Another City Contracting Conflict of Interest Boggles The Mind

As the United Supreme Court held in United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Company (the "Dixon-Yates" case), 364 U.S. 520 (1960) all conflict of interest laws are based upon Matthew ("A person cannot serve two masters"), particularly when one is that person's own personal profit.

The City of St. Augustine's new contract arborist is FREMONT LATIMER, Vice President of a firm bearing his name, MARQUIS, LATIMER & HALBACK, which is also representing hotelier KANTI PATEL in a Tuesday, October 2, 2018, demanding to destroy four protected trees and 50% of the tree canopy at a property -- here's the agenda item:

4. Conservation Overlay Zone Development (cont.)

(c) 2018-0124 Jeremy Marquis – Applicant

c/o Marquis, Latimer, & Halback, Inc.

Kanti Patel - Owner

16, 18, 20, 22, & 24 Garnett Avenue; 154, 156, &

158 Cunningham Avenue; 185 Matanzas

Avenue; and vacated east-west alley between N.

Ponce De Leon Boulevard & Cunningham

5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning

(a) 2018-0125 St. Johns Law Group – Applicant Shri Hari Lodging Inc. – Owner

100 San Marco Avenue

Avenue

To approve removal of more than fifty (50) percent of the tree canopy, including four (4) preserved trees (Oaks) within Conservation Overlay Zone 3 to construct a hotel.

This is a blatant conflict of interest. the City must cancel its contract with MARQUIS LATIMER + HALBACK because it is simultaneously working for developers and advising the City on tree removal.  This is a blatant conflict of interest.

At the September 4, 2018, Planning and Building Director David Birchim told Planning and Zoning Board members that they may now ask FREEMONT LATIMER, ML+H's certified arborist, for an opinion on tree-killing permits a/k/a "tree removal."

City Commission meeting, PZB member Karen Zander asked about whether LATIMER will still represent developers.

"His firm can, but he cannot," DAVID BIRCHIM said.

"Since I've become the board's representative, I can't come before you," LATIMER said.

LATIMER is writing a form for arborist reports and redrafting the City's tree code.  His firm is also actively representing.

LATIMER's entire firm has a conflict of interest and has no business representing applicants and advising the City for tree removal.

The ML+H contract is a contract violation of public policy and is void ab initial under Rrestatement of Contracts, 2d, Section 178 (Contract Violation of Public Policy.)

With law firms, a conflict of interest by one partner is imputed to the entire firm.  So must it be with certified arborists and landscape architects.

Watch video here;

Items 8A & 9 

8. Other Business

(a) Introduction and discussion related to potential changes to the tree ordinance.

Wrong.  If there's a conflict of interest, it affects the whole firm.

Is there a concern that the foxes have been hired to run the henhouse, PZB member Karne Zander asked.

Yes.  In fact, on the October 2, 2018 agenda of PZB is an item where LATIMER's