Dear Chairman Billedo

8/12/2019 Dear Chairman Billedo

1/9

AL CRESPO

February 27, 2014

Mr. Nelson BellidoChairpersonMiami-Dade Commission OnEthics and Public Trust19 Flagler StreetMiami, FL, 33130

RE: Complaint C-13-047 Crespo v. De Yurre

Dear Chairman Bellido:

After 3 years of watching the Commissioners and staff of the Miami-DadeCommission on Ethics and Public Trust engage in numerous unprincipled,unethical and even illegal actions, I had thought that I had seen it all.

I was wrong. The manner in which my complaint against Victor De Yurre (C-13-047) was investigated, presented to the Commission in Closed Session and thendismissedthe audio tape of the entire event lasted a whopping 1 minute and 27secondsdemonstrated once again an appalling failure by investigator MannyDiaz to actually do a real and complete investigation, followed by the staffattorney Miriam Ramos failure to present the evidence ina fair and honest

manner, and worst of all, the responseor complete lack of response - exhibitedby any of the members, including yourself, to the glaring inconsistencies evidentin the investigative report indicates that either the report was not included in thepacket that each of the Commissioners receives before each meeting, or thatnone of you bothered to read a word of that report before the presentation madeby the staff attorney.

The way in which this case was handled gives a new meaning to the phrase,Calling It In, because this time you all didnteven bother to use a phone inconveying just how little interest you had in determining the facts in this case.

Had you done so, you would have realized that the one-sided and biasedpresentation made by Ms. Ramos ignored some very serious questions about thestatements made by the parties that were questionedquestioned as almost allsubjects and witnesses are, without being required to do so under oath andthat the most critical witness was never questioned at all.

The complete lack of interest and attention exhibited by the Commission in thiscase represents a new low in the behavior of you and your fellow members.


2/9

Heres what you missed, overlooked or ignored.

VICTOR DE JURRES PARTICIPATION

I filed a complaint against Mr. De Yurre for failing to register as a lobbyist. I didso because of a Jennings Disclosure that Miami City Commissioner Marc Sarnoffmade at the October 24, 2013 Commission Meeting regarding an ex partemeeting that he claimed he had with individuals associated with a nightclub thatwanted a 5 oclock closing time exemption in his District.

Those individuals according to the Commissioner included Victor De Yurre.During the course of the discussion that took place at the Commission meetingon October 24th, the Commissioner referenced Mr. De Yurre by name on severaloccasions, each time indicating that he had been a participant in this ex partemeeting. Heres how the Commissioner started off:

Let me just say a few things about this. This is a 5 oclock closure,and it is a 5 oclock yes. So let me make a Jennings disclosure. I metwithI think its called Glass. I think its called Glass. I remember thefolks associated with this particular facility, took a tour of the facility,looked at the parking facilities.

October 24, 2013 Commission Meeting, page 110

Three pages later, in response to a question raised by a woman who lived closeto this nightclub who was opposing part of the parking plan, the Commissionerstated:

Just so you know Ms. Stewart or anyone else out there. I drovearound and actually walked around, and let me be disclosing it. It waswith Victor De Yurre

October 24, 2013 Commission Meeting, page 113(Emphasis mine)-

Further on during the discussion the Commissioner attempted to defend hisstand on opposing the 5 oclock closing by saying:

First and foremost, I dont take lightly 5 oclock closures. And if youknow anything about me, its a very concerned decision for me. I tookthe opportunity to meet Victor de Yurre out there, and we candidlywalked the neighborhood

October 24, 2013 Commission Meeting, page 122(Emphasis mine)


3/9

The context of these references to Mr. De Yurre made by the Commissioner allpoint to Mr. De Yurre being an active participant in the discussions.

While the Commissioner stated at the beginning that he had met with folks

associated with this particular facility, he made it a point afterwards to single outMr. De Yurre as his companion on this tour. He did noteven though he wasstanding directly in front of him at the podium - single out or mention Mr. BenFernandez, who was the registered lobbyist for this company and had also beenon this walk-around tour.

Yet, in Mr. Diazsinvestigative report, Mr. De Yurre presents himself as not onlya person doing a friend a favor, but as someone who was clueless to anythinghaving to do with the development of the property.

Here is a portion of Mr. De Yurres statement in the investigative Report.

De Yurre was contact by telephone. He advised that he wascontacted by a personal friend, Tanner Davis (Davis), who wasinvolved in the interior construction of the property. Davis askedhim to contact Sarnoff and arrange a tour of the facility.

