2014-28638 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2014-28638
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 93-20694 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
CITY'S COMPLIMENTARY TICKET POLICY, AND SUBSTITUTING
THEREFOR A COMPREHENSIVE.POLICY STATEMENT OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH REGARDING ITS USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
CITY TICKETS TO EVENTS AND PRODUCTIONS OCCURRING AT
CITY-OWNED VENUES AND/OR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.
WHEREAS, in 1992, the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its Opinion No. 92-33,
holding that City of Miami Beach elected officials could legally accept complimentary tickets,
from the City (obtained via negotiated 'public benefit' clauses in City contracts) to performances
taking place at City-owned venues, subject only to the requirement that public disclosure of such
ticket receipt be made by the recipient/Officials on quarterly gift disclosure forms; and
WHEREAS, in reliance upon this opinion of the State Ethics Commission, the City of
Miami Beach adopted its Resolution No. 93-20694, in which the City Commission formally
established a procedure for the City's distribution of its tickets to performances taking place at
City-owned venues, whereby designated municipal officials and deserving members of the
community would receive complimentary tickets to such productions; and
WHEREAS, as a result of a 2011 joint investigation by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's
Office and the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics ("COE") of the City of Miami Beach's
negotiations with the New World Symphony (finding no criminal wrongdoing), the COE
scrutinized the above-referenced ticket distribution process of the City of Miami Beach as well
as that of Coral Gables, Hialeah, Homestead, Miami and Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, the COE consequently issued its "Guidelines and Recommendations
regarding `public benefit' clauses in certain government contracts", which although not legally
binding upon the City of Miami Beach's ticket policy determination, have been stated by the
COE as a suggested method of"ensuring conformance" with applicable ethics rules; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Miami Beach's continued commitment as a leader in
government ethics, and in recognition of the requirement that municipal resources be devoted
primarily to public purposes as determined by the Mayor and City Commission, the City has
conducted public meetings for the purpose of evaluating its complimentary ticket policy with the
COE's subject Recommendations; and
WHEREAS, having assessed citizen comment and public need, the Mayor and City
Commission determine that the continued distribution of complimentary tickets to disadvantaged
youths, senior citizens, non-profit organizations and other individuals who may not have the
financial ability to purchase tickets to cultural events serves a public purpose, that public
purpose is further served via the distribution of tickets to.City employees officially recognized for
exemplary service and members of the community recognized for making special contributions
to the public welfare, and that the ability of designated City officials to attend such cultural
events as official City representatives for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating such events
and the quality of performances therein, and/or monitoring and evaluating the value of City-
sponsored events and their compliance with City policies, agreements and other requirements
further serves a public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City thus hereby establishes the following comprehensive municipal
policy regarding its use and distribution of City tickets to events and productions occurring at
City-owned venues and/or sponsored by the City, with said comprehensive policy serving as
substitution for, and in repeal of, City of Miami Beach Resolution No. 93-20694.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH:
SECTION I. APPLICABILITY OF POLICY
In order to establish a •fair, equitable and transparent process for the distribution of its
complimentary tickets, the City of Miami Beach thus hereby establishes this Comprehensive
Complimentary Ticket Policy. This policy shall apply to tickets or passes for admission to a
facility, show, event or performance for an entertainment, recreational, amusement or similar
purpose, which are provided to the City of Miami Beach: (i) pursuant to the terms •of a
contract/agreement/lease for the use of public property within the City's boundaries; (ii) because
the City of Miami Beach controls the event; (iii) that is purchased by the City of Miami Beach at
fair market value; (iv) or otherwise received from an outside source and which are provided
without charge by the City of Miami Beach to personnel as designated herein. Tickets or passes •
purchased at full face value or fair market value of the ticket, as appropriate, by the official using
the tickets are not subject to this Policy.
SECTION II. PUBLIC PURPOSE
The distribution of any ticket by the City of Miami Beach shall promote a public purpose, which
purpose shall include those delineated in Exhibit "A" to this resolution.'
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS
A. General Provisions.
Distribution of tickets shall be in accordance with the public purposes stated in Section II above,
and be subject to the following:
1. Such tickets shall not be earmarked by the original donor for use by any particular
recipient of tickets. Notwithstanding, any tickets provided to the City pursuant to a
negotiated complimentary ticket program in a public benefits clause which delineates a
1 The County Ethics Commission has issued an "Addendum" to its "Guidelines and Recommendations",
outlining specific `suggested permissible public purposes' for use of public benefits, which grounds are
adopted and incorporated herein by reference. (See Exhibit "B", attached hereto.)
2
specific deserving organization or group as the recipient of such tickets in the lease,
contract or agreement with the City, may be provided by the City to that specifically
identified deserving organization or group.
2. The City of Miami Beach determines, in its sole discretion, which individual and/or entity
shall receive the tickets, in accordance with the Distribution Process set forth below.
3. No person receiving tickets pursuant to this Policy shall sell or otherwise transfer any
ticket, or receive any consideration for the value of any ticket. Nor may such ticket
recipient use any ticket for political fundraising purposes. Notwithstanding the preceding,
the City may sell any tickets received pursuant to this Policy (if resale by the City is
permitted by the donating entity) if the proceeds of such sale are intended for donation to
programs and services rendered by community and other non-profit resources for the
benefit of the community, including artistic and cultural organizations and institutions;
4. If a ticket recipient cannot use any ticket, that person must notify the City Manager's
Office promptly and return the ticket to the City Manager's Office. Failure to do so will
result in that recipient being ineligible to receive future tickets. Such returned tickets shall
be distributed by the City Manager's Office to any of the persons/groups within the
distribution categories set forth immediately below in III B.
5. All recipients of tickets must sign a form acknowledging the terms and conditions of the
City of Miami Beach's Comprehensive Complimentary Ticket Policy, as reflected in this
Resolution.
B. Distribution Process.
Tickets received by the City through a complimentary ticket program, or otherwise provided to
the City for distribution, shall be distributed in accordance with established Administrative
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. Such guidelines shall serve to ensure that
the tickets distributed promote an established public purpose.
SECTION IV. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
A. City Disclosure.
The City Manager's Office shall maintain a log detailing the distribution of City tickets pursuant
to this Policy. The log detailing the distribution of tickets shall be posted by the City Manager's
Office, no less than once every quarter, on the City's website by no later than the 15th day of the
month following such quarter. Such posting shall include the following information:
1. The name of the person receiving the tickets or passes, except that if the tickets or
passes are distributed to a deserving organization and/or group, only the name, address
and description of the deserving organization and/or group, and the number of tickets or
passes provided to the deserving organization and/or group, may be posted in lieu of the
names of individuals from the deserving organization and/or group that received the
tickets;
2. A description of the event;
3. The date of the event;
4. The face value of the tickets provided; and
5. The number of tickets provided.
3
r
B. Recipient Disclosure.
1. City personnel receiving complimentary tickets shall disclose their receipt of tickets via
the timely filing of gift disclosure forms, in accordance with State Commission on Ethics
Opinion No. 92-33 (forms available through City Clerk's Office). City personnel shall be
responsible for ensuring that the tickets received promote a public purpose, consistent
with the City of Miami Beach's Complimentary Ticket Policy.
2. Tickets which are provided free of charge may have tax consequences for the recipient
and may be reportable and taxable as regular income or as taxable fringe benefits to a
recipient. All recipients of tickets must consult with their own tax advisers to determine
the reporting requirements for income tax purposes, as well as the tax consequences of
any tickets received.
SECTION V. EXCLUSIVITY OF CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
A. The matters set forth in this Resolution shall serve as the City's Comprehensive
Complimentary Ticket Policy, and it shall be referenced in all future "public benefits" clauses of
all City contracts, and shall be further posted prominently on the City's website.
B. City of Miami Beach Resolution No. 93-20694, constituting the City's former policy
governing complimentary tickets, is accordingly hereby repealed in its entirety.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS // day of JU/1-e, 2014.
ATTEST: ,
r r
PHILIfi
i•R
RA EL E. GRANADO, CI CLERK
JO APPROVED AS TO
..,„ wawa, , FORM &LANGUAGE
•••• X1...8 �,,, ,, &FOR EXECUTION
s may., ( :5-Z Z" (�1:::5,1_. _.. .,�� City el";
orney . Date
4.72:
. %-:--ir,.--.. , 4 ..-•••. .:,---,L?'
coR� °RATE,_= - 1
a� / 2 o
--
4
EXHIBIT A
ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC PURPOSE' USES (BY CATEGORY) OF CMB TICKETS
--PER CMB RESO NO. 2014-28638
1. Economic development of the City, including the promotion/exposure to, marketing and awareness of tourism, nightlife,
recreational, educational, and cultural facilities or attractions on City property or awareness of the City as a regional destination,
economic asset or business opportunity;
2. Promoting or showing City appreciation for programs and services rendered by community and other non profit resources for the
benefit of the community,including artistic and cultural organizations and institutions;
3. Advertisement and promotion of City-controlled or City-sponsored events,activities,or programs, public facilities and resources;
4. Monitoring and evaluation of City venues and the quality of performances therein (in particular, attendance at opening day events
of the facility at City-owned venues),and/or monitoring and evaluation of the value of City-sponsored events and their compliance
with City policies, agreements and other requirements in response to a documented complaint specifically addressed to the
attendee;
5. Information gathering and education regarding matters of local, regional and state wide concern that affect the City including
enhancing intergovernmental relations through attendance at events with or by officials from other jurisdictions;
6. Promoting, encouraging and rewarding educational and athletic achievements by students and officials of local and regional
educational institutions;
7. Promotion of City recognition, visibility and or profile on a local, state, national or worldwide scale, including exchange programs
with national and foreign officials and dignitaries, and as part of any marketing promotions with municipal marketing partners, or
as may be required by contractual obligations with municipal marketing partners;
8. Attracting and retaining highly qualified employees in City service, including special recognition or reward of meritorious service by
a City employee;
9. Performance of a ceremonial or official function on behalf of the City,not otherwise set forth above, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Hosting leaders of community service organizations(organizations that serve the disadvantaged,senior citizens,disabled,
ill, children, etc.), dignitaries from municipal, county, state and federal governmental entities; dignitaries and business
leaders from other countries; youth groups, student leaders, and recipients of awards; and/or elderly, disabled or low-
income City residents;
b. Hosting constituents as (a) a designated official appointed by the City Commission, or (b) upon invitation of the event(s)
organizers or some other person or entity authorized to extend such invitation;
c. hosting groups of employees being specifically recognized for job-related achievements;
d. Being officially recognized by sponsors of event in a printed program or other public announcement;
e. Performance of one of the following functions in one's official capacity as (a) a designated official appointed by the City
Commission or(b)an individual invited by the venue:
1. Introducing organizers,participants or dignitaries;
•
2. Recognizing the contributions of organizers or staff;
3. Receiving or giving an award or other special recognition;
4. Giving a speech;
5. Greeting and welcoming attendees;
6. Ribbon cutting;
7. Leading the pledge of allegiance or national anthem;
8. Acting as a Goodwill Ambassador,as designated by the City Commission;
9. Assess facility needs, proposed changes and constituent concerns in response to a documented complaint
specifically addressed to the attendee.
NOTE: The Mere passive, spectator attendance at an event will not be regarded as attendance in one's official capacity for a
public purpose.
EXHIBIT "B"
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST:
ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING "PUBLIC BENEFIT" CLAUSES IN CERTAIN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: PUBLIC PURPOSE
(PER CMB RESO NO. 2014-28638,II(n.1)
(see below)
ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
"PUBLIC BENEFIT'CLAUSES IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS:
PUBLIC PURPOSE . .... . .. .. ._.
31 is the intent of these guidelines and recommendations concerning the distribution of
tickets and other public benefits,obtained by governmental entities through contractual
negotiation or other exercise of public authority,to assure that these benefits,which are public
property,shall be used and distributed for a public purpose. The overriding principle behind
these suggestions is to curtail the private use of these public benefits by government officials
and employees for their own personal benefit,directly or indirectly. In addition,these
guidelines are established to provide guidance to such officials and their employees,as well as
their advisors,in order to avoid possible future misuse of such public resources. It is hoped
that this will also increase public confidence in the integrity of government in its use of such
resources,as well as help to remove the perception that elcded and other government officials
distribute these public benefits with unfettered discretion and for purposes inconsistent with
the proper disposition of public property. Further,it is the intent of these guidelines and
recommendations to make clear that public benefits may be utilized under certain permissible
circumstances by elected and other government officials and employees where there is a
genuine,legitimate and articulable public purpose involved. To that end, we have set forth
below a list of suggested permissible public purposes for government officials,staff and
employees to consider when it is appropriate to use,for themselves or others,public benefits
contemplated by these guidelines. The foregoing list is not exhaustive. The Commission on
Ethics is always available to provide an opinion to an inquiring public official or employee
regarding whether any particular use or method of distribution is ethically acceptable.
A. PERMISSIBLE PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR OFFICIALS,STAFF AND
EMPLOYEES
PEES
1. Host business leaders to promote economic development;
2. Host leaders of community service organizations(c.g.organizations that serve
The disadvantaged,senior citizens,disabled,ill,children,etc.);
3. Host dignitaries from municipal,state and federal governmental entities;
. 4. Host dignitaries and business leaders from other countries;
5. Host youth groups,student leaders and recipients of awards;
6. Host elderly Miami-Dade County residents;
7. Host disabled residents;
8.. Host low-income residents;
9. Host constituents as:(a)a designated official by the Commission,Chairperson,
Mayor or some other person delegated that responsibility,or(b)upon
invitation of the event organizer(s)or a person or entity authorized to extend
such invitation;
10.Host group(s)of governmental employees being specially recognized for job-
related achievements;
11.Being officially recognized by the sponsors of event in a printed program or
other public announcement.
12.Performing one of the following functions in one's official capacity as:(a)a
designated official by the Commission,Chairperson,Mayor or other person
delegated that responsibility,or(b)an individual invited by the venue
1
a. Introducing organizers,participants,or dignitaries;
b. Recognizing the contributions of the organizers or staff,
c. Receiving or giving an award or other special recognition;
d. Giving a speech;
e. Greeting and welcoming attendees;
f. Ribbon cutting;
g. Leading the pledge of allegiance or national anthem;
h. Acting as a goodwill ambassador designated by the Commission/
Council,Chairperson,Mayor or other person qualified to delegate that
responsibility;
• i. Assess facility needs,proposed changes and constituent concerns in
response to a documented complaint specifically addressed to the
attendee;
j. Attending the opening day game or performance of a County/City-
owned facility.
B. OTHER PERMISSIBLE USES OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
1. Distribution to residents on a publicly-advertised first-come,first-served basis
or by lottery;
2. Sell to members of the public,if permissible,with the proceeds going to the
general fund or a specially-designated public purpose;
3. Return to donor in exchange for monetary value,with the approval of the
governing body of the County/City,
4. Allocations to:
a. Non-profit agencies for distribution to individuals served by the
organizations;
b. Schools/students or youth athletic leagues;
c. )Bona fide organizations that represent needy individuals,which
organizations have no affiliation with the public official providing the
benefits or the official's immediate family;
d. Community based organizations for distribution to individuals served
by the organizations.
3. Allocations to the following based upon their contributions to the community
or local government:
a. Employees, as part of an employee recognition program with defined
criteria;
b. Residents who have made special contributions to the community, as
- established by defined criteria;
c. Unelected members who serve without pay on County/City boards;
County,State and/or federal officials or local officials from other cities,
in recognition of significant assistance to the local government;
d. Businesses and institutions which have contributed.to the welfare of the
County/City;
f. Visiting dignitaries or foreign officials.
2
•
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution repealing City Of Miami Beach Resolution No. 93-20694 which established the City's complimentary ticket policy,
and substituting therefore a comprehensive policy statement of the City Of Miami Beach regarding its use and distribution of
City tickets to events and productions occurring at City-owned venues and/or City-sponsored events.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase community satisfaction with city government and Promote transparency of city operations
Issue:
Shall the City Commission Adopt the Resolution?
Item Summa /Recommendation:
On April 13, 2011, Commissioner Jonah Wolfson referred a matter for discussion to the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee (FCWPC) entitled: Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance on ethics guidelines for acceptance of gifts, favors,
or services by City Employees. The matter referred by Commissioner Wolfson was heard at the September 26, 2011, FCWPC
meeting. The item referred for discussion attempted to more broadly address the issue of potential amendments to City Code
relating to gifts, favors or services provided to the City's Officers and Employees, below fair market value, from an entity doing
business with the City or from a lobbyist. At that time, the City Attorney advised Committee members that the County's
Commission on Ethics was reviewing the issue of complimentary ticket policies; the Committee recommended that the matter
be monitored and a status report provided to the Committee.
On March 1, 2012, the COE released Guidelines and recommendations regarding public benefit clauses in certain
government contracts." On March 27, 2012, the COE issued an "Addendum" to the guidelines that specifically address the latter
(see Exhibit H, COE Draft Guidelines and Addendum). The City Attorney's Office reviewed the COE's recommended
guidelines and on February 28, 2012, submitted a Memorandum of Law to the COE addressing the issues raised by their
guidelines, and challenging the authority of the COE to issue such standards/guidelines. It is the City Attorney's opinion that
these are matters of public policy and not subject to review by the COE (Exhibit 1). In response to the COE's recommended
guidelines, the City Attorney's Office developed a proposed resolution establishing a policy for the distribution of tickets
received pursuant to a complimentary ticket program in a negotiated public benefit clause. Please refer to the attached
resolution presented for review and consideration.
