I spoke to former St. Johns County Commission Chair PRISCILLA "RACHAEL" BENNETT after the July 25, 2018 joint meeting (today) of the St. Johns County Commission and St. Augustine City Commission.
As reported earlier, BENNETT opposed a proposed lobbyist registration ordinance and opposed outlawing lobbyist contingency fees, which are misdemeanors for lobbyists lobbying the State of Florida under F.S. 11.047.
So this morning, I asked BENNETT to disclose her clients of her consulting firm, operating out of her home, "COGITO, LLC."
"None of your business," she replied firmly.
I congratulated her for her secretive sub rosa efforts to submarine and torpedo the proposed ordinance that would have required lobbyist to register -- a tribute to corruption, secrecy and developer control of our government.
"I FEEL THREATENED," she said.
"I feel like you're an idiot," I replied.
As proof -- FBI please note -- here's PRISCILLA BENNETT's inculpatory e-mail to the County, in which she essentially admits to taking, or desiring to take, contingent fee contracts to represent developers.
Here's what disgraced ex-Commissioner PRISCILLA BENNETT wrote:
Attached Message
| From | Rebecca Lavie |
| To | 'Rachael Bennett' |
| Subject | RE: Lobbyist ordinance |
| Date | Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:20:21 +0000 |
Dear Rachael,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed lobbyist ordinance. The ordinance has been pulled from the June 19 agenda, and it will likely be placed on the agenda for the first August meeting. The ordinance is not intended to impede open communication between the County and its citizens; however, the Board of County Commissioners has directed this office to present a draft ordinance for their consideration in order to increase transparency. This discussion took place at the March 20 BCC meeting. I will attempt to address the scenarios you have presented in your emails.
For instance, today I got an adjacent property owner notice about a public hearing. I have been contacting staff for various pieces of information as any informed citizen should. Only requests for information- no expression of opinion or stance. Do I have to fill out a lobbyist form? No, because it is for me personally.
In this scenario, you have been asking for information for your own purposes but have not sought to influence the outcome of any official action. This does not fall within the definition of lobbying.
But what if that information turns out to be relevant to a client and two weeks later they ask me to go to the hearing to speak on their behalf?
Even if your prior communications had sought to influence the outcome of an official action (as opposed to simply seeking information), you would not be considered a lobbyist under the ordinance for the purpose of your earlier communications because you were not representing a principal at the time your communications with staff occurred. With respect to speaking at a public hearing, this would appear to fall within one of the exceptions in the ordinance.
What if I get the information and then they speak on their own behalf? Did I lobby?
If your communications with staff were limited to information gathering, and the client spoke on his or her own behalf, this would not be lobbying under the ordinance.
Now- what if that adjacent property owner notice was sent to a client and they asked me to find out the info. Same emails went to same staff as a means of obtaining information. Only requests for information- no expression of opinion or stance. No decision has been made about whether to participate in the public hearing. Is the request for information now considered lobbying?
This is not lobbying as long as the communication is limited to gathering information and does not seek to influence the outcome of an official action.
At what point in the information discovery process does contact become part of the lobbying process? Not until an opinion is expressed? At first contact?
Contact becomes part of the lobbying process at the point when there is communication that attempts to influence the outcome of an official action. Requests for information, by themselves, do not constitute lobbying.
During application review, every applicant (usually a planner or attorney or engineer) routinely "discusses" issues with staff multiple times for every submittal until all items are ironed out. If the application is going to public hearing, is this lobbying? If it is going to public hearing, is the resubmittal of an application on WATS an act of lobbying?
Most conversations with County staff are going to fall outside the scope of the ordinance. The definition of lobbying applies to communications with the County Administrator, Assistant County Administrator, County Commissioners, appointed board members, and County employees with final decisionmaking authority. This definition is intended to exclude most of the communications with staff you describe here which are mostly limited to technical aspects of the application.
And- WHO is going to keep track of all this, and what is the fiscal impact of this absurd process.
The way the ordinance is currently set up, each County office will have a lobbyist log (basically a sign-in sheet) that a lobbyist will be required to fill out at each occasion of lobbying. County departments will forward their logs to the County Attorney’s office, and we will keep them on file for the required retention period. For meetings that occur outside County offices, or by telephone, the lobbyist is responsible for contacting the County Attorney’s office. OMB has reviewed the ordinance and determined that the fiscal impact to the County should be minimal.
As an aside- I am surprised that it is legal for you to stipulate the terms of a private business contract. Many attorneys work on a contingency contract basis.
