Friday, February 14, 2014

The Ethics Commmission Responds to Dusty Melton. By Geniusofdespair

I did get another reply to Dusty Melton's column on his distrust of the ethics commission (that I printed January 30th), but that reply was sarcastic and I didn't like it's tone so I wouldn't print it. What is wrong with being polite when you are a public servant? I just don't understand the little rude additives from someone who is supposed to be a public servant. Anyway, this one is more polite than Michael Murawski's reply so I will print it. I am sure Dusty will have a reply to this one as well as to the other more insulting one. Michael, get rid of the attitude, take a cue from Copeland.

  COE Eston Melton LTR - 
It took Ethics almost 6 months to respond to Melton's complaint.

Dusty to Copeland 9/20/2013:


Anonymous said...

If I understand this letter the ethics department at their discretion can basically say "their bad" and dismiss everything!

This is one part of a huge problem in this county. Public officials, lobbyists and the ethics department work together instead of on behalf of the people. This does nothing to instill public trust nor am I surprised.

Procurement - where billions of our tax dollars are given away and a willing ethics department turning a blind eye along with a BCC filled with lobbyist funded commissioners = tax payer screwed on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a pretty minor incident.

The guy registered a bit late and made all well.

And the author made it clear that compliance is the primary goal.

I'm wondering what all the fuss is about.

There are plenty of incidents that warrant our dismay at Ethics. This isn't one of them.

Anonymous said...

There are many examples of lobbyists aggressively and non-aggressively lobbying public officials. This is just one example. Who is aggressively lobbying for the taxpayers?

Insider said...

I did not realize the rude and sarcastic response came from that creep Michael Murawski, but it makes perfect sense. I remember that you defended Murawski in the past, especially after he launched that disgusting inquisition of his coworkers to find who leaked the documents about Robert Meyer's clandestine office relationship. You said he was just following orders like Himmler and Goebbels. (Okay, I added the Himmler and Goebbels part.)

So have you finally come to the opinion that many of us share that Murawski is cancer on the Ethics Office and he needs to go for its sick culture to change?

Maria said...

What with the closed door sessions at the ethics commission? How disgusting and unethical is that. Copland casually mentioned "closed session" without discussion, as if that's perfectly normal and that public ethics enforcement proceedings held by a public board should be conducted that way. Why should the ethics commission be any different than a court which must hold public sessions?

We know Rebeca Sosa reads this blog. Probably all of the county commissioners read your blog. It's time for one of them to step up and submit an ordinance that prohibits these closed door sessions. The Ethics Commission is supposed to fight for openness and enforce the sunshine laws and yet it has become the worst offender.

Read below to see what it says about the Ethics Commission in the county charter. There is ZERO mention of closed door secret sessions.

"The County shall, by ordinance, establish an independent Commission on Ethics and Public Trust comprised of five members, not appointed by the County Commission, with the authority to review, interpret, render advisory opinions and enforce the county and municipal code of ethics ordinances, conflict of interest ordinances, lobbyist registration and reporting ordinances, ethical campaign practices ordinances, when enacted, and citizens’ bill of rights."

Let's go commissioners. Let's see which commissioner will support good government practices and submit an ordinance to fix this. Whoever does it will look like a hero and more ethical than the crooked ethics commission. I will be watching.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Maria above. Why the closed sessions?

Anonymous said...

Maria says: "We know Rebeca Sosa reads this blog. Probably all of the county commissioners read your blog. It's time for one of them to step up and submit an ordinance that prohibits these closed door sessions. The Ethics Commission is supposed to fight for openness and enforce the sunshine laws and yet it has become the worst offender. "


Anonymous said...

Ethics proceedings should be done in the open, otherwise we will need an Ethics Commission to preside over the Ethics Commission.

Anonymous said...

Maria - the MDC BCC could just copy and paste this reso they voted on and send it to the MDC COE...
during the discussion of this reso Chair SoSO foun id berry berry dibbiculd to get anyding done because id had to be done in d sunchine and if the MDC BCC had to do business in d sunchine then so chould the Floriduh State Leshislature.....

