RONALD WAYNE BROWN, ST. AUGUSTINE CITY ATTORNEY, WANTS "PROTECTION" FROM FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION FOR CALLS FOR DISCLOSURE BY HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS FROM WHOM FOR WHOM?
PHOTO CREDIT: 1565TODAY.COM/BRIAN JAMES NELSON
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD (HARB) members must disclose financial interests under Florida law, but have apparently not done so in the 50 years that HARB has existed.
Why?
I asked yesterday. No disclosures. No apology. No explanation. It is as if WILLIAM BRUCE HARRISS and JOSEPH POMAR were in charge. Why?
Recently resigned, lame-duck City Attorney RONALD WAYNE BROWN wants "protection" for HARB members from mandatory financial disclosures under Florida law. For whom, from whom? Tomorrow, ex-Mayor CLAUDE LEONARD WEEKS, JR., HARB Chairman, and Mayor JOSEPH LESTER BOLES, JR., are expected to renew for five more years their lease of the City's lucrative commercial property at 81 St. George Street, for five more years.
Coverup-prone city attorneys want to charge ME money to tell me if there is anything in writing from any prior City Attorney supporting such an extravagant proposition. In the words of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the great American diplomat, "Not one penny for tribute."
See my correspondence with Ms. Isabelle Lopez, recently duked in by unanimous vote as our New City Attorney, without putting it on the agenda or announcing the vacancy in the Florida Bar Journal:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: ilopez
Sent: Thu, Jul 24, 2014 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
Your memo admits 1979 opinion. Your memo is unscholarly, unconvincing and unworthy of you. Comply now, please or you, City and HARB will face strict scrutiny. Do not delay, deny, avoid or evade disclosure requirements any longer.
Thank you.
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Ed Slavin
Where are your manners? To whom do you think you're talking? Enough.
On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Ed Slavin
False.
Did you look in file and ask Debra?
Look in city attorney files under HARB and financial disclosure?
Did you call ethics commission? Take notes?
When are HARB members filing disclosures today?
Thank you.
On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Isabelle Lopez
To restate and confirm my response dated July 23, 2014, a review of my readily available documents found no other document responsive to your request. Should you wish to have the City research all electronic, filed and archived documents for “HARB financial disclosure communications and opinions,” that research would trigger the statutory fee for extensive research as follows:
Pursuant to Ch. 119.07(4)(d) and consistent with Highlands County v. Colby, 976 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) and AGOs 92-38 and 90-07, our information technology staff estimates that it would take approximately 1-2 hours to activate archived databases to produce an approximate estimate of time required to search for each term itemized. In addition, each archived database stores approximately 3 months of email data, and searching each 3 month interval for each of the itemized terms would require between 5 to 6 hours. Our information technology research costs are $35.28 per hour.
In addition, a manual search of all paper documents in the City compliant with your search terms, including archived storage boxes, would take an estimate of 10 hours of clerical research at a cost of $15.12 per hour. Pursuant to Ch. 119.07(4), Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 995 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and Malone v. City of Satellite Beach, 687 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) due to the extensive research costs for information technology and clerical time necessitated by your public records request, the City will require a deposit of 8 hours of extensive information technology research time ($282.24) and 5 hours of extensive clerical research time ($75.60) to be paid prior to commencing the requested searches. You may pay the deposit at the City's Financial Services office during regular office hours. In addition, consistent with AGO 05-28, the City will bill you for any shortfall between the deposit and actual cost of the extensive research costs associated with responding to your public records request.
From: Ed Slavin [mailto:easlavin@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Debra Gibson
Cc: Isabelle Lopez; Alison Ratkovic; John Regan; Lucy Fountain; Ron Brown; Debra Gibson
Subject: Re: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
Please respond.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Ed Slavin
Coverup. Open the filing cabinet. I will help you look.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 23, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Isabelle Lopez
I checked my current inbox/send which contain emails back from the last few months, and I did not find any other documents other than this chain.
An exhaustive search of all archived material (electronic and hard copy) would require extensive research time for which we would charge the statutory rate.
From: Ed Slavin [mailto:easlavin@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Isabelle Lopez
Cc: Alison Ratkovic; John Regan; Lucy Fountain
Subject: Re: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
Did any City Attorney office or designee write on this before today?
Please send. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Isabelle Lopez
Please find below the public record responsive to your request placed today at 11:31 a.m. titled “HARB financial disclosure communications and opinions”.
From: Ron Brown
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Isabelle Lopez
Subject: RE: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
Thanks. I think this analysis is consistent with how we have viewed it. I agree that some protection from the ethics commission would help. Nicely done, as always.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Isabelle Lopez
Date:07/23/2014 10:25 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ron Brown
Subject: RE: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
The issue is complex (sic) and has changed as the statutory language has changed.