Pursuant to this policy, elected officials and certain City Staff would receive tickets on a limited basis (e.g. only for opening night
events), with the balance of the tickets distributed to "deserving organizations or groups" that are identified, through a
Committee, once a year as being eligible to receive tickets for their participants. In addition, the proposed resolution provides
for a process for tickets to also be distributed to other parties by the City in other circumstances (e.g. visiting dignitaries, to meet
contractual obligations relating to a municipal marketing program, to recognize employees).
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee discussed this item on June 28, 2012 and again at its July 26, 2012 meeting.
The FCWPC moved it to the full Commission for consideration. The Neighborhood / Community Affairs Committee.met on
January 30, 2014 and also moved the item to the City Commission.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee discussed this item on June 28, 2012 and again at its July 26, 2012 meeting.
The FCWPC moved it to the full Commission for consideration. The Neighborhood / Community Affairs Committee met on
January 30, 2014 and also moved the item to the City Commission.
Financial Information:
Source of Funds: Amount Account Approved
1
Finance Dept Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Jose Smith and Max Sklar
Sign-Offs:
City Attorney Assistant City Manager City Manager
RA KGB J LM
T: GENDA\2014\ApriIWPRIL 23-TCEMComplimenta icket policy Summ.doc
,MIAMIBEACH N®A ITEM
NW L
DATE 6 ��
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor Philip Levine an Members f the City Commission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: June 11, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYO AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE RECOMMEDATION OF THE NEIGBORHOODS
AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPEALING CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 93-20694 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE CITY'S COMPLIMENTARY
TICKET POLICY, AND SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH REGARDING ITS USE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF CITY TICKETS TO EVENTS AND PRODUCTIONS OCCURRING
AT CITY-OWNED VENUES AND/OR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.
On April 13, 2011, Commissioner Jonah Wolfson referred a matter for discussion to the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) entitled: Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance on ethics
guidelines foracceptance ofgifts, favors, orservices by City Employees. Please see attached Exhibit"D")
referral and correspondence (excluding referenced attachments).
BACKGROUND:
The matter referred by Commissioner Wolfson was heard at the September 26, 2011, FCWPC meeting.
The item referred for discussion attempted to more broadly address the issue of potential amendments to
City Code relating to gifts, favors or services provided to the City's Officers and Employees, below fair
market value, from an entity doing business with the City or from a lobbyist. At that time, the-City Attorney
advised Committee members that the County's Commission on Ethics was reviewing the issue of
complimentary ticket policies; the Committee recommended that the matter be monitored and a status
report provided to the Committee. Please see attached Afteraction Report for the September 26, 2011
FCWPC meeting (Exhibit E).
The discussion on a ticket distribution policy stemmed from an initial investigation by the Miami-Dade
Commission on Ethics and Public Trust(COE)and State Attorney's office(SAO)in response to a complaint
by the New World Symphony (NWS) about the inclusion of a complimentary ticket program as part of the
negotiations of proposed revisions to the"public benefits" section of the NWS's lease with the City for the
NWS use of public land. The proposed inclusion of the complimentary ticket program was in keeping with
established, negotiated public benefits in other City agreements,subsequent to both a State Commission on
Ethics opinion, as well as a City resolution on the concept.
More specifically, in 1992,the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its Opinion No. 92-33, holding that City
of Miami Beach elected officials could legally accept complimentary tickets from the City (obtained via
negotiated `public benefit' clauses in City contracts) to performances taking place at City-owned venues,
subject only to the requirement that public disclosure of such ticket receipt be made by the recipient/Officials
on quarterly gift disclosure forms (see Exhibit F, Opinion No. 92-33). In reliance upon the opinion of the
State Ethics Commission, the City of Miami Beach adopted its Resolution No. 93-20694, in which the City
Revisions to the City's Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy
City Commission Meeting
June 11, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Commission formally established a procedure for the City's distribution of its tickets to performances taking
place at City-owned venues, whereby designated municipal officials and deserving members of the
community would receive complimentary tickets to such productions(see Exhibit G,COMB Reso. No.93-
20694).A complimentary ticket program has been negotiated as part of resulting public benefits programs
for other venues with management and/or lease agreements, including the Miami City Ballet, Jackie
Gleason Theater and Byron Carlyle Theater.
Based on this longstanding City policy (approved as a resolution by the City Commission) and State
Commission on Ethics opinion, upon which the City relied in negotiating complimentary ticket programs as
part of public benefits clauses, the SAO closed its case on October 18, 2011, with a finding of no
wrongdoing, but referred the matter to the COE for further review on the policy elements of the issue.
On March 1, 2012,the COE released a"Guidelines and recommendations regarding`public benefit'clauses
in certain government contracts." The focus of the guidelines was on complimentary ticket programs in
those public benefits clauses, and what they perceived to be "flawed" policies by several municipalities
relating to such. Cities that were researched to develop these recommendations included the City of Miami
Beach, Miami, Homestead, Coral Gables and Hialeah.While acknowledging the City of Miami Beach's prior
ethics opinion on the matter, and the City of Miami Beach Resolution that has existed since 1993,the COE
raised concerns with the methodology of distribution, in particular when elected officials re-allocate tickets
provided to them through complimentary ticket programs in public benefits clauses, as this may appear to
serve a personal or political agenda, rather than meet the intended purpose. The recommendations did
acknowledge, as well, that elected officials and other City staff may need to attend events in their official
capacity. On March 27, 2012,the COE issued an"Addendum"to the guidelines that specifically address the
latter (see Exhibit H, COE Draft Guidelines and Addendum).
The City Attorney reviewed the COE's recommended guidelines and on February 28, 2012, he submitted a
Memorandum of Law to the COE addressing the issues raised by their guidelines, and challenging the
authority of the COE to issue such standards/guidelines. In his opinion, these are matters of public policy
and not subject to review by the COE (Exhibit 1).
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROPOSED RESOLUTION
In response to the COE's recommended guidelines, the City Attorney's Office developed a proposed
resolution establishing a policy for the distribution of tickets received pursuant to a complimentary ticket
program in a negotiated public benefit clause. Please refer to the attached resolution presented for the
Committee's review and discussion. In summary, the key recommended policy points are:
• Delineates the applicability of the policy (when it would apply);
• Establishes what"public purpose" is served by the distribution of tickets;
• Recommends a process for the distribution of tickets received by the City; and
• Delineates disclosure requirements (by the City and by the recipient).
Pursuant to this policy, elected officials and certain City Staff would receive tickets on a limited basis (e.g.
only for opening night events), with the balance of the tickets distributed to "deserving organizations or
groups" that are identified, through a Committee, once a year as being eligible to receive tickets for their
participants. In addition, the proposed resolution provides for a process for tickets to also be distributed to
other parties by the City in other circumstances (e.g. visiting dignitaries, to meet contractual obligations
relating to a municipal marketing program, to recognize employees).
2
Revisions to the City's Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy
City Commission Meeting
June 11, 2014
Page 3 of 4
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
The Administration was asked to review the attached to ensure that the procedures for distribution included
in the proposed resolution could be implemented without any administrative difficulty. Many of the elements
of the administration of the ticket distribution process being proposed are already in place today.
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE —June 28, 2012
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee(FCWPC)discussed this item at its June 28, 2012 meeting.
The Administration explained that the draft resolution and accompanying guidelines entitled City Officials to
receive two(2)tickets to a single/performance event and that 70%of the remaining tickets are distributed to
deserving members of the community, 15% distributed to others such as organizations that assist in
promoting and marketing the City through a municipal marketing agreement with the City or to persons
and/or entities that have made special contributions to the community; and 15% distributed to employees
through an Employee Recognition Program. Furthermore, on an annual basis, an advisory committee
would review and recommend a list of deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets and
that the list shall be reported to the City Commission. City Officials who do not use their tickets must return
their tickets and tickets will subsequently be offered following the aforementioned procedure.
The Committee recommended that the item be brought back to the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee for further discussion and then brought to the September 12, 2012 Commission Meeting. The
Committee expressed concern that unused tickets returned at the last minute would go unused and
requested more flexibility to distribute those to employees in that situation.
The attached Resolution has been amended to reflect a reference to Exhibit A for the full listing of
allowable public purposes and to reflect the reference to administrative guidelines for the distribution of
tickets. This also reflects language in disclosures referencing the responsibility of the receiving party to
know which public purpose they will use the tickets under. This also includes Exhibit B which is an
addendum to the guidelines and recommendations regarding"public benefit"clauses in certain government
contracts: Public Purpose.
The Administrative Guidelines for Distribution are also now attached as a stand-alone document(Exhibit
C), as requested at committee, and further amended to include the recommendations of the Committee in
terms of flexibility.
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE -July 26, 2012
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee discussed this item again at its July 26, 2012 meeting. The
City Attorney and Administration explained the draft resolution and accompanying guidelines and discussion
took place. Most of the discussion focused on whether or not elected officials will be able to offer their
tickets to another entity or individual. The Administration explained the attached draft resolution and
accompanying guidelines require unused tickets to be returned to the City Manager's Office for
distribution according to the Ticket Distribution Process. The Administration also explained that a
webpage will be created on the City's website to show how the tickets are being used. The
Administration revised the City's ticket distribution form to include space to easily list the public purpose
when tickets are distributed. The FCWPC moved it to the full Commission for consideration.
CITY COMMISSION DISCUSSION —October 24, 2012
The City Commission discussed the matter at their October 24, 2012 meeting. City Attorney Jose Smith
explained that the resolution conforms the City's tickets policy to the recommendations by the Ethics
Commission. Mayor Bower expressed a concern with how tickets received at the last minute are distributed
and how tickets are distributed geographically throughout the City. A motion was passed referring the item
to the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee to establish a Ticket Policy methodology.
3
Revisions to the City's Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy
City Commission Meeting
June 11, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Attached in Exhibit"J" is the draft process for distribution of additional tickets not distributed to officials,
along with a list of the organizations currently contacted when extra tickets are available.
NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE—January 30, 2014
The Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee met on Januar 30, 2014 and considered this item. The
Committee recommended in favor of repealing City of Miami Beach Resolution No. 93-20694 which
established the City's Complimentary Ticket Policy, and substituting therefore a comprehensive policy
statement of the City of Miami Beach regarding its use and distribution of City tickets to events and
productions occurring at City-owned venues and/or City-sponsored events.
Pursuant to the Committee's discussion, the City Attorney's Office also recommended additional
clarifications to the Resolution and accompanying policy to address.comments made by the.Miami-Dade
County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust's letter dated January 31, 2013 (Exhibit "K"). Those
changes include the following:
1. Clarifying that City employees who receive tickets must be employees officially recognized for their
exemplary service and members of the community officially recognized for making special
contributions to the public welfare;
2. Monitoring and evaluating City venues and the quality of performances therein must be in response
to a documented complaint specifically addressed to the attendee; and
3. Attending opening day events is intended to be for facility openings and not for the opening night of
every theatrical event or sports series.
These changes have been made to the corresponding document and are presented for your consideration.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends adopting the. Neighborhood / Community Affairs Committee's
recommendation.
i
ATTACHMENTS (A-K)
T:\AGENDA\2014\June\TCED\Complimentary Ticket policy Memo.doc
I!
I
4
EXHIBIT A
ACCEPTABLE `PUBLIC PURPOSE' USES (BY CATEGORY) OF CMB TICKETS
--PER CMB RESO NO.
1. Economic development of the City, including the promotion/exposure to, marketing and awareness of tourism, nightlife,
recreational, educational, and cultural facilities or attractions on City property or awareness of the City as a regional destination,
economic asset or business opportunity;
2. Promoting or showing City appreciation for programs and services rendered by community and other non profit resources for the
benefit of the community, including artistic and cultural organizations and institutions;
3. Advertisement and promotion of City-controlled or City-sponsored events, activities,or programs, public facilities and resources;
4. Monitoring and evaluation of City venues and the quality of performances therein (in particular, attendance at opening day events
of the facility at City-owned venues), and/or monitoring and evaluation of the value of City-sponsored events and their compliance
with City policies, agreements and other requirements in response to a documented complaint specifically addressed to the
attendee;
5. Information gathering and education regarding matters of local, regional and state wide concern that affect the City including
enhancing intergovernmental relations through attendance at events with or by officials from other jurisdictions;
6. Promoting, encouraging and rewarding educational and athletic achievements by students and officials of local and regional
educational institutions;
7. Promotion of City recognition, visibility and or profile on a local, state, national or worldwide scale, including exchange programs
with national and foreign officials and dignitaries, and as part of any marketing promotions with municipal marketing partners, or
as may be required by contractual obligations with municipal marketing partners;
8. Attracting and retaining highly qualified employees in City service, including special recognition or reward of meritorious service by
a City employee;
9. Performance of a ceremonial or official function on behalf of the City, not otherwise set forth above, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Hosting leaders of community service organizations(organizations that serve the disadvantaged, senior citizens, disabled,
ill, children, etc.), dignitaries from municipal, county, state and federal governmental entities; dignitaries and business
leaders from other countries; youth groups, student leaders, and recipients of awards; and/or elderly, disabled or low-
income City residents;
b. Hosting constituents as (a) a designated official appointed by the City Commission, or (b) upon invitation of the event(s)
organizers or some other person or entity authorized to extend such invitation;
c. hosting groups of employees being specifically recognized for job-related achievements;
d. Being officially recognized by sponsors of event in a printed program or other public announcement;
e. Performance of one of the following functions in one's official capacity as (a) a designated official appointed by the City
Commission or(b)an individual invited by the venue:
1. Introducing organizers, participants or dignitaries;
2. Recognizing the contributions of organizers or staff;
3. Receiving or giving an award or other special recognition;
4. Giving a speech;
5. Greeting and welcoming attendees;
6. Ribbon cutting;
7. Leading the pledge of allegiance or national anthem;
8. Acting as a Goodwill Ambassador, as designated by the City Commission;
9. Assess facility needs, proposed changes and constituent concerns in response to a documented complaint
specifically addressed to the attendee.
NOTE: The Mere passive, spectator attendance at an event will not be regarded as attendance in one's official capacity for a
public purpose.
EXHIBIT 6699
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST:
ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING "PUBLIC BENEFIT" CLAUSES IN CERTAIN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: PUBLIC PURPOSE
(PER CMB RESO NO. , 11 (n.1)
(see below)
I
ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
°`I'IIRI.IC BENEFIT"CLAUSES IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS:
PUBLIC PURPOSE
3t is the intent of these guidelines and recommendations cmicerrung the distribution of
tickets and other public benefits,obtained by governmental entities through contractual
negotiation or other exercise of public authority,to assure that these benefits,which are public
property,shall be used and distributed for a public purpose. The overriding principle behind
these suggestions is to curtail the private use of these public benefits by government officials
and employees for their own personal benefit,directly or indirectly. In addition,these
guidelines are established to provide guidance to such officials and their employees,as well as
their advisors,in order to avoid possible future misuse of such public resources. It is hoped
that this will also increase public vonfidencz in the integrity of goveaument in its use of such
resources,as well as help to remove the perception that elected and other government officials
distribute these public benefits with unfettered discretion and for purposes inconsistent with
the proper disposition of public property. Further,it is the intent of these guidelines and
recommendations to make clear that public benefits may be utilized under certain permissible
circumstances by elected and other government officials and employees where there is a
genuine,legitimate and articulable public purpose involved. To that end, we have set forth
below a list of suggested permissible public;purposes for government officials,staff and
employees to consider when it is appropriate to use,for themselves or others,public benefits
contemplated by these guidelines. The foregoing list is not exhaustive. The Commission on
_Ethics is always available to provide an opinion to an inquiring public official or employee
regarding whether any particular use or method of distribution is ethically acceptable.
A. PERMISSIBLE PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR UI4T�ICIALS,STAFF AND
EMPLOYEES
1. Ilost business leaders to promote economic development;
2. Host leaders of community service organizations(c.g.organizations that serve
the disadvantaged,senior citizens,disabled,ill,children,etc.);
3. I1ost dignharies from municipal,state and federal governmental entities;
4. Host dignitaries and business leaders from other countries;
5. Host youth groups,student leaders and recipients of awards;
f,. Host elderly Miami-Dade County residents;
7. Host disabled residents;
8. Host low-income residents;
9. Host constituents as:(a)a designated official by the Commission,Chairperson,
Mayor or some other person delegated that responsibility,or(b)upon
invitation of the event orgaiuzei s)oi-a person or entity authorized to extend
such invitation;
10.Host group(s)of govcmmezital employees being specially recognized for job-
related achieveruents;
11.Being officially recognized by the sponsors of event in a printed program or
other public announcement.
12.Perfonning one of the following functions in one's official capacity as:(a)a
designated official by the Commission,Chairperson,Mayor or other person
delegated that responsibility,or(b)an uidividutl invited by the venue
1
a. introducing organizers,participants,or dignitaries;
b. Recognizing the contributions.of the organizers or staff,
c. Receiving or giving an award or other special recognition;
d. Giving a speech,
e. Greeting and welcoming attendees;
f. Ribbon cutting;
g. Leading the pledge of allegiance or national anthem;
h. Acting as a goodwill ambassador designated by the Commission/
Council,Chairperson,Mayor or other person qualified to delegate that
responsibility;
i. Assess facility needs,proposed changes and constituent concerns in
response to a documented complaint specifically addressed to the
attendee;
j. Attending the opening day game or performance of a CountylCity-
ownvd facility.