The contingency fee prohibition was placed in the ordinance at the request of the Board and mirrors the language contained in Florida Statutes. The state statute has been challenged and was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
What if I try to negotiate with staff- of course to get to public hearing and hopefully get approval, but the opinions that I express are my own, and are truly part of my ethics and belief system and are not specific to the particular project- they are stances I would take regardless of whether it was my personal project or a client's project.
If you are communicating with any of the people identified in the definition of lobbying in an attempt to influence the outcome of an official action, and you are representing a principal for compensation, then you would be a lobbyist under the ordinance.
Again, thank you for providing your comments on the ordinance. I hope that you will be able to come to the Board meeting when the ordinance is presented for first reading to present your thoughts to the Board. This will likely be the August 7 meeting, but I will send out an email once that is confirmed.
Rebecca C. Lavie
Senior Assistant County Attorney
500 San Sebastian View
St. Augustine, FL 32084
904.209.0805 (Office)
904.209.0806 (Fax)
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, the St. Johns County Attorney's Office hereby informs and notifies each addressee hereof, including any copied addressee, that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the addressee under the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed herein. To the extent that this communication may be deemed to contain any U.S. federal tax advice, then unless otherwise specifically stated herein, the addressee is expressly notified by the St. Johns County Attorney's Office that the addressee may not and cannot rely or base any decision, action or inaction upon the same, but should seek advice based on the addressee’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
From: Rachael Bennett [mailto:cogito.qed@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:35 PM
To: Rebecca Lavie; Commissioner Henry Dean
Subject: Lobbyist ordinance
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:35 PM
To: Rebecca Lavie; Commissioner Henry Dean
Subject: Lobbyist ordinance
I regret that I will not be in town for the first reading of this ordinance.
I would like to go on record as saying that it is cumbersome and confusing at best. SJC has always had an open door policy when people have questions of staff/ administration, or if they want to discuss something- is this an effort to drive a wedge in that open communication?
.
For instance, today I got an adjacent property owner notice about a public hearing. I have been contacting staff for various pieces of information as any informed citizen should. Only requests for information- no expression of opinion or stance. Do I have to fill out a lobbyist form? No, because it is for me personally. (?)
But what if that information turns out to be relevant to a client and two weeks later they ask me to go to the hearing to speak on their behalf? I didn't fill out the lobbyist form because I didn't know what the information would tell me and at the time was only curious and not trying to influence the result of a public hearing.
Since more than 7 days elapsed between when I first asked for info and when I realized it would be relevant to a client, I seem to be in violation of the deadline to register.
What if I get the information and then they speak on their own behalf? Did I lobby?
Now- what if that adjacent property owner notice was sent to a client and they asked me to find out the info. Same emails went to same staff as a means of obtaining information. Only requests for information- no expression of opinion or stance. No decision has been made about whether to participate in the public hearing. Is the request for information now considered lobbying?
What if that information, after a period of 2 weeks, turns out to be relevant and I am asked to participate in the public hearing. Does that make what was not lobbying now a situation of lobbying?
At what point in the information discovery process does contact become part of the lobbying process? Not until an opinion is expressed? At first contact?
During application review, every applicant (usually a planner or attorney or engineer) routinely "discusses" issues with staff multiple times for every submittal until all items are ironed out. If the application is going to public hearing, is this lobbying? If it is going to public hearing, is the resubmittal of an application on WATS an act of lobbying?
And- WHO is going to keep track of all this, and what is the fiscal impact of this absurd process. OOOOPS that was lobbying, wasn't it? Or was it? If I take out the word "absurd" is it lobbying? Or just information gathering?
As an aside- I am surprised that it is legal for you to stipulate the terms of a private business contract. Many attorneys work on a contingency contract basis.
Rachael L. Bennett
Cogito LLC
111 Nature Walk Parkway #102
St Augustine, FL 32092
386.341.9122
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
There's corrupt developer lobbyist RACHAEL BENNETT, with Sheriff DAVID SHOAR f/k/a "HOAR" and his haughty henchmen, including BILL McCLURE and JERRY CAMERON, when BENNETT was St. Johns County Commission Chair, at dedication of HHS Building a/k/a "Gauze Mahal," wielding a pair of $140 scissors that disappeared.
There's corrupt developer lobbyist RACHAEL BENNETT, with Sheriff DAVID SHOAR f/k/a "HOAR" and his haughty henchmen, including BILL McCLURE and JERRY CAMERON, when BENNETT was St. Johns County Commission Chair, at dedication of HHS Building a/k/a "Gauze Mahal," wielding a pair of $140 scissors that disappeared.
No comments:
Post a Comment