As a favor De Yurre contacted Sarnoff and arranged to meet himat the property.

According to de Yurre, upon arriving at the property he and Sarnoffwere met by Fernandez and the developer of the property. Fernandezconducted the meeting and with the developer conducted a tour ofthe building and the adjacent facilities. De Yurre did not knowanything about the development of the property and was unable toprovide any input.

According to this statement, Mr. De Yurre would have you believe that he getsa call from a friend who asks him to make a call to a City Commissioner to take atour of a new nightclub that is in his District and that is coming before theCommission for a 5 oclock closure exemption, and that even though he claims tobe clueless about anything having to do with this project, he not only makes thecall but then shows up and spends several hours tagging along like a puppy dogwhile the club owner, Ben Fernandez and the Commissioner discuss the finerpoints of zoning and parking.

Several glaring problems with this presentation require being addressed before Imove on.

First of all, all of us at one time or another have been asked by a friend orcolleague to call someone as a favor, whether it be to provide a


4/9

recommendation, information, or as in Mr. De Yurres case, to request that heintervene with someone to request a meeting.

Seldom however, after making such a request would we invite ourselves to showup at that meeting, especially if, as Mr. De Yurre claimed he didnt know anything

about what was going on.

Also, contrary to the impression that Mr. De Yurre, Commissioner Sarnoff andMr. Fernandez as well as the staff attorney who made the presentation to youand your fellow members would like to convey, Mr. De Yurre actions do notsupport his being an uninterested bystander. Here are 5 facts that Staff AttorneyMiriam Ramos shamelessly glossed over.

1. Victor De Yurre contacted City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff about a specificzoning application that was headed toward a public hearing and City Commission

consideration and action, action with enormous economic consequences for theapplicant.

2. De Yurre asked/encouraged Sarnoff to visit the property at issue in the zoningapplication, and to meet with the property owner/applicant and the applicantsattorneywho are advocates for approval of the zoning application.

3. De Yurre actually attended the meeting between Sarnoff and the propertyowner and the owners attorney at the site. If De Yurre was not acting as aninterested, pro-re-zoning individual, why did De Yurre show up?

4. Sarnoff asserts (not credibly) that De Yurre did not participate in anyconversation at the site beyond making introductions. De Yurres supportivepresence, however, during the meeting is lobbying by participation.

5. If Sarnoffs statements from the dais during the Commission meeting as wellas his and Victor De Yurres statements to the investigator are truthful, then thismeeting between Sarnoff, the owner of the property, Mr. Ben Fernandez and Mr.De Yurre only took place because of Mr. De Yurres direct involvement at therequest of Mr. Tanner Davis (see below) in reaching out to the Commissionerand asking him to participate in this meeting.

Especially important to the inability of Mr. De Yurre to claim ignorance about anyof these issues, and a fact that was not included in either the InvestigativeReport or in the presentation made by the staff attorney is that at the time of thismeeting Victor De Yurre was a City of Miami Code Enforcement Special Master.

He is a Zoning expert, and to believe that he wandered around these threeindividuals without interjecting his expert opinion on any of the zoning issues


5/9

that led up to the discussion at the Commission meeting is nonsense, especiallysince the walk-around meeting was all about zoning and parking issues.

The other issue that seems to have been ignored by the investigator and the staffattorney is whether Mr. Tanner Davis, who contacted Mr. De Yurre, was himself

in violation of the lobbying laws.

If Mr. Tanner reached out to Mr. De Yurre and asked him to arrange a meetingwith Commissioner Sarnoff on behalf of his boss, Mr. Lowe, in order to get theCommissioner to support Mr. Lowes business interests, doesnt that make him alobbyist? And if walked, and talked and quacked like a lobbyist shouldnt hehave registered as a lobbyist?

A simple search of the 2013 City of Miami lobbyist records show that no onenamed Tanner Davis registered to lobby on behalf of anyone.

So, how did the investigator and the legal staff overlook this violation when theyreviewed the investigative report? Or was it just another example of the selectiveinattention that the Ethics Commission staff applies to those on the Family andFriends Plan?

BEN FERNANDEZSPARTICIPATION

Mr. Ben Fernandez is not only a well-known attorney and lobbyist, but he isespecially well known to Commissioner Marc Sarnoff.

