agenda Item for February 10, 2012 FSDB Board meeting --- Possible Illegal Lobbying for Eminent Domain Legislation, in Violation of F.S. 11.062; Open Records Request No. 11
Dear Mr. Ansbacher:
1. As our next request, No. 11, will FSDB please provide by E-mail attachments:
11A. All documents on any complaints of any kind (federal or state) about allegations of illegal lobbying and sequelae?
11B. Copies of all cancelled checks showing FSDB paid for the services of non-employee registered lobbyists?
2. Does FSDB’s lobbying of the 2011-2012 Florida legislature on eminent domain legislation violate F.S. 11.062 (reprinted below with emphasis added)?
3. Does this lobbying activity now subject FSDB, you, GRAY ROBINSON and the other lobbyist to penalties? See below.
4. Has GRAY ROBINSON’s ethical counsel advised you before you registered as a lobbyist for FSDB for the 2012 Legislature?
5. Was the GRAY ROBINSON ethics counsel made aware of the 2002 Audit findings re: illegal FSDB lobbying (Finding No. 5: School Lobbyist)?
6. Is it true that the other currently-registered non-employee FSDB lobbyist (in addition to you) currently working for FSDB [is] the same lobbyist whose illegal work was reported by the 2002 audit?
7. Will FSDB please place this matter (possible illegal lobbying in violation of F.S. 11.062) on tomorrow’s FSDB agenda?
8. Will FSDB now kindly withdraw its request for eminent domain legislation in light of F.S. 11.062?
9. Will you now call me ... to discuss my February 3 and later Open Records requests?
Thank you again.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
2011 Florida Statutes
Title III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS Chapter 11
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING
11.062 Use of state funds for lobbying prohibited; penalty.—
(1) No funds, exclusive of salaries, travel expenses, and per diem, appropriated to, or otherwise available for use by, any executive, judicial, or quasi-judicial department shall be used by any state employee or other person for lobbying purposes, which shall include the cost for publication and distribution of each publication used in lobbying; other printing; media; advertising, including production costs; postage; entertainment; and telephone and telegraph. Any state employee of any executive, judicial, or quasi-judicial department who violates the provisions of this section shall have deducted from her or his salary the amount of state moneys spent in violation of this section.
(2)(a) A department of the executive branch, a state university, a community college, or a water management district may not use public funds to retain a lobbyist to represent it before the legislative or executive branch. However, full-time employees of a department of the executive branch, a state university, a community college, or a water management district may register as lobbyists and represent that employer before the legislative or executive branch. Except as a full-time employee, a person may not accept any public funds from a department of the executive branch, a state university, a community college, or a water management district for lobbying.
(b) A department of the executive branch, a state university, a community college, or a water management district that violates this subsection may be prohibited from lobbying the legislative or executive branch for a period not exceeding 2 years.
(c) This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit a department of the executive branch, a state university, a community college, or a water management district from retaining a lobbyist for purposes of representing the entity before the executive or legislative branch of the Federal Government. Further, any person so retained is not subject to the prohibitions of this subsection.
(d) A person who accepts public funds as compensation for lobbying in violation of this subsection may be prohibited from registering to lobby before the legislative or executive branch for a period not exceeding 2 years.
(e) A person may file a written complaint with the Commission on Ethics alleging a violation of this subsection. The commission shall investigate and report its finding to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Governor and Cabinet. Based upon the report of the Commission on Ethics or upon its own finding that a violation of this subsection has occurred, a house of the Legislature may discipline the violator according to its rules, and the Governor or the Governor and Cabinet, as applicable, may prohibit the violator from lobbying before the executive branch for a period not exceeding 2 years after the date of the formal determination of a violation. The Commission on Ethics shall adopt rules necessary to conduct investigations under this paragraph.
History.—s. 2, ch. 74-161; s. 4, ch. 93-121; s. 10, ch. 95-147.
(Emphasis added)
No comments:
Post a Comment