B. OTHER PERMISSIBLE USES OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
1. Distribution to residents on a publicly-advertised first-come,first-screed basis
or by lottery,
2. Sell to members of the public,if permissible,with the proceeds going to the
general fund or a specially-designated public purpose;
3. Return to donor in exchange for monetary value,with the approval of the
governing body of the County/City,
4. Allocations to:
a. Non-profit agencies for distribution to individuals served by the
organizations;
b. Schools/students or youth athletic leagues;
c. Bona fide organizations that represent needy individuals,which
organizations have no affiliation with the public official providing the
benefits or the official's immediate family;
d. Community basod organizations for distribution to individuals served
by the organizations.
S. Allocations to the following based upon their contributions to the community
or local government:
a. Employees, as part of an employee recognition program with defined
criteria;
b. Residents who have made special contributions to the community, as
established by defined criteria;
c. Unelected members who serve without pay on County/City boards;
County,State and/or federal officials or local officials from other cities,
in recognition of significant assistance to the local government;
d Businesses and institutions which have contributed.to the welfare of the
County/City;
f. Visiting dignitaries or foreign officials.
2
EXHIBIT
ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
COMPLIMENTARY TICKETS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1. The following City Officials shall each be entitled to receive two (2) tickets to a single
performance/event for which tickets are provided to the City pursuant to a complimentary ticket
program, or at any other time that the City may receive complimentary tickets for distribution. An
Event shall only include one performance during each production engagement or run at a City
venue subject to the complimentary ticket program, a non-City-owned venue subject to a
complimentary ticket program, or for a City-sponsored event or other event for which a ticket is
required for admission.
• Mayor and City Commissioners
• City Manager
• City Attorney
2. The remaining tickets shall be distributed as follows:
a. Deserving Members of the Community
i. Staff shall endeavor to allocate at least 70% of remaining tickets to this category.
ii. The City Manager shall create an advisory committee to establish a list of deserving
organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets. Such advisory committee
shall meet no less than once each year to review the list of deserving organizations
and/or groups eligible to receive tickets. Deserving organizations and/or groups on
the list shall be eligible to receive, on a rotating basis, a maximum of four (4) tickets
to a single event. The list of deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive
tickets shall include the following categories:
• Non-profit (legally established tax-exempt) agencies who serve residents of
the City of Miami Beach, for distribution to individuals served by the agency;
• Local educational institutions for use by deserving students;
• Senior citizen, disabled persons, and disadvantaged youth who: are residents
of the City; do not have the financial ability to purchase tickets; and,
participate in any City-sponsored program.
On an annual basis, the advisory committee's recommended list of deserving
organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets shall be reported to the City
Commission.
iii. While it shall always be the priority of staff to allocate at least 70 percent of all
remaining tickets to deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets,
in the event that at least 70 percent of the remaining tickets cannot be allocated to
deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets, then they may be
allocated to Others or to City Employees, as delineated below. In such case, staff
shall document the reason why they could not be allocated to deserving organization
and/or groups (e.g. received tickets too late, tickets returned by organization and
could not be re-distributed, etc.).
b. Others
i. Staff may allocate 15% of remaining tickets for this category
ii. The City, may create a "Special Incentive Award Program" for the purpose of
distributing tickets to persons and/or entities that have made special contributions to
the community, or to individual civic leaders, including visiting dignitaries. This
Program shall have defined criteria, and such criteria shall be provided to the City
Commission; or,
iii. The City may provide the tickets to organizations that assist in promoting and
marketing the City through a municipal marketing agreement with the City, to the
,extent that such use is permitted by the entity providing the tickets.
iv. In the event that no tickets are distributed for either (ii) or (iii) above these tickets
may be distributed to deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive
Y 9 9 9 P 9
tickets pursuant to the criteria in Section 2.
c. City Employees
i. Staff may allocate 15% of remaining tickets for this category
ii. The City Manager is authorized to create an "Employee Recognition Program"
setting forth defined criteria for the award of tickets to exemplary City employees.
This Program shall entitle each selected City employee with two (2) tickets to an
event for which the City has received complimentary tickets.
City employees may not use tickets for an event if the event conflicts with the
employee's work schedule and the employee has not secured the appropriate leave
or permission of his Department Head and corresponding Assistant City Manager.
iii. In the event that no City employees are provided or request tickets, these tickets
may be distributed to deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive
tickets pursuant to the criteria in Section 2.
The City Manager's office shall create a process to allow for the timely distribution of tickets to the
categories listed above in a fair and equitable manner. Such process shall be reviewed on an annual
basis by the advisory committee for any necessary modifications.
m f
EXHIBIT D
MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF 1NE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M.Gonzalea,City Man
FROM: Jonah WaNson,CommleaIar�r• .
DATE: Maroh le,2011
IUBJWr= Discus lion Item for April 1 PS,2011 C*mrnls.iw,IV Mnq
Please pled on the/sprit 13',2011, Coinmisaion ruing agenda a referral to the
Snows Cornnnites on the allschad memorandum and proposed ordinance.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Leonor Hernandez at
dxtmBlon 6437.
JWAh
E l =; ;;J' 91 11111z
Agenda item C /-T
w®ab commmea a, re wrxA+„b cry&w.vm4"dp,,in owl - -fl
1
75
a
A
March 12,2011
MEMORANDUM FOR: Cornndasioner Jonah WoMon,City of Miami Beach
FROM: Frank Del Vecchio,301 Ocean Drive,Apt.604,Miami Beach,FL 33139
SUBJ: Ethics Guidelines for Acceptance of Gifts,Favors or Services by City Employees
I recommend enactment by the city commission of a standard of conduct prohibiting the
oity'a officers and employees from aoeeptLM a gik favor or service discounted below
fair market value from an entity doing business with the city or from a lobbyist. Section
2-449 of the Standards of Conduct"Acceptance of gifts,favors.services",is the
appropriate section of the city code for such an tmmendmont.[Attachment 1.)
Also attachod is a reprint of the Urutaed States Department of Justice Ethics Office
Handbook on acceptance of gifts by federal employees. [Attachment 2.]
In addition,also attached are excerpts from the DO]Handbook,applicable to"(lifts from
Outside Sources"(two pages),tho focus of the recommended addition to tine city's
standard of conduct.
ATTACHMENTS:
Recommended amendment to Section 2A49,City Code["Acceptance of gifts,favors,
varvlc".1
U.S.Department of]ustiee Ethics Office Handbook on Acceptance of Gifts by Federal
Employees.
Bxoeapt from DOI Handbook:Definition of Gift;Exceptions m the Gift Rule.
76
c
s
Amend Article VIL Standai s of Conduct,of Part A.Subpart A,Chapter 2,Miami Beach
City Code,by adding a sentence to Section 2-449;the amended subsection to Dead as
follows:
Saar.2-449. Acceptance of Siff,favors,services.
No officer or employee of the city ehall accept any gift,favor or invite that
might reasonably tend improperly to influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
&AM1022�o A RA&=O;U dim;lx O i%fair MOM validt r a
hwiffin JEOw dning businew wikb OAtti,UAIAWA in sCOM sec' 2-43flfb1,or bm a
lobb 1z as A&W in iectd=481.ds ADOWA a violstiort OfIh_is lion
[Language added underlined]
77
EXHIBIT E i}
1
proposed ewes for ft FedWal of the Arts. 9
2. Disicusaton regarding a proposed ordinance on ethics guidelines for
acceptance of pIft,favors,or semicas by City employees
ACT
The Cornrnftm recornMended that AdndnIabution monitor the county regarding
ethics guid+ellw for acceptance of ofts favors or services by elected of oWs
and CRY Ernpioyses and provide a status report to the Finance i Citywide
Profits COMM MM
Commleslorw Jonah Wtifean httro&ced Frank Del Vaochlo, Mlanni Basch Rsatdent,
who preented the Item. W.Del Veochlo proposed that the City Commlvalon ImOwnent
a stmWwd of conduct prohlWng to City's ORicers and Employees,thorn soos$nq s
gtt,favor or servtoe discounted below lair maeat value top 4 pan en*Wft business
wIM tha City or from a lobbyist. Mr. Del Vao*o prided examples from the Unbd '
Was Ddpa Wwd of Justice Mks Ot lice•Neem book on a=eptanoe of aft by' dwW
employees. lion ensued. City Alt mey Jose 8nfh stated that e
Dour fy Is =oft rev"ng the Issue. The Cornnitttee tecommmied thst
Adnl n monitor the=mty eegsWq tt,t Isaue and provide a sdus.report to the i
Flnar=a CItyW&Prciec is Commttee.
a. Dtaouaalon reowding Ssaurtty Alhanae
AMON
TIN commits omrnonded that the Ads dnWagon boon On Request for i
Propomia (RRFP) pruims for security ipsrvicea and include the now criteria
wA"onad In the rne"no as part of On ev► wttlon process.
Procurement Division Diredor Sue L q=prod the hm.
fth ttifl in or around at West the I®M 1800's aW ovdi wIng urdl In or end March
2007,the deMndsnt, JAMES B. L.OFTUS, JR,and Bra W.nuelleffie ooWpled WCh-
Wiel positions at Roorro To®o CRTM.w"was®FlOrtda ft"miion vdth
Its principal plcee of busin4ms In tte Middlti District of Florida. In those pasldons,the
dahndant and OuWleft were,given subsUrdial discreft by RTG to handle securky-
mated vwftm wausted to them
w tftd"as knoAdge and approval,however,thm defendant and Oueiistle muted,
wrc%after mss, Lot 49 feu~.'and Wky Managem a t Corp. (WI®y Menagernent),
e�p�att�oartY tc en,aibte�to sramly recowe W fr"sin oessid®spa*
Alli'vrrtoe,LLC,aM Security Aktance of Florida., LLC('Security
AMW==), wtfth RM had ri tskied to employ and manage 1be sourly guards.
UnbelamffW to RM Semety Atliaros had traded another company, Choice
M iona,t.L.0 rCholce Managemerrt'),to mA9 these mckback paWnertlz
to the defenduft and®uetlette.
To cono" and cover-up tow kldcbadw from RT3, the defendant and Abe,
ernoM cow lungs, waredy Prepared sheen Invotoss addressed to ftcurttgr Alliance and
Choir® MWQWrMgd vdldoh fraudulently sought payment for'cormltire' services, and
which required m such psymerds be made Indirectly to the defendant and Oueletbr
2
110
• . •a..... ... •r..•Ie..t•r v..++�.r.rr ...w.r..sw�.w..r+.y.,I�•.....+.+. ......r.oMV�.•.y•J'Y.....•r�1Ywwy(•wY'rrMY;'rMVlw�l.rljrw�l.l7««..4yy.•�.
EXHIBIT F
CBO 92-33—Poly 17,1992 Page 1 of 4
CEO 92,33—July 17,1992
G]Eb'I'ACCEPTANCLIDISCLOSM
C17 Y COMMSIONERS G TICKETS TO(EVENTS AT crnr-owNl®
AUDITC)]ftMM
2b; (l1lar�se e++ttl�Jield at the pers»n's request.)
SUMM"M
City oanmdissionwo)save reccaved a gM wt,a bow&of office,when fM city Shu the
a blook of ticlrets Oo p at a taunicipally-owW Rata,Wish tioko die city
receives as a oondition of its lease agreemant with the producers, ITowever,&=is no
ind$oation d at the tickets are redirect gifts tom a lobbyist or from a putaM fitm.
ssaployer, or pancips�I of a lobbyist who lobbies city oomooissio�a, and theta is no
b dision that the city oonttct manager is a lobbyist wbo lobbies the oity c=misaion
for purpom of Section 112.3148, Florida StOuWL Thus, the members of the city
bidw may accept the ub of tidmts,but where t6 conabiwd We value of a at of
tialaft eateds 8160,the c atnisasrr s u mat disclose than quzWly on Car Form 9.
C HO is rofareaced.
QUUTION:
Whom e city,by wumat,rsoeivas ft to to evants at the altydowned ftW,and wham
&a ticicate nee divided among the members of the city commiaeaon far d&c their
penone ass a to distribute to oghen at duir disaraliod,have The member of the city
oomtn3saion received gift wbiah are 06jeat to the gift soaeptom sad disclomac
p envisions dsection 112.3148,Florida Ststaitet?
Your qumdonis wmared,in the af35nmative.
In your iafdsl letter of iaogniry and ftout suUwpont cotroqwndann and&amsd=vAlh oast
sM we are advised that to City of Muni B®aoh owns lmd operates a P6rftMnb9 U'W theaW
Broadway Rhows,ballets,and caoerrs are offend to 1he*Ho. You advise&&ft City has fired
into two diffemat e02ftols involving p at die ftatec. For ion Broadway slums,tba City
bu a combnwt witb a mmagement company which epcitias that the City will be provided 26 tickets pa
p ft emy®vet stied at dw ftatL-Far Snowy&how&.ft 10ity cam dirty . i
a Woducar, and tit cmtmd aeequiam the pvdwW to give tha City 20 for tae opentug
y&&=w= and 10 ft asoh Parkjj�&win&the rcm bAcr of fibs. Y= Tim,far a
fir, to Wdum gives ft City a total of 170 ddawbo.and eadh CowmWfammw
rooeivea 20 tidkvm
The dighlbution of tiokeu is effuW fn the following mannar. Prior to.any 9m or eveat,the
cry Qvt rant ' ' r places emb CC o=i8dcD 'a edlatwt-of*&a in Lu anvelope, and the
sa valopm ere distributed to th,e Comaniss by pwomd is thoJ&yoes Ofte, cu=136tam are
d=fos to rasa or dieftiInto tba tioketa:o others at fiNk&=ad= You qU641 M-910 4 of the
gift provid= ownined, in Swtion 112.3146, Florida $ :as wO. ss the Nines Meg
promWgsted in OagpW 34-13,Florida lid eve('04!a tl h sit md=
Swdon 112.312(12)lPkctd&Mdutea,00 M40 00 f UM4g definbim of fhe twm ing ":.
'Crib„'for purposes of ctbics in govmmaed and ftenoW disclosure
Wjlwww.etbic&state.fLue/opinicsas/06/..%SC92%SCCEOo/2092-033$ten 6/?.512012
CEO 9233--July 1 7,1992 Page 2 of 4
required by law, means that abioh is accepted by a donee-or by
another on 1be donoe's behalf,at that which is paid or given to another for
or onbehalf of a donea,direedly,indirectly,or in mist for his banefit or by
my other means, for which egnsl or greater considersdon is aot given,
inoludieg:
10. dame fees, Admission &ei6 or tickets to events,
per,of faeffitieg.
14. Amy ofhar eimIar service tr thing having an alb t►table valise
not skeady provided for is this SWd=
'G1i#t'does not iLnolude: '
1. Salary, b=cfits, setvieea, fees, commieeiona. or eapeasas
associated with the rec4deat'e avloymant.
We arm of the view that the ti,cloots provided to the City as a condition of the coatm is the City
eaters into with its management company sand producers would not be eonaidaced"gib'to tha City,as
it appws that fty arc a part of to ooasida idan the City receives for laasiag Us azstitoriutu. Bven if
we did consider the tickobs to be gifts to the City,Seed=1123148,PIMida Statnbas,does not probkdt
tha giving of ffft to govern tMW entities. See CEO 29:12.
With regard to the eomplim,aatay Mob that the City receives and then distr%utee to its
Conn Mboloneaa,Rule 34-13.210(2 Florida Adrniaistfstiva Cok prvvldee:
Whm the dotes to being reimbursed or provided by hie public
agency for travel or aq&u es fnowed in the perfam=cs of p*Hc duties,
the dance has not reoecived a SIA when a public purpose fbr the egxa o
mdata. Salary,benefits, ardca% fens, or other expenses received by a
public of en or aoaplroyee fYom bis or 1er public aganay do not cooetitute
gifts.
It is aRr view that two dalcets would not be eonsWumd "hene te" aasocia od with rho City
' pub
'sipnewre lic office. Twenty tickets to a Broadway abow was UA the type of bcWfit we bad in
CaaQUOCt�s
mired wheal we promrulgatrd this Pula The use of ft team"becefiW in Rule 34-13.210 was untended to
convey those benefits typically wwciated with one's empk►ya> IA,eorb as hwlth bwmaace,sick ieava,
cc paid p&*W& Yt was Mt intended to include such perquisites as a large munber of ticka to dMiar
perftmsaamc 'T'hhm we am.ofthe view that these tiokotg are not a benefit of offio®that would preclude
theta kombeang=ddered a gift.