File Number: 140146
File Type: Resolution
Status: Adopted
Reference: R-148-14
Control: Board of County Commissioners
Introduced: 1/22/2014
Final Action: 2/4/2014
Barbara J. Jordan, Prime Sponsor   Bruno A. Barreiro, Co-Sponsor   Lynda Bell, Co-Sponsor   Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-Sponsor   Sally A. Heyman, Co-Sponsor

Question Authority said...

The last anon is correct. The BCC hates the sunshine law and they would operate like the ethics commission if they could. They aren't really interested in how the state legislature operates. They were just trying to shame the state legislature with that resolution so they can get the same deal.

My question is why is the Ethics Commission not following the sunshine law. If a deliberative body is making a decision on a public matter, it should be covered. Perhaps someone needs to make a complaint to the state ethics commission about the Miami-Dade ethics commission.

I also wish Maria would run for public office. Cheers, Maria!

Anonymous said...

This would fix it!
The Miami-Dade official whose refusal to file financial disclosure forms has drawn the ire of legislative leaders says he'll comply with financial disclosure requirements. But more than three weeks after the official and the state agreed to a repayment plan, the Commission on Ethics is still waiting for a response.
Miami attorney Robert W. Holland, a member of the county expressway authority, issued a statement Friday after the Times/Herald reported that his case is prompting Senate President Don Gaetz to advance legislation that would allow for the removal from office of public officials who don't comply with the law."

Read more here:

Geniusofdespair said...

If anyone ever makes fun of anyone's accent they will be removed. It is not funny. Last warning.

Geniusofdespair said...

I liked Centorino no one else.

Anonymous said...

We need more citizens like Dusty Melton. Bright lights need to be shown on these violators.

Anonymous said...

Charlton Copeland, the ex-chair who sees nothing wrong with holding ethics commission proceedings in secret, is a UMiami law professor. What a disgrace. What is he teaching those law students? No wonder so many UM law grads seem to be unethical.

Damon said...

The Copeland letter says the problem occurred when the prosecutor/advocate Murawski aka Moronski argued that there should be a probable cause finding against Bierman, but then said the case should also be dismissed. Yes, that was our overpaid idiot prosecutor that gave that ridiculous conflicting recommendation. Why can't we fire him and get someone competent?

And where was Letem Go Joe Centorino during all this? I dont see his name mentioned in the letter. Was he sitting with his thumb up his rear end?

Fabio said...

Who cares if Mitchell Bierman was in New York when he signed the letter? He knew he was doing something illegal. He knows there is no "out of state" exception to the lobbyist registration requirement.

And if Bierman could sign the original letter in NY, why did he wait until he returned to Miami to sign the lobbyist registration document? Did his pen break?

Anonymous said...

Could someone help me with this? I just visited the Clerk of the Board website. There is a form called the Lobbyist Activity Authorization Form available online which "serves as proof that the lobbyist is authorized to lobby on behalf of a principal."

Is that the form Bierman did not file? I ask because the website says "this form must be completed and signed by the individual retained as a lobbyist or by the principal."

If this is the form in question, why didn't a rep from Mistubishi file the form when Bierman was out of town? Were they all out of town that week, too? I doubt it. This whole thing reeks to high heaven.

Anonymous said...

Anyone look into Keon Hardemon's aunt Barbara Hardemon? She has "no visible means of support" other then taking money from the "usual suspects". Called lobbying, yet she rarely registers. She took money for years to lobby disgraced ex-commish Spence-Jones and now she whispers in novice commish Keon's ear. Why doesn't she register with the City Clerk to disclose each and every one of her "usual suspects" i.e. clients?

Anonymous said...

Nichael Murawski should have been fired long ago for his arrogance and ineptitude. Why does Genius of Despair like Joe Centorino? He is worse than the limp noodle who was there before. They say the fish rots from the head, and we have had two rotten fish heads.