It was Ben Fernandez, along with Jeffery Bercow who managedwith the activeparticipation of Pieter Bockweg, then the Director of the City Miamis BillboardOffice in the Planning and Zoning Department - to rewrite the ordinance thatprovided the opportunity for developer Mark Siffin to go before the Commission inJuly of 2010 to seek approval to build 2 - 240 foot high illegal Media Towers atopa garage he planned at the time to build on the Herald property.

Mr. Fernandez is a regular at City Commission meetings that deal with Zoningand Planning issues.

I point this out because if there was one person that was both known to theCommissioner, and capable of arranging for the Commissioner to visit theproperty in question it was Ben Fernandez. He was the registered lobbyist forthis nightclub and as his statement to the investigator points out, he admits tohaving done just that.

Yet, even a cursory review of the minutes of the meeting, or better yet thevideotape of the meeting does not show or indicate that CommissionerSarnoff named or identified Mr. Fernandez as being an individual he held


6/9

an ex partecommunication with regarding this property. He only mentionsVictor De Yurre.

If you want to talk about a Jennings Rule violation, then this is as good asit gets.

Yet, a obvious as this is, neither Manny Diaz, your investigator nor any ofthose rocket scientist attorneys on your staff found that important enoughto either mention as part of the presentation made to you by Mr. Ramos, orto initiate a separate investigation against Commissioner Sarnoff for thisclear-cut violation.

Almost everywhere one turns in reviewing this supposed investigation it looks likea bunch of clowns playing at being part of an ethics commission.

I will forgo delving into Mr. De Yurres standing in the restricted area next to the

dais to view the discussion, and any interaction he may have had with Planningand Zoning Director Francisco Garciawhich as I stated to the investigator, Iwas not privy to, and focus in conclusion on the most glaring example ofinvestigative incompetence in this case: The failure to question or subpoena thebank records of Mr. Mark Lowe, the owner of the property, and the one whowould have hired Mr. De Yurre as a lobbyist.

ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY

The single most important question that was never addressed or answered in thissupposed investigation was whether Mr. De Yurre had been paid for his lobbyingactivities in recruiting Commissioner Sarnoff to attend the ex partemeeting withthe owner and Mr. Fernandez, as well as any other activities by Mr. De Yurre thatwe dont know about.

In that regard, it is mindboggling that Mr. Lowe, the property owner, was neverquestioned about this incident. Its cannot be because it was impossible to findhim. He gave his address when he spoke to the Commission on October 24th,and it was recorded in the minutes of the meeting as being 8101 BiscayneBoulevard.

While Mr. Fernandez in his statement claims that,

Fernandez said that he did not employ De Yurre to lobby Sarnoffon behalf of the passage of the Resolution (PZ6).

he was not the person to whom that question should have been addressed.

That was a question that needed to be asked and answered of Mr. Lowe. Yet,the record is very clear that not only was Mr. Lowe not interviewed, but that no


7/9

effort was made to do so, or to question him and subpoena his bank records. Atthis point, the only way to feel confident of getting to the bottom of this wouldrequire putting Mr. Lowe under oath and subpoenaing his bank records.

And so, once again, with little regard for professionalism, competence, objectivity

or even fairness, the staff attorney spun a factually inaccurate narrative of whattranspired, and not one of you on the Commission demonstrated even an iota ofcuriosity or interest in questioning the facts and conclusions of the presentation.

As the tape of the hearing reveals, you all couldnt wait to move on.

So before closing I must once again deal with several issues that cannotcontinue to be supported by you and your fellow Commissioners.

THE ETHICS COMMISSION CANNOT CONTINUE TO ACT UNETHICALLY

First and foremost, it is undemocratic and downright Un-American for you tocontinue to bar complainants from being present at these Kangaroo ProbableCause Hearings.

If I, as a citizen, demonstrate enough interest and civic mindedness to go to thetrouble of not only filing a complaint, but of having to do so under oath, then I andevery other citizen who files a complaint is entitled to be present at that hearingwhether or not I am personally aggrieved.

Personally aggrieved is a bogus standard to apply to deny a complainant in aProbable Cause hearing the right to attend any hearing that he/she has initiatedthrough a complaint.. In the American system of justice, Probable Causehearings are held in public. For years, this Kangaroo system has been allowedto take place by your agency and it is time to put an end to it.

Secondly, the time has also come to put an end to the multi-level of treatmentthat you and your fellow Commission members show to complainants.