The focus of our discussion then turns to Seotim 112.3148,Florida Statutes,wb ch provides in
relovaatpaxt: -
(2)(b) ]Lobbyist means any natural parson who,fat compwa dM
scab, or sought during the preceding 12 months, to influence the
gov=n2czjtd dooisianmaldng of a rVortiug h&vidad w proeuramant
employee em his ageoscy or soaks, or sought during The preceding 12
months;to emcourep the pagesge.dm%L%or modification of easy propoaal
or recommendation by ttu xaporting individual or pmo>=reiaent exaployec
of UW age aq. With respect to an gamy that bas established, by rule,
ordinance.or law,a vegimetiom or other dod ation prooeas for pmB=
seBkbg to in&=ce deeisionmaltiag or to encourage to paewgo,drat,
or anodiSeation of nay propossl Or I`COOZ=emdadb by each aseacy or as
=ployae or offioW of the agmey, the teen 96bbykt" includes Carly a
person wbo is required to be reBistaod or otherwise dedgw ded ae a
lobbyist in act with sudb ruk►, a dinaace, or law or who was
bnp://www.eftm,gtifx.iLuslopki=00&..%5C92%SCCZW*2092-033JWm, 0&..%5C92%SCCZW*2092.033JWm 6/25/2012
C,BO 92-33--July 17,1992 page 3 of 4
....during tae.procading 12 month required to be ngistared or
o1herwise dedgaatod as a lobbyist is amrdow with anoh trine
ordinance,or law.
.(4) A reporting individual or procurement employee or my other
parson on We behalf is p 'bitmd from kmowingly acoep6ng, dk=dy or
inftectxy,a gift from a politcal==Wttee of cmm of coaftuo u4
ea dente, as defined im s. 106.011, or from a lobbyist wbo lobbies the
nPortimg individual's or piomuement employee's agoucy, cc dirwdy or
Yndkwfy on behalf of file paw, firm, employer, or ydno* of a
lobbyist,if he knows or reeaoaably believes tbat the gift has a value m
excess of$100,however,meh a 1&may be accepted by mi&perms an
behaFf of a gov=mental entity or a du stable aarganizatiom. If the&is
accepted on behalf of a gov=mea W entity or ob,aritable aaganizatIM the
pes�on m mvmg the gift shall not maintain custody of ft gift for my
sod of time beyond that rawanably necessary to wm&a for the tudar
of oustody sad ownership of the gift.
(5) A politioal oommidw or a committee of coldness eadstame,
ae de mad m s. 106.011;a lobbyist who lobbies a reporting in"dual's or
promema nt employee's agencV.the partner,5rm,employer.or pdnd*
of a lobbyist; or another on behalf of the lobbyist or partner, fbzn,
prInoipal, or employee of 1he lobbyist is prohibited fin 917bg, sithor
duly or h9hWt1y, a Sift that vas a `►slue in MM of 8100 to dW
rapmft mdhidual or panow=wl eaoployeo or may other person on his
beh4 however,such parson may give a SM baving a value in excess of
$100 to a reporting individual or precur=amt employee if the gift is
nUmded to be trandbmsd to a governmeatat ®sty or a emritable
� organization.
(6)(a) Notwiffi tandtag du provisions of subsection(S),sa entity
of the legislative or judicial bnmb, a depaztmeat or cammieaioa of am
enewtive brmcb, a coutV. a MMicipality, an akport aathoritY, or a
whool board may give, ddt=directly ox mdim tb+,a gift bayb*a maw
in inmess of$100 to any r%=&g individual nor went avloyae if a
publio purpose ism be shown for the gift;... .
Notwi2xt®a ft the provisions of subsection(4), a reporting
tndivi (b)or proem memt employee may aucapt a gift bavving a value in
excess of$100 f= an ezdty of the legislative or judicial branch, a
deputmant or .ssi,a�u of &a exwutive branch, a county, a
municipa>ity,as suport amthoaity, or a•school board if a 1ubliz purpose
`f cza be abown for the 1M... .
6 Subeacfaon 112.3148(4)would prohibft a City Comtdo sonar fnam Ming a gift with a valve
in s of 8100 fl=a lobbyist who lobbies th,e City,or 43�om the pars,three.emnployer,cc principal
of a lobbyist. Wb a we recognize that public employees oaa and do attempt to inftumnoe the official
aatkm of the orwm of their public agacy, are do not believe that the def rdtiaa of"Lobbyist" wu
intended to encompass such pwom or that tmdr duties with raepoxt to didr own ages constitute
"lobbybag" Nor ie theirs say hdiontion tlasx the City CODIrBd MOW in tads i0taae6 is w6ng oaa
b&&of a psrmer,firm,amployar,of pri wipel of a lobbyist Ao lobbies W C3Ity. Aaoordin**it is
our view that Sermon 112.3148(4),Florida State %is happlimble to this somodo.
Subaeotion 1123148(5)prohibits a.lnbbyiet who lobbies tbo City of VlBMi BMb,oar the partner!,
' firm,=ploya,or pni wipal of a lobbyist,from dimtly or iadirecdy giving a gift with a value in.WM
of%240 to smaanben of dm Cty Coanmiesion. For the reasons statad is to forego*pa:xgngi „we do
lfpJ/%,ww.ad i A.abate.fl.uslo pHonVO61.%5C92%5CCEO%2092-033.htm 6/25/2012
8
. 1
CEO 92-33 s.-July 17,1992 Page 4 of 4
not consider the tY Contract Managir U a lobbyist who lobbies to City or es to
partner,&m,maplow.or Principal of a lobbyist. Thus,Subeeation 1123148(S�b also iaapplioable W
�analysts.
VM =gad to Subm W' A 112.3.148(61 Florida mss, we cmgtrue ft ymvimon u an
#09 to m 112.3148(4) end 112.3148(5),Plorida Stst tM
.m sav a hies wbo as in.lobbyhag activitiea. For==VIA wemflea MY to e0loy
A lobbAd tq.ldbby ft-LaSIdAtm fm sd&donal f-m—& for tha arts and whave to City Savo each
-metbesr of Ifit.Loodamrs yk woeth mote tbsa$100, them seed= 1123148(6},Florida
Statutes6 would be applicable and a public purpose would have to exist both for the City to be able to
give tbo dual%to-&o.mmbgn of So Y,e&taftu%and for the legia]s#m to be able to accept tho tidmta.
We do not vidw goo sib bdm V to be ong of fib typo,and we&=fare imd Section 1123146(6) �
to be f spphmble.
Ae nd Submfiamt 112,3148(4)0 (5),not(6) appear to psobft the mmbers of tha City
Commiseian$om accepting the tickets the City reoeivee pursuant to is various 00*90%wa are of the
view tai die Civ CO nxmiseioaece may aosapt die 6akets but must diiaalose them in sacordeaco with
Sabmdm 112.3148(5), pknida Slane. Thus, wham the face value of aeah set of take% a
Con=issiam receive amads S LU to-CaYamissicn .=at disaioss the sate of libbb qu wtedy on
CE Form 9,wbi*we have promulgated epaaific&Uy for flais purpose.
You hq=y b answered accordingly
bg#pJ/www,ethics,atg .lLus/opiaio�6/.%5C92�Yo5CCROc/o2092-033.btm &25/2012
EXHIBIT G
it8$OLUTION NO. 13-20694 y,_�
A RESOLUTION Of T8d CITY COMXIBSION OF TYE•CITY DF liIAMT
BEACK,.TLORIDA, PR09IDI110 THAT COMQLI14DWTARY TICKETS FOR
pERFOApt ucas JWD SvBHTB AT T08A&ND TUB COUV811=0V CBMTE1t
WRICB MOULD OTH8B11I8® 8E R$CEZVBD BY TWO KAYOR, CITY
COXHIN81OKEAB AM CITY CUPLOYiB® SKILL 8109SAM R 88 KAD8
A®AILABLB To 1018ADVANTA0ED YOUTHS, DISABLED PIRSOMO ,
SDNIOR CIT12IM19 AND OTRER INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT IDve 738
yj0A)1cIAL ABILITY TO PURCHA 88 TIC9ET6 FOR OULT133A16
BVZNT®.
WHERSAB, pura}dant to contracts between the City of Miami beach
and producers and promoters of performances and events of the City
o; riea:i Beach Theater*of the Pertereing Arts (TOPA) and the 14iani
beach Convention Center, the Mayor, City Co=issioners and Clty
employees currently receive tickets for various events and
performances occurring at those facilities; and
VUZRBAB, the City Commission believes that these tickets
should be utilized for the. benefit of disadvantaged youths,
disabled parsons, senior citizens of the City and other individuals
who do not have the financial ability to purchase tickets for
cultural avantsi and
WjMR5A6, it is fitting and proper that cultural events should
continue to be available to disadvantaged youths, disabled persons,
our fine senior citizens and other individuals who do not have the
financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural events; and
wmmsAB, city sponsored programs for the use and benefit of
the disadvantaged youths, disabled persons, senior citizens and
other individuals who do not have the financial ability to purchase
tickets for cultural events are neeassary and proper; and
S
WHERBAB, organizations, such as the Niatai neat, have crested
programs for this purpose.
g
NOW, T8EROPORRo DS IT RISOLVDD BY TH8 CITY CONXIDOXON OF ?nZ
CITX OS KIAMI Ee26CN, TLOBtpri, that&
11 That the !allowing City officials shall receive a maximum
of four (a) complimentary tickets for one'performance of
all new productions or events at TOPA and the Convention
Center for which such tickets are available:
(1) Mayor and City ComMis6ioners
(2) City Manager
r�
1
1
(3) city Attorney
The folloAng City officials shall receive a maxilaum of
tWO (2) complimentary tickats for one parformanoe of all
now productions or events at TOM and the Convention
Canter for which such tickets are available.
(1) senior Assistant City Ma%agar, Contract
Administrator
(a) chief DCputj► city Attorney
.2) kny and all remaining tickets shall be donated to
disadvantaged youths, disabled persons, senior citizens
of Miani Beach and other individuals who do not bave the
financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural
events.
3) The City administration shall develop guidelines and
appropriate proanduras witih regard to the adminiattation
of this progran+ ana aball submit said quid®lines and
appropriate procedures to the city Commission for final
approval.
21SBED and ILDOVTZD this 6.th day at .. Janus
JLTTM:
ty ff az c y
fORNi APQRQYFD
LEECAIj tT.
F�&I
Date
a
I
•�Rt!CDIAR AGENDA - JAHIIAA1f L. Lill
� f
.... Ivil
A-7. sweo.0 iD s (CONTIMU�) • /�
+a a. 1DtS?1IBUTIDH Of COLTLILUTARY TOWCOPCHTION CMIR 6VWT?XMTB.
1• Dt;C 993 29, Lill, UEHOWDU11 FF.GlN MAYOR SRMVR GELBER.
a. A &ESOLi)TION Of = CITY COMMISSION OF 111E CITY Of MIAMI Rum, tLOAIDA,
pROVIDINO 711AT GDH?LjMLr.ARY 7I0KE176 P011IRTOBHAHCE81 AND EVENTS AT TOPA AND
THC C KVW7lC 1 OLBTIR WHICH go= OTHERVIBS BE RECLIVZD BY THE WOR, CITY
OONKISSIONW, Ago CITY 9MPLDY9U, EMU BEREAPIEH BE MARS AVAILABLE AT A
DIBGOOyl y0 NggIV►Owl XUU RR9I0I1W IN MIAMI BEACH,VITO 7n AB4RMR FROK SAID
SALE$ To SE ADDED TO THE DNE DOLIAR TYORET BURCNARCE BARK ACCOUKY FOR EXPARDID
VMRE SENIOR C17IZBN bISCOUNl9 3Y THE ADDITIONAL PURCHASE OF T107r=9 9101
4FAERAL.P8RFORWANCES AND RFEALS TO SENIOR CITIEEHS RESIDING AT MIAMI BEACH AT
A DISCOUNT OF 506 OR YORE. (REQUESTED BY MAYOR finU R CRUM)
2. DECEMBER 29, 1992. MH ORANDUH 9RON CITY ATtOWEY.
o. A RtSOUITIOM OF THI CITY COM198100 OF THE CITY OF HIM BEACH. FLORIDA,
PROV011W INAT GOULIM=TARY TICKETS FOR rVJOAe4ANOBb AM 5V9M AT TDPA AND
THE OONV2A47•IDM GENTBR WHICt! WCOW OTUERWIDS. BE RE081M By THE 1LAYOR, CITY
CONaILBSIOHERd. AND CITY ZMPUrag8, $HALL WERLAJTCR BE MADE AVAILASL6 TO
DISADVABRACED Y00TV8. 02SAELED 12;IxO i8. SIVIOR 017I 051 AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS
WNO DO pot NAVE THE nVANCIAL ABILITY SO FURCdAS9 TICKUS FOR CULTMAL&VEN S.
(R8QUUTED BY COMISSIONER NEISEN XASDIR)
3. DECEMbla 29, 1992. 119HORAMM FROM CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR "M" LITZ, TO
COKKISSICWER BUsAN QOITL.IEB, REGARDING GOVARI't'Y BENEFIT COWITItb (CSC) FOB THE
PZRPORKIRG ARTS i VITN RUOLUT20ME, FINANCLAL gTATEMP.=, K=TtS, ITtC.
pcTraNi Joel Arnold, PTO-Plorida, Ina. counsel and CDC Obair an, advised that FTC
believed that cossle at free tickets Was imProparl that IN suggaatsd(endorsed by CDC)
that the Otty Manager astabliel the ticket distribution procedure, with the users
attordsd an opporwnity to diacums any proposed procedure bat*to Lgsleaentation.
Coswisaiona=s altered several suggestions. Lnaluding:
• that the toeamtsston address chs issues of the nusbst of compLlmenrary tickets when
eonsidaring renewal of the ITT contract, (Comr. Gottlieb)
• That the Canuiasioners request staff to sdViaa producers that it would no longer
accept the tickets. (Carr. Psarlson)
• that the Comission adopt a resolution indicating that it un longer wishod eo receive
these quantities of tieksts, and ask a eomittes to develop a plan for Gooniasion's
consideration that would address the Issues tatsod. (Mayor Oelbet)
That the Adeiaisttation/SKC survsy the tlokat distribution policy/practice of other
such facilities end submit report/recommendation for Commlesion's eonstderation.
(Coors. cettliab and Kaadin)
Lo response to ComaLselos,ar Gottlieb's inquiry, the City Attorney advised that although
no resolution tied bean adapted eraattng the policy. It was written into the coatroets
which oars authorisad by resolution, thereby approving the 7raeeipt of tickets by the
City. Commissioner Peatlaon expressed Concern that under sitter proposal, the tiekatA
would continue to flow to staff who would be making tha contracts with producers.
1. No ectien taken on proposed resolution.
_..... ..4. @*solution no. 13.10694 adopted._,........... ........:.... .._....... (Vote: .7.0,)....
Coamissionar pearleon advised tlta Administration that he an Lnoger visbad to =aeeive
any ticlrsts. and it may direct them as it wished (suggested they be given to the
Personnel DLtactor for on amployae incentive *Rd employ6e•of-th6-es0nth program which
hs was attempting to create with the new Personnel Diraoter). Oomissioner Coitlteb
advised of hoc 11/27/92 lector to the QLty Manager stating that she would no Loogar
accept tickets tot any event in TOPA.' and Commissioner Etaenbsrg advised that he had
sent a aLmilsr %occur to the Kanner.
Curing the dtseusai*a. Ooaalasionsr Bteaubseg expressed dissatiefeactso Math the
ir+acouracy and'sctconsous Lspr■ssion left to the reader by the Hlasi Xfrold srticLes on
this Rector.
Nara: 1/3/91 latter from PTG-Florida, Inc.. eaprssslng concerns regardLog the proposal
to disburse eLcksts Twit the CLtiaens Benefit Coosittse, eubmLttad at meting and
filed with cbe records.
Also see related item 1.65.
ACTION 8Ym"T JApUAaY 6, 1991 015-
'I
�. EXHIBIT H
via
.l
PWWAJ t to the B 1W C=misaioa'a ceabliag aedsaea tbopu pm Cdf9Wk&W •
is t
SWM a the radian of tho Publk t and b%arooetg Aet thacw% the pwAir- aafd
Vpdawd cab and Queer public as to the=Mired Ond ethical Ohio
C,e=ieaaan u a gawa ed to ear all pnw aithw q*d iosfty or mommay° ME I mail
a f powosa.A=r&B*,&ft the oao"(D of a bbb
Qxrq titon U*ofthe Miami-Dade 8t o AUQrM'®Offioe(SAD andit an
�.
(d:®E);u►e fett ix app vpriate to follow up on od duri rho
nd saggod recamffiesidatioAs and guldeliaaa to addnems 4hoee . `lie an
involved a grant fipft betweenfhe ChYof Miami Bauh(CMM ft Now w
S oay(We). The inaiU complaint tree a�by a locml attazey faam+aa
� ynspY►
t Miaani Boub na.yar who was alaotbo Chshmn oftbe Surd OCT offha . no
sleglam wssiW the CUB was ruing to pay the NWg monies he under a Aid
Asreemat i
(QIAA)unless the N'WS prarvidedtbe Mayor,Conuis ionem and
Addniertratave staff with►oowpHnwn atgrti wb to NWB - The SA0
mamoo is ottacbed hereto as$xbibit L
Akhough the jobt invea4l-mition did not wwovdr any ° of adj* sl In it did
apoae flawed-policies that have rsaolted inunwmanted and beaafts slecW
i and minted oMoials. EleMd sad appointed Oftbls oaa ' these poltoies lrovida
with gmsau a of dollars wow of tidkds to mewl evtab by ° ' "ties
eve a aa�raotuat se1� iRp V th the local g whi o1
W aWwvtr,flutlnec inveadpdon has shown Burt set�ar d other p agar
I;WIM 2_1 W5 of fo Code of Miaati Dadra CCU*.