There is a 1979 Commission on Ethics opinion that found that a “Landmarks Preservation Commission” that issued certificates of appropriateness had to report, but that was based on the 1979 version of the statute that said, in part, that a “local officer” was defined as “a governmental body with land planning, zoning or natural resources responsibilities.” The current statute makes a muddle (sic) of things (yes, not very surprising) because it defines a “local officer” as Mr. Slevin mentioned below, which is:
112.3145 Disclosure of financial interests and clients represented before agencies.—
(1) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the term:
(a) “Local officer” means:
1. Every person who is elected to office in any political subdivision of the state, and every person who is appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term in such an elective office.
2. Any appointed member of any of the following boards, councils, commissions, authorities, or other bodies of any county, municipality, school district, independent special district, or other political subdivision of the state:
a. The governing body of the political subdivision, if appointed;
b. A community college or junior college district board of trustees;
c. A board having the power to enforce local code provisions; --not the case, that is Code Enforcement Board
d. A planning or zoning board—not the case, that is PZB, board of adjustment, --not the case, that is Code Enforcement, Appeals and Adjustment Bd., board of appeals, --not the case, same reason, community redevelopment agency board,-- not the case, that is CRA, or other board having the power to recommend, create, or modify land planning or zoning within the political subdivision (– herein is the problem, HARB does not recommend create or modify the comp plan (“land planning”) nor does it recommend create or modify the land development regulations or rezonings (“zoning”); it really doesn’t recommend create or modify anything, HARB approves or disapproves by quasi-judicial order land development permits; PZB is per the Growth Management Act the planning agency for the city that has the power to recommend the creation or modification of our comp plan, zoning and land development regulations), except for citizen advisory committees, technical coordinating committees, and such other groups who only have the power to make recommendations to planning or zoning boards;
e. A pension board or retirement board having the power to invest pension or retirement funds or the power to make a binding determination of one’s entitlement to or amount of a pension or other retirement benefit; or
f. Any other appointed member of a local government board who is required to file a statement of financial interests by the appointing authority or the enabling legislation, ordinance, or resolution creating the board.
Once upon a time, the statute had different language that made it more clear that anyone who issued development permits (as that term is defined in the Growth Management Act) had to report. Even the 1979 language was more (sic) clear, because it said that anyone who had “land planning, natural resource or zoning responsibilities” had to file. The final phrase in the statue above just adds to the confusion, because it excepts advisory boards that only make recommendations. HARB has power to issue a final order, it actually doesn’t (sic) make recommendations to PZB or anyone else, so it clearly isn’t only an advisory committee, but it isn’t really an “other board having the power to recommend, create or modify” as that’s not what it does. It makes final decisions.
I will put in a call to the Ethics Commission and get their take on the role of our HARB board and the current iteration of the statute.
From: Ron Brown
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:57 PM
To: Isabelle Lopez
Cc: Debra Gibson
Subject: Fwd: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
I don't believe HARB has been deemed to meet the threshold definition nor has the Supervisor of Elections sent them disclosure forms.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: easlavin@aol.com
Date:07/22/2014 4:44 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: clweeks@aug.com,jeremy@halback.com,hpa007@aol.com,randallroark@bellsouth.net,ab_wallace@bellsouth.net,mayorboles@comcast.com,NancySikesKline@aol.com,Roxanne Horvath ,Don Crichlow ,cityfreeman@yahoo.com
Subject: HARB members must file financial disclosure. Now.
Dear Chairman Weeks, Mayor Boles, Vice Mayor Sikes-Kline, City Commissioners and HARB members:
1. Upon consulting with our St. Johns County Election Supervisor, St. Augustine City Clerk and Florida Commission on Ethics, it appears that:
(a) Our City of St. Augustine, Florida Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) members are not filing financial disclosures;
(b) It appears HARB members are required to file financial disclosures pursuant to F.S. 112.3145, as HARB is "A planning or zoning board, board of adjustment, board of appeals, community redevelopment agency board, or other board having the power to recommend, create, or modify land planning or zoning within the political subdivision, except for citizen advisory committees, technical coordinating committees, and such other groups who only have the power to make recommendations to planning or zoning boards." F.S. 112.3145(2)(d). Who among us would disagree?
2. Thus, I request that HARB members file financial disclosures instanter, nunc pro tunc, before close of business on July 23, 2014.
3. Disclosures were required to be filed on July 1, 2014.
4. Time is of the essence -- Chairman Weeks' no-bid lease for 81 St. George Street is set for five year renewal on July 25, 2014. See prior correspondence. Questions have been asked about his income stream from the City of St. Augustine, in partnership with Mayor Boles (some $2-3 million over 25 years on a property now being rented to the owners of Florida Cracker Cafe and Savannah Sweets) . Chairman' Weeks failure to file required disclosures as HARB Chair, and involvement in at least one proposed demolition (requiring his recusal), embarrass our City and its residents and contribute to a perception that corrupt exists.
5. Our City's longtime failure to include HARB and HARB members' addresses on the list of officials requiring disclosure requires an explanation before the next Commission meeting. Please do not make such omissions in the future.
6. The urgency of protecting the historic architecture of our Nation's Oldest City, including pending matters -- e.g., the proposed illegal demolition of Echo House by St. Paul. A.M.E. Church -- urgently require that HARB members be above reproach and make full disclosures. Now.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
904-377-4998
No comments:
Post a Comment