For the last 3 years I have attended the meetings of your agency and I haverepeatedly been treated with disrespect and with open hostility and snideremarks. Ivehad to sit silently while 3 members of the Commission violated theSunshine Law and my rights in the Carollo case, and on several occasions I havebeen told to shut up when I have attempted to object to untruthful commentsmade by individuals and the attorneys for individuals I have filed complaintsagainst.

Only last week, when I sent toy a copy of a letter that I wrote to the ExecutiveDirector to complain about the shoddy and incomplete compliance to a publicrecords request that I had to pay $17.55 for, In response, I, received a letter from


8/9

Ms. Sibilia the agencys Communications Director, accusing me of sending you arant.

I am very disappointed that you felt it was necessary to rant tothe Chair of the Ethics Commission when my colleagues and I

have responded to your requests in a timely fashion.

Just how out-of-control are the employees of this agency when a citizen cannotsend a copy of a letter of complaint to the Chairman of the agency without beingberated for sending a rant,especially when 2 of the 3 audio portions of the lastCommission meeting were not provided me, even though I had paid for them.

In addition, the blatant refusal to place defendants and witnesses under oathmakes your hearings nothing but a charade. If the complainant has to submit anotarized complaint, then the defendants need to be treated the same way

Time after time - as Ive repeatedly been able to documentpeople accused ofwrong doing have lied to your face, while you and your fellow Commissionmembers have sat passively and allowed it to happen. Sadly, the biggest liar byfar has been Mr. Murawski, your so-called Advocate or Prosecutor. But thatsanother story for another daycoming very soon.

Nor am I the only person who has been treated in this unfair fashion. It tookProfessor Copeland, your predecessor, 143 days to respond to a letter written byMr. Dusty Melton regarding his allegations of how his complaints against alobbyist who had admitted to your investigator that he had broken the law, butwhom you and your fellow Commissioners refused to punish, had been handled.

And there are other examples of citizens and even employees who havecomplained about the treatment theyve received at the hands o f your agency,most often by the actions of your Prosecutor Mr. Murawski.

Yet, on the other hand, you and your fellow Commissioners have absolutely noproblem is providing unlimited time and latitude to parties that come before youwith high-priced lawyers and allow them debate for hours without so much assaying a peep about time restrictions.

In the Sarnoff case last year you allowed his lawyer to argue the case, comeback two months later to re-argue the case, and then come back again to re-re-argue the case again all in an attempt to remove the words Probable Causefrom a letter of instruction to the Commissioner for his failing to report a junketthat he and his wife took to Brazil. In the process, you allowed the Commissionerto speak on his behalf even after his lawyer had gone on for almost an hour, andin the process the Commissioner flagrantly lied to you. When I tried to objectIwas after all the complainant in this case - I was told to shut up.


9/9

Then in the case of AECOM v. CH2M Hill (Ethics 13-11) you and your fellowCommissioners allowed the lawyers for both parties to duke it out for almost 2hours, and when they finally finished rehashing every minutiae of argument thatthey could find to argue about, you allowed Peter Hernandez, the President of

AECOM to speak for over 20 minutes without interruption to complain about how

unfair the whole process had been.

There have been times when I have been denied my measly 3 minutes duringthe Public Hearing portion of the meeting because Ive beeninterrupted by one ofyou, and then told my time was up.

The members and staff of the Unethical Commission have been dealing from thetop, the bottom and the middle of the deck for so long now that none of you evenhave any comprehension of just how rigged and corrupt your behavior is viewedby a growing number of people in the community.

THE PARTYS OVER

Because you are the new Chairman Im going to show you more respect thanyour members has shown me in the last 3 years.

Like Mr. Melton request to then Chairman Copeland, I want a letter from youexplaining to me how now that you have been provided this information, what doyou intend to do about it?

In turn, if you decide that the De Yurre case was handled properly and that thebehavior of the Commissions staff, starting with Mr. Murawski, as well as themanner in which you and your fellow members conduct business represents thehighest ethical standards that you all are capable of, then please provide me awritten explanation of why I should not immediately file a complaint with theFlorida Bar against you, Kerry Rosenthal, Lawrence Schwartz, Joe Centorino,Michael Murawski and Miriam Ramos for being the latest sorry examples ofunethical and unprincipled Florida lawyers who are using your Florida Barlicenses to screw over the public.

Also, please be aware that unlike Mr. Melton, Im not going to sit around for 143days waiting for a response.

Cordially,

Al Crespo

Documents

Dear Chairman Billedo