4i
4lck�daa butiosi plam. Thor diabibution pleos sometimes am=t to no Vfthinly
dispbed fe m of poll iei1 fewmitism used by elected officials to imm witfiad
to build polidosl support IU Coacnai sim an Ma and MUG finds thoboublesome gaud urges aII local Son, ti i to oo�asider the m sis
ropast
1
CitX®f Mud ftsh. ,
c The invadyfian found tuba Vac ca by the City of ticks
� t®C�y-®waed�a vas officially setactioaad writda t6a psssaga of b�It�t�i �3-
2 0694, which Yet&as fbUows:
A lteeoAWn q f She City Commisdo"of&C*afMJMf B .Mri& $ �
providing that conra mnt®y tiaWi for per6rnnmoea and at 2VPA
and the Cwymtbn Cana ieW mold atbwwke be by Me
Cro j acrd dwo AU M4*
' �pd�► adyowhr,&arbkdPM&V4/f der GWWW addw
w*o do#W leave dwfaam"abik&P we bare fi&d a aoRVal
1Vow,ila be it resod by the City Con"tsiesfor o f the ay cfMtaW
Beach l?orlda,that: ,
1)T&followfre City of f icials rhald rawft a nzdmum 4 ,(ow(4)
compb mmmy*.lee a for me perm%=w of au ww pro&Wow or evew
MPA and tW Com"Ooi CenWr:
(1)AfQ w and m mbwr Qf the City CowWarlon
(2)OfyManager
(3)Ctty.4ltormW I
?7aa f+ollowt S City O nclols shall recefue a modn�aun of`ham )ceo�{ptfiner�t
, ticketr for Onepwformww of all newproduortow or events it TOPA and
t Cow Conitrf+or which Such dckSU arse atw1abla
(1)&idorAaatetrmt Cityllddjvqser;ConftWl4dirif►ti ator I
0 ChisfDqpty Cttyr4ftnw 1
2).p+m all remalni?W t Aki AW u be doimd to di tuWWd y dr
a JMbwpsrSea,Ssnfor cltdzens ofVkzwBasch and other ufda+tala who
rw ham the,lanGW ability topumchase t 'Mfor cubvidd a. t
-4)?doe City advninistradc"shall develop gui&ftnss oval �riarie �
1 prooe&ms v►ith regard to the a&Wnietr,atlan of this and shall�b I .
! aatod gocidslinea and apprnpriote pmoe�tr to the
'it laslon forfinaT
1 Thadw of tha Pa ftmizig Aft
1
I 2
J
s 1
t i
approwl... (am*& is added} .�
f �
VVb&C1M Re®oon 93-Z 0694 glows for receipt 1"1
to
eveds at �TOPA and ffie Convection C49W,bath City- fscnlitiea, �+erobdiaga
has been used by ChllB Ca ulksimm Bad amploye®a to 3uv* reoeapt df
i
fi&et''et to many ove nb of CUB venues inoWing tbo NWS. y
In 1993.the 604 City Maeaaget estoblWod a"Promo oral 'drat PolioY." . j policy
mitrm athe mooMon's eligibility regtak nents,.9aUng dad the y be fast
pv=to the LUyor.4ba CommiWon,die City AtImmy,the . City the Chief
9 Deputy City Avamay,sued the Coatraot�miaigtator,and tLhet rormhsing be dowded
to diaa�dvaadaged yoo�,disabled panarae,and senior ch zem. ?b policy also then
Mowing VideUnec: �
i
a) A oarramift+ss appofntad by Pyre CRY M=90r ahctl resat eatab�da�r o '
org onr andlor grorcpe eel0gible to reoelve prone itcke►da...ilea eta ti
be Updated awry porter.
1) A amrmW fiat of wal organiaatdani or odvic groups g , be a�awtie d
which a rottae'on of racddpiente ah�al!ems.
3) Donr�dpromotlorsal tickets may be ejed by erg solely WPM
frtr�ratsers...
4)No snore Haan teen 00)Promotional UAW shall be ims I to OW see �
organ tan for one shoWevenL `
S) When a raprmsmrr ove from an organization rscslves i s helshe
a revvOL Orgcartzatioras will be gtvsn a form to be comp and retied ox
CttyMmaager'a tae wnkn two weda ofthe shou&vew.., the erg does
not retry the vmpIWW f+vm thwr the CUP Manager wi11 t tasae any M
tfdloeta to that or°ganisatiova...
It mould be aozed ewne a►ftho C&M aupkyea x or Medea add (m�aept
for on®AssidAM City MEager)blwvkwi d ftiug the weor+e awfim Civi s
owe°`tuna iccal TmkaL Policy" Not evma ibis avocet City ,whol to the
' policy,is roepomable for•®,a�vi,the"Promotioaai TWcet Iho "
was aware
i
earls mm, Appa surly,the only part of the policy implemented ttw desuibudan
comp,b auWy tiolcels do the Mayor,CommjsaiancN and CMB or deff'. Noma off
spp of a tiacAt diatri Wa =olomwi tee,nnr tie meatinn of I list of
=*mound to receive tickets,was found.
i H
3
I moon
1 t�
1
- It
e I
J 1{
1`
70 iuvokipfion found*A the CMB City Mamager acts as didnibudon br al1
ntarytiokats received by to City. Once tickets come to h s office,their
distributed among the Me`yoa and City re. A b log is ;t . Onoe
the tickda get Into to handy of'the eleami officials,howover,they have `
di onto do with ftm VdW they please. IIOinVeSt9dLOn aev ed that mffiny o
Commimdonen kept certain tid als for their pwwnel use. Oftm h aRier, PVC
` Ih*ddatted tickets away to Sricads,fsmdy.staff or other mica ft . Certain. ►'
VVkkmm mod Irving the course of the iuvestsga W euggcgte aerie often„tb
1
t are tang"grains of Owior cidz=who are made well awre of h Coftema t
t
bvnefioen jjj reeponWe for the free tialoeta. The political derived I-om'd &Cb of
tsapayer ubaWked geamay mn itself be pavdved as a W to dected c . , Utiiizad
by®looted chorale,tbie pe"oe is likely to lead to politicsal pam saelttdiag th, ytoa of
Savor vOL bloow of poter"Valera andJar other laflga l lOdf ' sls within the
!
jib al thez Sae CIuIH ae nat edlaeriag eat all to the spirit vf'. ova raWaU #3-
2069k) is that few of the intended recipients i.e. dread dyauU
' paroona,s®ndor adze of Mimai H and other iaddviduals who not lssva the
WAWy to purees tricots for culmd aweata,and up benofttiaig theme flee
Ito
"Publio BeneW abouK in our view,benefit the actual publio at , It is claw
i
p r msty boaficlaries of theme"public beneW we the'gamnMod ate;Ub so to end.
Momovar;this type of ticket distribution rjaem appears to be the to w type of rAe thatthe
c
. Florida fto Bthice Commission(FSEQ opined results in"gibs" " . given to ,
offidals.
. t
----- .----..... ..
We aeoaamaend tl>at sleeted a�dal be entirely removed the process. .
� E
f distribution of tiara. All local govesnnnW NdWaffid have
wWondxlpa v&wdn Their manicipdhy receives')pubUo butsrammd but -to,
I oval tidcata,should adopt a policy or procedure that iaarulatw el pointed cida
fro m invoW mmA to the dietributiou provees of the ben®Ste,and eceipt
cowpUmentay tiokats to oecaalons whey than is a public purpose w ryed by their .
i4
1 i 4
d
j
Wad u omethst,wben pubiio powasr io Savemmigtoo t0
1. exhid a bewd%such a s OOMP msgaa7►tickets,&nan a privdre ,tme can be i ` ante
purpose for awh a baazaa#tt oMe'than a public OrO..Sua h cdy anafa! a dtfr an
from any otba'public p vpaty such as taaxrmmtte or buildiw �of Batch'
wau four them pubilo p oses is wally amd is prole a �!
i
# In U&of the City of Miaml Beach invafiggtion,the COMMbdon a the
1
"public jprection an Several Otba=)naloip ®s, CVs that,in the C� ,of Mlauds
a t►ojs are rouuwi ►pmvided to olevtad o and the Catty Man got for evuh aamff .
atherlaoele%the Janfu L.Kra*C 6tet.Bayfi ont Park and the it my Woison To 41
Toumemot(BEM tbrougb a sdmila dktdbuction prooedam }
An mgWwa City 1Vlawger advised*e COE that in 2011, mayor
ad the Chy Mmgw emb rwelyed.two.(2)Uckats per ave&nfar tow of a, (22)
ataedow pleas a pwkkg apaos for the SETT. A City OMOW . the C OE t
Vdkote as Provldad as i pan4 of an aganue bdWeathe C hy's of
end haami-fide meaty for use of the lot. �' almad
o6a W in the Laity advaod tbt ho gwas the fidab away to ...and etbar
people.,, Zbuao we a ctelacted,aifiobb ash z&ozW bwvW
is a mxmw the imam to their pease]or political bcie& EtL ft ,
,
ikak if any,bead,from sawh a eelf Autwesw mode of
k0qUlry into a pmadcas by to City of Haaaeastead revuleftm has
f I""agreemab for the I3offiestead Sportaa CommpW sad t1fe SIPICICICIMY 07.em
t AVwmwbft� For each ev at hold at W complex tolhe °a lam 4w � wbh
I La Ley Sp mu it&e City of Homatoad,Inc.),C'OH reaaves:the u w of a
_... - .fmty(40)okybu fickote,ond tweaty(20)paddag per. to C®E•as agm#d vikh
Matorrte Nat`TeaWn and Ralph S OOH ban
gc (80)
P gwaaaa°al aeon tick tk the use of two(2)as aa�d
I `
f tickAs for sub sad in the skybaus for aech evert bid al the . In .. oyeaS
of a;pH an Smftd aii twenty-five paced(25%)disoou t off Ofthi Ease viislue®f a #` to a U
1 ngata�p avals held at the specdvmy. Eacb eligible y parchm a n °OMM of
two(2)dlagoouzdsd tiakah. ,
i'
i �
� t4
� •i
i
i C)ne COH official advised the WE that each tickets are led is his and
t17at he tbAn diot:ibLdcs those tickoU to City C5ciale. 'Phis I ®aid tae ww w
fmag ff aide w frm the Etbica C Omission on this 16xw.
i As another example ofthe oflw time itaPFOpn&U use�. sae c :}."in
2008.a tc)H Canoilperson was advised by the COB that it wWW 6 3uepproprle4e a
Cmnoilpe to offer a candidate for gtsU office�e to bold a l. at
the designated Caty skybox and only be charged the discounted City '
An inquiry into the policies of Miami-Da&County's policies was
Ala rding to a repre rotative ofthe Adrienne Anstd Canter(AACk is W. i
o regta=the Perforc ng Arts Center to provide a certain number ofl Awh to eadi •Moe
i to County offioiels. Royer,ifthe Arts CeVWAAC bw wbax team, •�
i atha
j $may do contact County Com$ainionens of to obtain the nmaw non-pro �r
ity type aVnizsdons they can donate the se=w rtory ti to. The °
thomelves do not peas tbmgb the bands of Caeady officiate. Oaco sue,bawti M '' tied that
the pciWoo of making the tickets available to a private,non-pro5t, upon tlae
;I
doeipsgon by a ai•ngte cleated officiaa,rather than a awkA 'tidal Perron ar ig
i dMilarly questionable and problematic. ;
OOE h9wviewed tba County's I ks=of Cultural Affinity advised tbA �
} '%=pukmdy avoids"having any hype of"pbtic beasafrt"dmu= any of the '
between the Couedy and any ofthe cultural aab gt•aups that perform various Ironed
fait m He Bother advised that®nay arts grwP thetnaelvea provide tiaticets to
underprivileged groups on their own but his offioo does not amgage T a®y '. QCtldkft
to aged ofoisls nor requites that my cumber of tickets be peovi .
MW eby of CoW Gablea(CO)was asked above he policy the of
ti**A under dudlar affeemdo. 'Ilea COE found that the Adore yltcassa °t7Yeater)in
w na ups to avoid imerfa vase from elected offiiciale in their dW'bu&z of publi I&ma&
data° Um EYeaudive Director ofthe Miracle Thastar admixed that Playbone ho,s
i umoagemerd agmmat with CO. In the agro rent,the Pleybome a pvn to give S to
i ;
the 000nmmnnity. Aoom,&n,g to the Enocudiva Director,the P10084 giver Xwap of
i tiokecs ovary you to not for-prof5ct agwoles,sohoole,and a tit represent 'dam
i ' s
y a
1
mho,odnaot WoMto buy tick-M Shea adviaed tit ft Playhouse �VMS �ti site
E to NorthwadeM High Sahoo�l OJdea�(M&W Of mm th�n.$1,000.
s
The decision m to which tia�lu is to ova avray and to plies the
ExamOw Director. Teo Executive Davdar alaimed*9 CO does
S
pleykause's distnbudau of the tickets. Tie'04 dodo snot mo�$tOt 'PI&A-Masi of
complim®mt'y ti . ghe advised tit no tldwta®o to the City.
When such benefits are provided whollythroughthe Am6fimim of an=-am
+ gotity that h not porfm'ming a gavwnpma famtion.tber+e is no lop d.pcobMonto
i
peususat to tke Mi'a i-Da&Cou*Conflict oflatcad and Code eftice F provided
dmi there- no connection between the aaceptanoo o+f the p tick o and any • to be
i '�
takmn bythe racipieds in 1�cc bw public tole. The eomptanm o ticke6e by ��`----
of oW does,of cmace subject the Official to tbo gift ropoab% ,' value of
dwficce9ts exceeds$100.00.
iInvestipstim also determined ft%in adMonto the m mbar of ' provided
p�usuaat to"pvblio beneW almuim6 sleotsd and appohftd ofMid are hnited to
events as a matter of"Offlow city bosinam."
Attendance at..ofoW city busiaeea"evauU generally doe 1 soot requke Be as
fang U tlm mama d/appointed CMcW is,in&at peaf=iag acme t om fide offlolal on at
tbe ovext(mdse generally,FSEC apzaion 01-019} Hoarerver,it ab d be naiad that
aftendance xt an evdrnt by an eeleeW afllc d does tmd megic 4y the ma Official
i'
city . " i iew fimctione"can iacluk but are not ' ' .pup Wag ' 'a aibboa
r
__ _--_...,._...._ .... . .......... _ . . .._'...:.....- ..� 8 .: Orl0.`,ad' the pledge ofa11C C.
jl 4i u gl gNi4 op � p ge � ,
't'her®may slap be ocoasions whew,due to the proaeoce of Other
apsaW lnvitad gussets.h wW be appropriate fr offiaala to attend evesirt to .'with ouch
peon an rapresen��aas ofthe 1 003 govenu nn t Such eeooasi however. dbe limited
to speoW oommons redbm tin regularly scheduled aveata,d� to include official
desisudon by the oounty/olty govwnmied to those officials in
7
i
s
It is ut311kGely the mer0,pzwive at#.m&=e by au elected .. to"an .'4"14
.'
Vdfi A fabar Dome afaial role in the evaut,or,at a ntt ID, •• as part qn Of6CW
propwn of the*veto,cam be considered etbondawe at an"official "oa."
IffidfigifMO Usdix WA rules:
1
i bmpeedve offt method of di*bWon emplayed by a$ �
i
ol$olaia�t be oopkaat of St do and local BM amen when =tieb=s An
• psesvimaly&wuu& ,if an doatod offic;W is attending a Amict ion as ' oadyl basinesa,
the value of the tiduA or ti M ian b not coruA red a gift and . the eleobad CO is Wt
it required to dlscloso h ae suh.
' It is finpottwt to note„however,that in CEO-92-33,the hold that(may
CommMonm bave rooeiveed a gift,ad a bwaf t of oboe,w tw city givee them'61oak of
j tid do to perfcmaaaes at a mtmioipaUy-armed$heatar,Which fee City s000i is e
condition of ft,lease agi+ meat wbh the prmdua Am Whae a City. cantraot, ' ;`tickets
i to evaats at the City-owned theater,and when*e,tid kete arc a�g too Of the
e
t &i4y Ca eelon for either them pemonal used or to d6WbnU to at ibeir dim the
members of the City Coamnieslon receive gift which are subjee:t to accep�nae '
&Saloom provielom ,
Also,a tickA received directly fc=a tan-goti►emmat GWV autsid®of auy I .
agm mot between the wily and the local gavwamaot,is subjed to disc OMM n
VA aut in Seddon Z-11.1(0)of the Mini-Dads County Caaflid of "Code. : dos
Ordimnoea oduced below in ita entirety)
� cam'
y,pvrsnantto Section 1123149(41 Florida Ststatw:
"A repot b*individual;..Js probibW fram knowingly '
direly cc k d'aewy,a gift...from a lobbyist who lobbies tba
iadivj&W,s...aganny...if he or she knows or reasonably e;tit
the i M line a value in exceea of$100..."
- ;n& a 8veryP==who is elOdW m dfM is " of
and wary t who w i EM is vaoonvy foot i tinatVtmdtam b, � „ s
iix�iascl�Fla¢icla stst�. '
i
eleoted O to alo e4Dema'a oxbvm `al in
i °1"bua,,at as smpactaad mat ,
i from an iodividue]reg3atered to lobby in dm it pacticula as State law
prohibits tlWaaceptma of sU*if the value is in excess of$100.
i
Miad-Dada County Conflict of Isd=d and Code of Edic i Ordkmwe,in 44)8&
i Grunt►Code Section 2-11.1 etatea in paUDMA pact: ,
r (1)L JQPrtttan.The tetra"get'°diall refer to tiro of anything
= of eoaraosnio v a ue,wbetha in the form of moneyo loan,tim or
etderteaMcDI,hmphA y,item or p tmtse or in other form, '
without adequate and lawful cormideraboa Food beve es cm rjme4
At a.ogle ekdng or teal d all be cocmkkred a gift,and the
of the food and boa amp provided at that dt*or rl l be fim
value often gift.
(2) omr•The provision$of Subsection(e)(1 d H most apply (a)
r lolilical contibudoas speaifiedly aadmirmi by Im.(b)t3ifts
1 mlatives or>memben of one'{household:(c)AM' fat i pr civic
= aadgv fit;(d)Mdaial such as bmkm6 mparU6 Oahe or
which are solely iafru�ianal or of an advardsing . N)Gib. .
by Cody employees or d I pmcsonag of the in
p orm21110e of{hear official&Wn fbr use solely the Coady I
its official basimm;(f)tDiBa solicited by on bd f
Coady is Performance of their ofosal duties for eddy by the ., is
oonducting hs official business;(g)Gifts solicited far
their staff membes,on behalf ofanynogrofit for use
by that acganize ion wr mn naidw The nor hid car her
rewiva any corttpeasetion m a result afthe OIL AB%aW in
PJbSeCdO4 a"Mprofd argmtzstiomr shall n> mifty
smtiom 501(a)(3)of rho Intmnal Remme Code gist is `
exempt under mcdon 301(x)of the Cods.As ueed_ IWs
oompanswce mesas any money,A favor, B
of value or oar Stnanoial bendk '
(3)Prolribidons.A pen=dewr&a in Subsecdon )(1)dvou&( ipball
®either eoliaxt nor deMaad any gM R io also for any i ai patty
to o$e=,give,or aVft to give to any Pmm ' in the tam is
SubeeWon(b)(1)through(6)or for any person to ilde redo ed iti
i Subseion(b)(1)through(6)to accept or agme to apt from peman
or vn*y,any gilt for or because of(a)An o ieial actiam to be
tarn,or which could be taken;(b)A Legal duty or to be ocmed„
Or which could be perfamed;or(o)A legal duty cc to be at
wlIch could be violated by any pamm hwhxlcd in tin.defined i"ection
t (b)(I
i
9
' (4)Diadom&t.Any pe on bi*o Urn do&Od sn (b)(1)
i (6)ft11 disdow at provided berm any or swigs of ' ft m ADY
one perm or oft having a value in ex�oeae of om0 dollat� 100.00).
Said diacloaure shall be roads by filing a copy oftho ' 010090 fvz by
Chapter 112,Florist Btat dM far
"local o®6cara°' the Cleric of
County Comatss;oiaws s=ltauaauely with the ofthe faem VVA-a$0
gemitary of state"
City of Miami Code,Bection 2.613 atstea in petizent part:
"Every officer,Offidal or a vloyee ofthe city,hxb ' . every .::af any
Hoard,amnmissian or&gamy ofthe airy,ihs p�ibited a�epting
day or indirodly,ftam any person.oo ►. on :;
wW p vchue order or oanbact is ar mi&be amp rR e9 or
anytlalog of value Whatsoever,exoept where given fai the uaa and bw ift ofthe
M
s
7
It h hapert Otto mate that the problem wo parceive,Le.,the ad to
aboud officials adlising these ti"as an exte0dom of then mil of
gWV��is not in Iowa�F,drieB Commisaton has ever addrewed the pa&It
{ that tbare is amply no good reason wby evmnttkk to r0oeivod by a 'alpak'�y ` a
"public public 'CUU50 or Orough any other betwaeatbe - ' pdky
and a private aotity,abould pas®through do bands of elected It 3e dart
• these tercets be dietcibuted to the public by an objective,n,onlpo' mechanism. a
ncutml process would remove any suggestion of political Of ether nD lie bema$t ;fie
i o�ioials.This 'cap is not intended to suggest" of
tuts by public officials is an automatio or per se violation ofthe rsdiaaaa otbar
plioablo eRhias rules.It ie ouaneivable*d some polio officials • such - is a
manor tit is non poWod ana c�thceWieo apprc+priste.HOvmvet, moan are
1 inbareally likely to caress aWoal problems in any distrib�ulioa ofpn bmefrts are
by a policy 6d allover for discndionary distribution of such benefits Pmilable polaticiam
oversi&o r aocvu lability.711 difficulty in fabionin g an etheoall�► under
these olr oes bee led to the r000m mendationo oomtained in �
10
i
One of ft ways we suggest 69 fidwts be made availabla thapubliciBb pmt an
QMwwemet on the cityleanmty's website or adw pubholy Meam a ftm the
publio of men tick&are available and allowing iv&viduals to seek
diem ftom a tM-povtiaal sMM,for enteplc.the CitylCoutdy CL two office, Odceto could
1
be either given away or sold at a discounted rate. Anadw mod mijU be toy '.the
i ft mo ional Tiaat Policy that the City of Miami Bosch adopted never . This
wethod would seem to oneurn du l yGA ergaaizabaau,sankn or w iaoome get to reap
the m4 rity of the public beneftt,consisted vvhh the to ' of rush l roviaions.
It would deny elected of icWs the undeserved opportunity to . cc use the
giveaway of tickets to fwdaer their personal or politiod agendas. et Qao�kher piro�cess
is to follow 00'11 ownple and remove the govornnimt earthy the process OMfi
s we relterzU that"public be�Bfits°'should not ire the pasond, bum&
of elected and appointed officials. These"public bene!'xt"elauswe not be° as
another olVorh city for elected and appointed officials to rNV ofoffice"ar vI dlized by
them for polhiosl ar other self- pucposee. Public b should b'naAit the.
e
IL1���y `
jo 4War A za just mum n WfluanU or wsII Wes.
W®undarnod that&a SEC boa epined tW officials May vie tickets to
"public bed"&Uwe.as long as they report them pursueat to gid reporting
i We watt to uodamcore,,by this policy stag,fad we believe eleoWd and ow-ad
' officials should have no need to report baneft received under. to benefW of .beaaus®
they should not be the raeipia is of these beniefito in the first plaoq udess they as 1, ,ng used by
therm is thek offlOW role$,as previously deaaibed.
Public bmwfats should.benolt the public;&oy should not b4, used by eleat�d swish to
' vas wih suppmtem B ie unelhioal,in our view, officials to dc if,set
beineft wood for the public-t-large is a manner that serves the aiatm pCUonal
raihw dun the public's tateoeoae.
We hope that local governmenu will tam these rwomand dions seaioudy
upeditimaly impleomeat dwages in wAwdmce with"repogr6.Its frequency ' ybiah the
issue of distribution of"public benefits'°has arisen in the past and a wfia=to WW,iaolu&ng
ibuare$to this ageusy.has led to t3b aflompt to clsrify sari evtolk the ethical IWA a involved
11
i
To t4et cad,pro hereby resolve to adopt as a sot of"best pufiociff IcIrth
in ibis repart.
Moreover,we will cotzbitm to cum;na the ticket pollees of .
�oveortsmot to awwo tbat Ihey are in«mfottaanae with ethics rules.. such
{ policies need not be Identical,we believe thsd adheronco to the and
•
heroin would ium each oouf=nm Pti oo. 1m,we will' i mume before
us,where it appears thai'publio beaeW are being azplo W for t c bmefil of ela or
appoinW oiicials for possible viclatsom of the Miami-Dade Com Y'Coaffict afIW zpd.ud
Code of Ethics ordinance in sum,we reco»ond as follows;
1. Municipalities and local Bova memo jorbm bonaW ..in
cnnfacU between owWn entities and es. 7 he' ,iic
baneW however,doWd bane�tthe
Z. Ukets at other"public bene &'shoo a
i
DUAMl ma mw with no iacterlbreoce$ 7and
If local officials ire�reolpteat oftift alua of
the ba m to noted$100.00,6a officith gM soles,
4. Local offio;als may MA aocept tickets wi th a value m e=m of R DO tom
any pmm mgM=d to lobby the gavm mzmg V&Ch they serve. is
i
proWbited ptummlto Secdon 112.3148(41 8
�p irulivddual�...is proht'bited l y erne
' directly or may,a g�...fram a lobbyist who the
t
in&vidud,s...agency.Jf he or the knows or ly believes i
the gift has a value in excess of 5100..."
.........._..._... . .
S. if an officW is appeerlug at an ev®t is tp:ubU' offal capa&y. a public
purposo,*a offioiat need notreportthe atthe e�as tom.
Sowvvmo mem pauive,epeetsttor idendevt will nt tbgwrded as
attendance in one's offiotal capacity for ion evamt
soerely to"be seam"by your amufua mour view,a
� � j
�"iaoslade s"�s){1•�Bve;y pasau who is elooLed m oboe CRY g►olitical of the
4"and every peodrm who is gnx*a d to fill a vacmM for as u w*VW tem h ath as alive of . " Swfim
1123145(11 Pkui&SbbftL
12
i
pmyosep, Anandan °ma"O ials!city Wdn as" aids y aot ._... _.
require gib diedomm as long as the el eated'lapp d
Offl al is, oc,
t'
pwf=3kg some boas tide ofaa1 fimcdon at ewes. the Mind.
Dods County EWOS Commission may not have an y Iathis area
in a f vmy,we&V!*witb the�icnale of ' ca 'e
opWm in FSEC opiniao►e 91-46 and 01-019. opinions 130 a
Pawk or load Officer Wbo claims d at(a)trip is. a Sm is gnat , d1he
mpouaibi)*of datomnl ng that be is is fasat gi quaidp�o t1set is,that
11he value of his time and smvioas em equal to oc gm the of the
the
i
s
13
nIthu Jose
From; Ramos,Miriam S..(COE)[MSRAMOS@mlamldsde.poV)
Sent: Tuesday,March 27,2012 2:46 PM
To: Abbot Daniel;Agulle,Raul;Alfonsin,Lourdes;Amuahastegul,Fernando;Armstrong,Bert;
Barnes,Monica;Staler,Alison;Bierman,Mitch;Bllzin Sumberg(Christine Bower);131ttner.
Warren;Bokener,Aleksandr;Bonlske,Nina;Boutsle,Eve:Bdslbe,Emomotimi;Britton,
Tiffany,Brochln,Robert;Bru,Julie;Caballero,Sylvia;Caliejo,Karen;Chlaro,Maria J.;Cibin,
Charles;Cypen,Stephen;Dannhelsser.Lynn;Dickens,Some Knighton;Dumas,Carmen;
Entin,Monica;Espino,Daniel;Everett,Cynthia;Forte,Iliane;Friedman,Chad;Galdos,
Roland;Garcia Toledo,Vicky,Geller,Joseph;Greco,John;Green,Chris;Greenberg,Murray;
Grodnlok,William;Hearn,John;Field,Gary;Hellman,Steve;Herin,John;Hernandez,
ENzabeeth;Herrera,Jose Pepe;Hialeah Attomeye;Hill,Marion;Irtzard,Ramon;Jacobowlm
Jan;Jaramilio-Velez,Else;JlmeneA Jose;Kennedy,Harlene;Kuper,Richard;Leen,Craig;
Lehr,Bruce;Lenard,Howard;Lloyd-Still,Robert;Maer,Miriam;Marks,Uoyd;Martinez-
Esteve,Jorge(CAO);Mahaffey,Kathy;Mendez,Victoria;Meyers,Robert;Min,Bamsby;
Moas,Joanna; Moneatime,Regina;Morales,Jimmy;Negron,Mellssa;Norrie-Weeks,
Burnedette;Olin,Joan;O%not,Hans:Paienzuela,Alexander,Pepy,Don;Pepe,Thomas;
Pluti,Michael: Reyes,Ninoshka;Riesberg,Barbara;Rosowald,Rob;Rothstein,Steven;
Santiago,Amy;Sarafan,Richard;Solder,,Jan;Sherman,Creig B.;Slbiia,Estrella;Siegel,
Daraee;Smith,Jose;Suarez-Rlvas,Rafael;Switkes,Robert;Trevarthen,Susan L;Tumor,
Debora;Ventura,Ralph;Vlllslobos,Jose:Vizesino,Diana;Weiss,R Um3rd Jay;Wendeil,
Laura K.;Wolfe,Mel;Wolpin,David;Xlques,Veronica
Sub'eat: Ethics Commission meeting summary
For Immediate Release: March 27,2012
Contact: Joseph Centarino,Executive Director
(305)350-0613 or centori mleml ade.rroV
Ethics Commission supplements guidelines an free eventticicets
As a follow up to guidelines It Itsued earlier this month for the official use of complimentary tickets by public officials,
the Miernl-bade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust(COE)today adopted internal guidelines that clarify when a
politician appears at a function in an"official capacity." The list of recommended public purposes for attending ticketed
events Includes hosting dignitaries,visitors and certain residents or groups and performing actions related to the
official's position,such as Introductions,presentations,ribbon cuttings and speech making.
The addendum to the guidelines*also suggests how public officials should distribute tickets that are received through a
contractual agreement with a private entity in order to avoid possible misuse of public resources and bolster confidence
In the integrity of government. Distribution may be first-come,first-serve or by a lottery. The tickets could be sold,
with the proceeds designated to a public purpose. They could be allocated to non-profit agencies,schools,children's
-•• •-groups•or•aommuntty•organitatit3ris,-'ihezickets.aiso.could.be�rsed�s.ryes+vatds.fQrsitizP.1.1.s�P.,o�1IIye�trl�kl�.__._�..__
substantial contributions to the community or local government The CUE will continue to provide opinionsto Inquiring
officlais regarding whether other uses are ethically acceptable.
1
I'n a rela'[ed matter,Ethics Commissioners found No Probable Cause to a complaint(C 12-07)that officials in the City of
Miami violated County and City Ethics Ordinances by failing to report tickets they had received to events at the knight
Center,8ayfront park and the Mayor's Ball,but also approved the drafting of a general Letter-of Instruction for future
reference. That letter will cite the clarification of"public purpose"and emphasize that officials are not entitled to the
use of public benefit tickets as a matter of right. Public officials will be reminded they have an obligation to report gifts
(which Indude tickets to events)and that when an official receives two tickets for use with a spouse or partner,they
must be disclosed as the total value of the gift.
In other action at today's meeting,probable cause was found that a bus maintenance technician for the Miami-Dade
Transit Department violated the"prohibition on outside employment"provision of the Conflict of Interest and Code of
Ethics ordinance. An Investigation by the Inspector General's Office had found that Niranlan Seepersaud also worked
for American Coach Lines from March 2007 through June of 2010,but failed to obtain authorization for outside
employment and did not file financial disclosure forms each year as required by the Code. After the case was turned
over to the Ethics Commission,Seepersaud was told that if he complied with the filing requirement by the end of 2011,
no action would betaken. He has failed to do so,and the complaint(C 32-08)will proceed.
Two complaints(C 12-09 and a iZ-13)accusing Homestead Mayor Steven Bateman of misspending campaign funds at a
liquor store were found"not legally sufficient." The charges are based on state law,which is outside the Ethics
Commission's jurisdiction.
The same citizen accused Homestead Councllman Stephen Shelley of"exploitation of official position"by using a photo
of himself on the city website for his business website. The chy did pay for the original photograph. However,works of
government are excluded from copyright protection,are considered in the public domain and can be used by anyone.
For that reason,the complaint(C 12-16)was deemed"not legally sufficlent,"
Seven complaints were filed agalnst Homestead Councilwoman Judy Waldman relating to her re-election campaign last
fall. Four of them(C 12-17,C 12.18,C 12-19 and C 12-23)were deemed"not legal ty sufficienf because they don't
violate any laws. Two complaints(C 12-20 and C 12-21)were found"not legally sufficient"because they allege
violations of state election laws,which is outside of the jurisdiction of the COE. The final one(C 12-72)does not allege
an action that violates the Ethics Code.
No Probable Cause was found to a complaint(C 12-061 accusing a Miami Lakes Council member of exploitation of official
position. A resident of the city alleged that Richard Pulldo demanded that,as a part of a municipal beautification
project,trees be planted in front of his home first,and that he pressured the Town's park staff to provide free use of
public land to a flag football league, The investigation found no substance to the charges,and the complaint was
dismissed,
A complaint(C 32-03)filed.agalnst a lobbyist,John Morse,.who registered on behalf,of.Ascent Healthcare Solutions in
September of 2010 butfalled to file the required Lobbyist Expenditure Statement by the July 1,2011,deadline,was
dismissed after he completed the form. Investigators learned he had moved out of town and never received the
notices,but once they called him and explained his obligations,he responded.
In light of cases like that,which consume investigative resources,the Ethics Commission discussed changing the rule
requiring lobbyists to file annual expenditure reports if they spent no funds during the reporting period. A proposed
amendment to the Code of Ethics will be forwarded to the County Commission for its consideration.
A liability claims adjuster with Nllaml-Dade County's Risk Management division may provide consulting and Inspection
services for private clients,Including some governmental entities,If he has permission from his supervisors, The COE
response to Requestfo!OQlnLon 12-07 stated that Kenneth McCoy_sprivate clients cannot have interests adverse to the M
County or control or maintain property associated with the County. The RQ0 also recommends that,If granted
permission,McCoy provide the names of his private clients to his supervisor.
2
The Fthft Commission was treated In 2996 as on independent agency with advisory and quasi judidal powers. K 1s
ivmposed of five members,serving staggered terms of four years each. Through a program of education,outreach and
enforcement,the Cornmizion seeks to empower the community and bolster public trust.
tr p a
'The addendum Is posted on MiarnMadeEthics.com
Rhonda Victor Sibille,Comrnunity Outreach Coordinator
Miami-Dade Commission an Ethics&Public Trust
16 West Flegler,Suite 1320
Miami,Florida 33130
305.350.0631
�►�rlv�n�sz EVVY y
Miami Dade Courl>'Y!e a p W*Y ei> of Chapter 199 of she Florida Statutes concerning public records.E-mail
awasVes Vie.aoerered gander Wch Is.ws and tAw sutPct to disclosure.
Sam
3
EXHIBIT I
B-EAC H
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATPORNEY
JOSE SMITH,CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Miami-Dade County Commission on Bthics and Public Trust;
and Joseph Centorina Esq.,Executive Director,Ethics psi a
d
FROM; rose smith,Esq.,City Attorney,City of Miami 10 .
DATE: F abnwy 28,2012
RE: $oatit'y P.thica tama�discio�a'stnouidalia�s Ind
R2WW= &jjgW-Moan&.!• hr Benefits."- WW in QN191A Qcwm'n=
As City Attorney for the City of Miami Haack,the followiag reproscnts my legal analysis of the
above-referv=d dreg Guidelines and Recommendations'proposed by Joe Ceratorim Executive
Director of flu Miami Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. In essm=,
Executive Director Cerlorino has concluded that:
• 'IYakets to events rw6ved by City officials pursuant to"Public Benefits"clauses in City
coutraeu should not be distributed by individual city officials;and
• City fficials' trace of tickoUlattevdauce at such ticketed events is appropriate only
ty �P
when a public purpose is evidenced by active, official action rather than by "`passive
rpectatoT attendenee".
While it is undisputed that City resowces (such as event tickaU) may be used only where a .
"public purpose" exists, a mumcipality's policy deteamination concerning '&a .mmmer of
accomplishing smh purpose should be left to the discretion of-14e City's gone body.
Absent legislation 6pecifically.authorizing the County Ethics Commission to a.valuate said
:policy, such determination is.,not.subjeot to review by the Whics Commaird.=, Although Mr,
Centorino's Proposed Guidelines address legitimate public conocr us, the County Commission
has not vested the COE with oversight authority governing a City Commission's determination
of"public purpose". For that reason,the Proposed Guidelines are not appropriate for adoption
by the COL',
r This(undated) draft proposal is entitltd:"Guidelines and T=ommendations regarding`public benefit'
clauses in certain govanmmit contmou".
I. INTR�DUCT'ION�
THn CITY OF MIAMI BEACH HAS BEEN A PROVEN LEADER IN GOVERNW17NT
Ei'HICS.
Subsequent to the conclusion of the 20i1 State Attorney's investigation of the City of Miami
Beach's negotiations with New World Symphony(finding no criminal conduct),the Proposed
Guidelines were written to address "flawed policies that have resulted in unwarranted and
inappropriate benefits for elected and appointed officials"z. Although the City rewpizes that
the Proposal is intended as guidance for all governmental entities subject to the jurisdiction of
the County Ethics Commission, flue stated genesis for said report unfairly depicts the City of
Miami Beach as a transgrossor of ethics laws,failing to recognize the groat contaution the City
has made towards ethics and good government.
For well over the past decade, tha City has emoted strict ethics laws supplemental to Feder4
State and County legislation to strangthen ethics rules and avoid the skirting of said laws,
othmwise achievable due to loopholes or the simple failure of other legislative bodies to so
legislate. Included among these novel City-muted ethics laws have been h=vasad lobbyist
restrictions, campaign fiaanoe reform, post-service restrictions for elected officials and
govarnrnental employees,prohibitions on direct and indirect lobbying sotivities by appointed and
elected government officials, increased prohibited oontraotual relationships of government
eraployees and officials, increased prohibitions on direct and indirect prohibited business
relationship4, and enlarging eaope of voting conflict proscriptions. Additionally, and most
evident of the City's oommitn=t to ethics legislation is the City Charter provision(self-initiated
by the City Commission) requiring voter approval before the enactment of say law weakening
City ethics laws. '
All of the eforeaud ed mesaurm demonstrate an absolute and unwavering.commitment by the
City to enact effective ethics laws. Any suggestion that the City has exploited its policies
ignores the City's demonstrated resolve towards enanfng and enforcing memingful ethics
le&iation.
IL FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
THB_CT'TY OF NiYA.10 BEADr--S..T7CKET POIICY..HAS BLEN IN EFFBCT SINCE TTS
APPROVAL BY THE STATE BTMCS COMMISSION IN 1993,WITHOUT COND&NT OR
CRITICISM FROM COUNTY ETHICS COMMISSION.
The City of Miami Beach ticket policy as embodied in City Resolution No.93-20694,(signed by
then Mayor Seymotu Gelber)had as its foundation an opinion from the Florida Commission on
Ethics condoning public officials' acceptance of complimentary tickets, conditioned only upon
disclosure of tickets received. In State COB 92-33, the tickets were held to constitute
permissible gifts to the City commissioners3, which had to be disclosed quarterly if their value
=See,Proposed Policy at page 1.paragaph 2.
2
excm&d.$100. .ne.basis for the City's request for the opinion.was a Concern_.for strict
compliance with applicable ethics regWations and a need to ensure legality of the City's
contractual process,whereby(in that instance)it negotiated with s theater management company
to operate the City's theaters and the City would receive, as partial consideration, tickets per
performance for every event staged at the tbeatcr.
As reflected in State COB 92-33, the City of Miami Beach made full disclosure to the State
Ethics Con mission of all relevant facts concerning the manner in whieb the City negotiated for
and received the tickets,and the City's process for distribution and usage of the tickets. Aware
Of all relevant facts,the State COB determined the ticket policy to be consistent with ethics laws
so long as the appropriate disclosure forms were filed reflecting the names of ticket recipients
and the value of tickets received 4. Since the Opinion's issuance in 1992, the City of Miami
Beach has relied in good faith upon its holding, and bas adhered to its dictate of timely gift
disclosure.
Despite the transpareaey of the City's ticket polieys,it has never been questioned by the Miami-
Dade County Ethics Commission or anyone else.
111• 1F(TAI_�.NALYS_L.S.
-- - -
Municipalities in the State of Florida enjoy home rule power,granting them "...governmental,
corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform
• ' municipal ices and may exercise an war for municipal
mttintctpst functions and render municipal sere Y Y Fo P
purposes except as odm vtee provided by law, Fla Const.Art VIII,sea.2(b).
Home rule municipalities are subject to the additional Constitutional requirement that
expenditures of City funds be for a "public purpose". Fla. Court., Art. VII, sec. 10.
Accordingly,although a City may enact a policy with regard to its use of public resources,such
policy must serve a "public purpose"'. As will be sees below, the `public purpose"
determination by a City carries the presumption of constitutional validity,and is subject only to
judicial review.
- _.. ..__.... - -- — -- --
s Notes ,:At the-May 26, ?A11 -Cou:►(y Ethics.Comimission- hearing-on"Complaint i , ME
Commissioner Seymour Gelber (after rwog►izing the City of Miami Beach's well-established tickat
policy) stated his belief that the complimentary tickets received by City pmsor ncl were not"Sft"and
therefore did not require disclosure. Commissioner Gtlbcr further went on to state that the ticket issue
was"much ado about nothing".
A In subsequent opinions,the State COB has condoned identical ticket distn'buUon/use policies of the City
of Daytona Beach(State COE 05 re:tickets to International Speedway),City of St~Petersburg(State COE
01-19 re:Tropicana Stadium),and the City of Orlando and Orange County(State COE 95-36 m:tickets to
Amway Smdiu m).
s See f n.#8 herein.
3
A. THE CITY COMMISSION'S TICKET POLICY IS PRESUNW VALID.
1, `nr Try 'nFTERMINATION IS FOR CITY COMMISSION ALONE TO MAKE
NOT IHE,MUCS CMMLSSION.
What constitutes it public purpose is, in the first instance,a question for the legislature
(i.e., City Commission) to determine, and its opinion: should be given great weight. JeAso n
Lumber Co.y.Walton COB% 116 So.771 (1928); State v.Housing F ence Authority of Polk
County,376 So.2d 1158, 1160(Fla. 1979),holding that the determination of what constitutes a
valid public purpose foY the expenditure of public flmds is a factual determination for the
legislative and governing body involved. The question of"public purpose"thus involves the
exercise of legislative judgment and is a matter that the Miami Beach City Commission,as the
legislative and governing body of the City of Miami Beach,must determine by City Resolution
setting forth the requisite legislative findings and iaatent.
A legislative declaration ofpubho purpose ispresumed to be valid,and should be deemed correct
anless so clearly erroneous as to be beyond the power of the legislature.Wald v.Sarasota County
Health F c� ilitin Authority 360 So 2d-763 (Fla 19781: Nohir v. BrcvMd Qounty F.ducil ional
Facia' i s &ta ty 747 So.2d 304 (Ela.1971): Price y City of SL P096bM 29 So.2d 753
L1247 - t + v, Morro Counter 3 So.2d 754 la 19411. Unless expressly or impliedly
restrained by statute,a municipal corporation hes discretion in the eboice of memo and methods
for exercising the powers given it for governmental or public purposes,and the uwal limitations
upon the actions of municipalities within their legal powers are good faith and reasonableness,
not wisdom or perfection. Al doubts as to the propriety of means used in the exercise of an
undoubted munioipal power will be resolved in favor of the municipality. State v. Tartma
Waterworks Co..47 So.358(Fla.1908).
2. =COURTS.AND NQ1 TU MMS-COIyIMISION HAVE POWER.TO
$, yIEW CRY 01n SSION'S POLICY.
Wben a policy decision is brought into question resting upon the police power, only the
courts have the power and duty to inquire whether it is within constitutional limits. It is thus
particularly a judicial question whether the legislative determination of "public purpose,
comports with constitutional and statutory rights. See, As tea v. Sehu 331 So.2d 297
Art.41, 3,F1a..Const,; and Lig ar Store v continental isti1Hng-CorM,- 40 So.2d,-- - -
371,374(Fla. 1949).
Unlike the courts, which possess jurisdiction to review public policy determinations, agencies
such as the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission may engage in such review only if the
authority to do so is granted in the corresponding enabling legislation. As an administrative
body,the powers of the Ethics Commission are limited to statutory authorization as set forth in
the County Code,and the COE may only act within those grants of power specifically afforded
it: "Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such powers as the statute
confers on them." Fla.AGO 75-120 citing 42 Am.Jur.,public Administrative Law,sea.68,and
State ex-MI,tneenbora v Florida SIRIP,Board of Dentistry 297 So.2d 628,at 638(1 D.C.A.Fla.,
1958). Both the State Attorney General and Florida Commission on Ethics have recognized their
lack of jurisdiction to review a City's legislative findings governing"public purpose":
4
...we view this question [expending City funds towards Sister City program] es bang
primarily a question of whether there is a legitimate public purpose...rather than as being
an ethical question. As there is no issue under the Code of Dhics presented in this
situation, we have no authority to decide in an advisory opinion whether the use of City
resources an this manner is proper.
(Emphasis added).State COB 85-13; and see,Fla.AGO 83-5 holding that a"public purpose"
determination osa of be delegated to the Attorney General's Office. .
Accordingly,the issue of"public purpose" is not within the purview of the Miami Dade County
Ethios Commission. Neither the Miami-Dade(County Code section 2-111)or tho relatod Coda
pmvmons enabling the Ethics Commission(County Code Chapter 2.Article LXXVM)give the
COE the legal authoriry to issue guidelines establishing what is and what is not acceptable
justification for a City's public policy regarding its use of government resources. A thorough
review of the County Code fails to reyeal any authority,either express or implied;granting unto
the Ethics Commission the power to second-guess a City's public policy determminetion. See
Pok EM can mid v Davison of EMU Land$ lee end Cottdominb=.D:gw==of
pausine$seg 4jg 371 So.2d 1 S2(F18.1 ct DCA 1 979).
The only sections of the County Ethics Cods relevant to the City's use of its resources(such as
tickets to events itbas received via arms-length negotiations)are:
• County Code section 2-11.1 (a)governing"Solicitation of Gifts"';and
• County Code section 2-11.1 (g)govaming`Exploitation of Official Position'.
Neither of the above ethics regulations however establish a criteria for "public purpose'.
Moreover,both of these Code sections recognize that so long as the actions taken were pursuant
to City policy (i.e., City of Nuai.Beach Resolution No. 93-20694), those Code sections are
complied with, (See,County Code section 2-11.1 (e)(2), and(g): "..-No penon included in the
terms deed in subsection(b)(1)through(6) and(b)(13) shall use or attempt to use his or her
official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others except
as may be speciftcally permitted by other ordinances and resolutions previously ordained or
adopted or hereafter to be ordained or adopted by the Board of Cow*Commissionere
(Emphasis-added.)-Zd._Although-the-COB-may_desire tp-review issues_of a_Cij►'s-public,policy determination?, absent County Code authorization,the COE lacks such reviewing power. See,
d Although County Code section 2-1066 provides that the COE'`...may exercise a'1 those powers either
specifically g=ted heroin oz naccastuy in the exercise of those powers herein enumerated",such implied
authority may not warrant the exercise of a substantive power not conferred.Molwin Irv.Co.v.Tamer,
167 So.33 (Fla. 1936);Fla.AGO 73-374, Any implied power must be.necmm ily implied from a duty
which is specifically or expressly imposed by statute. Fla.AGO 75-161;FSU v. Je odm 323 So.2d 597
(Fla. 1DCA 1975). Any power to be implied must also be essen&I in order to carry out the expressly
granted power or duty immed,e.g.,Fla.AGO 73-374 and 67 C.J.S.Offiws e.102,
'However laudable or commendable the eoti=of the COE,as stated in St.Ra 'ggl PM Sarnu V.
State-,237 So.2d 797, 799 (Fla.. lat DCA 1970), "(i)t is well settled that a statutory agency does not
5
CgMext Development Co. v. Dade Countv..374 So.2d 1.143_(Fla..3DCA 1979), in which the _ .. . . .
Third District Court of Appeal found that Aami-Dade County's DERM did not have the legal
authority to issue a particular order as the Director lacked any legislative authority under the .
Dade Code to zequire any cnvironmental impact statement from appellant:
...in our opinion,conhwy to appellees'contentions,name of appellant's activities as
reflected by this record show a violation of the Dade Code provisions relied upon in the
cease and desist order. Appellees argue that agricultural use,in and of itself]constitutes
a discharge of organic or inorganic matter as chemical compounds into the.waters of
Dade County within the definition of"nuisance'in the Dade Code. See s 24-3(14)(b),
Dade Code.However, ...the important question before us i8 not whether these activities
complained of should or could be forbidden,but rather only whether they have been.
Jd.at 1149.1ustt u in Cantex the issue before the COE is whether the City policy violates
the County Ethics Code,not whotber the City's policy should be subject to review by the Bthies
Code. Regardless of its good intentions,the CAE may not invoke jurisdiction over a matter
when the County Commission has not granted it such power.
3. �Q_�15'�i SHAYJ ULTIMATE-SAY AONCEH!WG-PROPRIETY OF
CITY'S TICKET POLICY.
After sll legal arguments have rested,the ultimate decider of whether the City's ticket
policy is valid and serves the public interest is,of course,the electorate. If indeed City residoats
object to the present tiotet policy,they are free to voice their objections to the governing body,
and it~the policy is nat amended to reflect the public's concerns,the recourse will undoubtedly
be at the ballot box;
Courts will not determine whether or not the action of public,officers is wise,economical
ar advantageous,such questions belonging exclusively to the public officers and boards.
If they exercise their powers foolishly or unwisely,the recourse of their cwWituents is to
go to the ballot box and not to the courts.
(Emphasis added.) D coward County Rubbish Contractors Aught v.Broward County, 112 So.2d
898, 903 (Fla.2DCA 1959). Accord,D_wn of MM BOA V. State. 53 So.2d 828, 831 (Fla.
1951)-ci6ng-McQuillin-on-Muniaipel-C4rp6ratio►us-(3—Ed.),_at-sco.103.3.
possess any inhtreut powers, such agency is Limited to the powers g mted, eitha expressly or by
neoessary imldiaatioa,by the statutes(hams the Dade Code)creating them."See e.g..Askew v.Crops-K
Wg_ ways• 372 So.2d 913 (Fla.1978)► Lewis y. Bank of Pum DIY, 346 So.2d 53 (Fla.1976):
SAMS2 a Gavnty y.Beta,302 So.2d 737(F1a.1974);and 8-arg—m-C—o—unly v.Beker 2boablo Csgg.,322
So.2d 655(Fla.Ist DCA 1975).
6
It is significant to note,however,that the City's residents have not objecxed to the City's ticket
policy. Ina City of vocal,pro-active,government-involved residents with:
• over 41 citizen-volunteer conunittees (the majority of such committees meeting at
least 11 or more time per year).
• 4-6 public meedngs per weeds,
• 1 regularly-scheduled City Commission public meeting per months(including at least
I monthly Comm; ion committee meeting),
approximately 46 public records requests handled on a monthly basis in 2011,and
1292 phone requests in 2011 directed to the City's main public informidon telephone
Me
them have not been any complaints regarding the City's use of its negotiated tickets. If the
citizens had objected to this ticket policy, surely the.City Courmninion would have addressed
those concerns print to the COE's instant review of the matter. In light of the absence of COE
jurisdiction over snob policy determination it.is partieularly inappropriate for the COB to insert
itself into Wbat is assentially a local issue,especially given the absence of citizen outcry.
B. THF,CITY'S TICKET POLICY IS SUPPORTED BY ITS COURSE QF CONDUCT.
While it is clear that the COB lath jurisdiction to assert that only active participation by City
personnel constitutes "public purpose" for purposes of assessing the City of Wami Beach's
ticket policy9,the following analysis bears upon the City's policy for ticket usage.
Although the City abandoned certain terans of its Resolution 93-20694,10•tha policy's dbjective
of ensuring high-level City personnel pareamce at such events has been the custom of the City
since 19939 and has bom urtessailed. The fsot that this policy has been in effect for almost two
decades";and has not been the subject of prior citizen outcry, is relevant support of the City's
legislative policy determination:
In deciding whether such pu rpoae is public or private, courts must be largely
influenced by the course and usage of the government, the object for which taxes
s As an undisputable fact, numerous 'Tublio Benefits" clauses have been included within oontracu
pmitentbd to this City-Com mi.esion is public hearings.
See Executive Dirw=Centorino's proposal at page 12,psra.5.
10 No suggestion leas been made that the City's noncompliance with implementing terms (such as
eaablislung a City board for non-profit ticket distribution)was due to anything other than inadvertent
oversight.
"See,See,7n re MAaiW of Lenv Lg Mc:and lamlaap No.81605.May 1.1997: "Further,the legislation
oballeaged hero has been in existence in this state for over 20 years. In detemaining whether a statute
serves a public purpose,is oomt"nay take into cormidaration a long course of legislation ad usage of the
gnveramer�t."
7
and appropriations have.boon customarily amd by long course of legislation levied
and made, and what objects have been considered necessary to the support and for
the proper use of the government R%ateyer lawfully pertains to this purpose and to
sanctioned by time and the acquiescence of the people'a may well be said to be a
public purpose and proper for the maintenance of good governmmem. (Emphasis
added.) Hader v.Sma11.138 N.L.849(1923).
Furthermore,what is a"public purpose" is not a static concept, but is flexible end capable of
expansion to meet the changing conditions of a oomplex society.The Florida Supreme Court-has
recognized this concept and has found that"...(e]ach generation may determine its concept of
these things.' te v. Washinszton County Development Attthoriyt . 178 So.2d 573, 579.(Fla.
1965);S9U X.City,Qf,Tallebassee. 195 So 402119401.See also state v.City of Jackwnyiue,50
So Id 532 (EIL1951). Indeed, the consensus of modern legislative and judicial thinking
(particulaTly After the State grant of municipal home rule power) is to broaden the scope of
activities that may be classified as involving a public purpose.
1. T,.R&C.TTY OF MIAM3 HCCL'S MSTORY OF ENCOMC ITS
PEONNEL Td ,ITT ND PUBLIC FWCTIONS_ IN CITY-OVItATED
YMM U=WGV.�t. Tim CI'1'lr.'S=PEM.
For over 25 yea % the City of Miami Bcaoh has devoted its mources toward eco4ornic
developmene3 with regard to planning and zoning issues,in5castructure improvement,including
the ongoing maintenance and promotion of facilities providing visual performing arts
productions and cultural events. The City has deemed it a public need for high-ranking City
officials' attendance at functions-of City-owned venues in order to provide them with tive ,
opportunity to learn more about the oitizens' concerns and interests as well as the host
or aniza ions and their unique issues and needs. The exebange of information facilitated by
B q
attending these functions helps City officials be more responsive to these needs. It is consistent 1
with the City's goal to allow these high-ranking City officials to attend,at City expense,cultural
productions and events taking place in the City's facilities,resulting in increased.eommunication
regarding City affairs witb the public outside of City Hall,as well as publicizing the productions;
and events and thus encouraging public attendance.
The Attorney General's Of,ce bas found that so long as the governing body has approved the.
u _of_public-resources,public-es. -eutmtainment_exvmditures that are,
12 The City%ticket policy bas not been objected to by the public, despite its decades'-long existence. i
(See,above argumcat at m(A)2(b).)
"Economic Development has been statutorily recognized u an appropriate pubho purpose of
:municipalities.See Florida Stat. 166.021(8)(b).
(b) The governing body of a municipality may expand public Hands to attract and retain business
enterprises,and the use of public funds toward the achievement of such eccmomic devcloparent goals
constitutes a public purpose.T=provisions of this chapter which confer powers cad duties an the
governing body of a municipality,including any powers not specifically prohibited by law that can be
exercieed by the governing body of a municipality,shall be liberally construed in order to effectively
terry out the purposes of this subsection.°' {Emphasis added.)Id.
determined by the body to serve a public purpose.In an early opinion from 1968,the.Attorney
General addressed the legality of a special district spending public funds for entertainment and,
acknowledged the requirement that the Legislature authorize the use of public funds for purposes �
of hospitality and rnte"nment. Absent such specific legislative authorization, the Attorney
General's office found that the creation of special districts would not in and of itself indicate a
need to carry on extensive programs of hospitality and entertainment. See,Fla.AGO 68-12.
2. THB C`ITY'S 119=+'OIJCX PRQ_VIDES A PREDOMINANT PUBLIC
BENEFIT,AND ANY BENEFIT TO QrN PERSONNEL IS NCMENJAAL
AND THUS PROPF.rR. 1
Finally,the fact Oat City officials may be incidentally benefitted by use of these tickets
does not destroy the public nature of the City's policy.Florida's courts bave recognized that the
execution of a public purpose that involves the expenditure of money is usually attended with
private beneflu. and so long as the principal purpose of the enactment is public in nature, it is
irrelevant that there will be an incidental benefit to private interests. See, jalackbtlm v. State
GgMMisliog on Ethics.589 So.2d 431 (Fla;I"INCA 1991);and Duombcr Y.Cily of IF�Walton
Reach. 568 So. 2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1990) (defending against recall lawsuit created incidental
benefit to elected official while providing primary benefit to public).
rv. CONCLUSION.
The authorities cited above support the legal proposition that the City of Miami Beach may,
subject to judicial review, establish policy governing the distribution and usage of its tickets to
City-owned venues.which policy carries the presumption of validity.The COE lacks jurisdiction
to issue a policy statement stating what is and what is not a lawful"public purpose"with regard
to the City's distribution and use of these tickets. It is the City Commission that is the final
arbiter of its ticket policy,and not the Ethics Commission.
With regard to the distribution of City tickets to high-ranking City personnel, it is not
unreasonable to presume that part.of their officiel duties may be to attend certain high profile
special events(such as Art Basel or the South Beach Wine&Food Festival)that focus national 1
and intemational attention on the City of Miami Beach and thus promote commerce and tourism. I
As to those `ordinary" performances or events which do not necessarily gamer national
attention,there is a public purpose in the presence of City officials at these events as well,and
this too a matter of good faithdiscretionary decision making by tKe City'9 gaveranrg body.
9
1=1 all
EXHIBIT J
C OC > >1
c 3 E - cc
= ® � 3
o o o c c v_i o
to ca
N O N ' '- _ N N C O
° oa
ca
21 c c c Nc � o � � b 0a�
o ca '3 a N O •N a� s. ••? ° o•5 CL M p >' N g a) 'c *-I C t 3
.... N � � � O tO a) .-• 0 0
d t •C a) 00 x c =
-�
0 > 0) O N � U N �; LI) M U O RS C �
C
a) •N N O N O O 4= c 4a 'a) = > OW
CL
` O . O LL O O • t c
a
U. w '2 C ° 0 G d O .60
0 .2 0
L
LA® m N N ED m t 4 •- U
ui 0 � � t 0 'p N 0 m 00 0 �- c a) o
~ co 4- "C =L r
rte = p � � � v°i � 46 c �
C a) — C N 0 O U W '� c Cc O O +L.
O .r N '0 0 'C a) N ..' N ° d O L"a Cc® O y c0 a O O`CL
:3 m O
12 Z °' oN0 = a C OE � � � o � �a
N O
V � U o . .O c�c O a N a
LO O rn � rnL- - L-oC 0 = a W U U W �° 0ac N O.0).` � _ c _
, c o N _
CC
• C �O O N O O Y O O O + = U 4- N
O _C N ° N D a _ N =_Z 0
m Q
N a� = Y 3 c d ...CL.
ul
o -00 L - 0a0crncN � '`' CU cv -0 `L 'c yam
t a c o C � CL.g m 0 C C -0 ca � � � .N N N 0
U- 0 ca � ° o cM �� ° 0® c O �• N
' CC o � �® a � M800 (D CC c N + = M EC
C3 0
ao a� = O c W U ' 000 " a) 0 ' a� n �>+•n s a �v_.. co .,a..D
m aaD y
to o ° ° r � 0 a i orNC6L � o•`~ -�' to C6 "- o 0
O a N ...+ a) •'-' C C C � O O O 0 0 0 O E O p C N Y
i- o .0 cs +-� 0 0 W 0 W = W -l" ® �- cW = N U N S
C3 CL
ca® C . .� `=- `AIL C `� `° 0 O '= 0 O '.0 � '= � +-' •>
U) C N .6 6 O C aN 0 � O-
= 5 a co
0 C-4 c
r V
W
C 4)O 4)
Do-!� N N
N vf O � a)
a) N N
N
O +r =_
O •E •E •E N •E �, N •E N U N 'E N aci ° .E N
ca io co co
L � o �O E E O o �o ° ° c a ca
R
O
.E
cc t, E o 'E o
V
E v �.
ca E E
'ea E � •- ° E ca
N O O L O N ,m 10
t� co o '3
ca .n E o N
U a)
0
CD Nc = c0 E aNi 2 ca
ca E E c
L C a) Off-' N ° E N
V co � -SC cu O O C 'p C
O lC Y
C
to t00 � N O M N � ch �• cD to 0 LO
Z & 4 N N r 0 to N N � �= ao r- N
CL co co M M M cry CD M m M M co LO LO co
N CO Ul) M M co CO I�nii LA W) N 0 Go M M In
m In � �7 LA 6 4 Ln Lh
F- 0 0 Co 0 o r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0
M M co M M CO M M �"� M 0 M M M f` c'7
co
0 ") •p r U-
o I>D � cn -vim (0 ,- O N ti r 'E (D Cn
i NCO `O c'7 X NM NM C > >, � � O U)
p � m mM ZN Q � p Cc00 CO C z Occi c0 C 'U? ccr>
O o) N N 0 y o 4) C> e- CO O T-
O O t[3 c CIO
V3 i Q O.. c � co qtcn i co � Qcci i Q T- V) cci I%- Q aocIP)
.d
a, n, U N w E all
v . .-- O—.M --- - - o—------
c U ,( n- 44) 3 co C .ai .� ca
p C •v C ) o c Z• mC oC oc mC C ca p •— c
c0 N O �+ a) 0 0 ca L _ N O a) o c L a)
N (D 0 .N N N 'r ... .N N (n N fA N .N m a)
O O L CO N O _ N cU 0 ° 0 ° a) 0 0 O O
d J � UW —i WY Q Y J � J � J � —� J � z 0 � Q
Z• �' °
O O L L
L p C
� 0 c = �_ o _o °' •_� Ti r 2 N 'E
e ° D m L L U `- •v W m N ` ° 2• m
m ti a_Ei Q �, = U = L °� L .0 t v c o °
a m � N c�
-0° 0m
= E ° c
U) 9 1°
c L C - a)a E ° U m oU 0m oU 0
' �o cn z z cn cn cn co co U- U E
N M M c0 P- Co N M d• to cc t�
w � �
O O �
>O+ A
-IC Je
r r
im
v) to N �. .-.
•c •c 'c 3 :3
�. .- o 0
rn >
0
m m m @ m
:a:)
@� a >
O
ccC
C C 'C O N
ca cu m r2 • >O U
N
co OOco N O N N N
C) p p - CO to tA N O O O LO O
LA
0 C) CO M � %t c0 �t qt' O O O O O w'IT�p CO C? IT CO N O) LO O co w w � 9 m
cn !cn CO !c ti M cn m m M � 0 m cn LM W � r M co
-..Lo o LO LO c� LO 0 Ln LO Lc)
Lo Ln Ln Ln Lh Ln Lo Lo Lo Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln A � � Ov � L6
c� � CV) m M � M c° M � m M m c°) X X X co
> > c o >+ 0 0 0 0
o � cQ � 0 .b m e c c cmcmcm � y m
Cl) c c O Ln m N a) m a)
cm OC m m U) Q c cn c c c s E > > > .> > > > .>
csL c o N N =QQ � •o a� —QQ co N o Qp cQp op 0 ® cA
v v •O C = a) m = 0 ? V N U 3 2 = O V 3 Z V V �- U �- U N
a)
Q � 2UJ C ' O C Co C � O C •- a) O � O O O
O N O Cl) CO 0 g N O O a) M O N d O G) O O O
O> O� UO rV C O r UO U V-
0 q
NN O 0N r
LLo V) LM CD Q co Q m < Q MQ CO CO < Q co Q
m m m
O = 'p •O
C U a1 N m N m m m N
C C -N V O C-- --d - -2. -N—-N — --—- -.--.-
-- -
= 4) C O 3 •> U ,O 2 m •per 2 cc
0 a) 0 0 C -- ` m - N C Lo Lu CE
m m CC — .� a) m m m CO C O m N = a) N m m m N m m O O O
2 OF- U 2 WJ � -
O
_C
O •C U
3 p v ,,>, a)
N O O �y O O N C LL.co
Q
CL a Q E N N N O N 2 0 N O I O L.
p r > > O N m 3 CL O N ..r F- F- aD 0 N
F- Q o m c c Q o •� y 'c Q m v7 r cn o
c0CC � o O F- ® o L`a �° aciVcNC Ofn
m m .� N -E 'v g Q s.. c (>D •� E s
ai a� x m c m m c m •v m -v
O O •- •- Q O ar 'v O r O 4- O O .c mr - r C •- O m O
w z 2 J lL m W U Cl) I.L. U) 3 5 Q UU (L UQU � � [LLLZ
CO CA O N ch 14, LO co 1� CO CA O r N M d• Ln CD CO ]cc;,))N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M
O
'O
_Q
U_
r=-+ LL
:3 =3 LL
OO O - _... .... .. ..... _ .....
O
> LLJ
O >
O
� � O
•� W
N
V
:3 J
R O Z
_O
O
co ti Q
LL
C7 C1
z
to co O
A Ltd I--O O D
oC
O
O
LL
��- vA
O
L W
V
O O
O cc
N C
O
N O
Co
a) �
Co
O 0- > u
C a3
� _ C
U � w °N
0
0)
E
� c
U :3
0 >-
a)
a) Y c
O
L
e— V 4 'c
U cv cn U •E
10
U) 0
CL CL
a d
,u_ u
W
W
z LU L9d
® LU
P
LU
H #
LU
V
P
ce
LU p
ZN
U M
On 0
Oz# N N N N N N N N E # O N
I°' Z
W O
Z
®
V LO
LU
ce
V � �
� a a
LU oC O
c
® i ua o
.j < eW cl
� Z Z w
Z .. �U
W LU C
P a
\ N
3 LU
0 a0
v, cc� o
I
w
EXHIBIT K
W R9
January 31, 2013 ,
Hon. Matti Herrera Bower
Office of the Mayor
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach,FL 33139
Miami, FL 33128
Dear Mayor Bower:
This opinion is provided in response to your recent inquiry regarding a pending proposal to
establish a comprehensive policy for the City of Miami Beach regarding use and distribution of
complimentary tickets to events and productions occurring at city-owned venues and/or city-
sponsored events. The request for this opinion was made by you in light of the adoption in 2012
by the Miami-Dade Commission. on Ethics and Public Trust of "Guidelines and
recommendations regarding `public benefit' clauses in certain government contracts," as well as
an addendum to said guidelines and recommendations in which further elaboration and
explanation were provided by the Commission concerning permissible public purposes and uses
for such public benefits.
First, we recognize that in creating such a policy, the City of Miami Beach would be addressing
in a comprehensive way many of the issues which arise in connection with its receipt of
complimentary tickets intended to be used for public purposes. We applaud this effort. In
addition, inasmuch as the proposed new policy in large part mirrors the work of the Ethics
Commission in creating guidelines in this same area, we are appreciative of the City's efforts to
come up with a policy that comports with those guidelines.
For the most part, we find the proposed guidelines to be useful and beneficial to the protection of
the public interest in connection with the distribution of public resources. There are, however, a
couple of issues raised by the proposed policy that need to be addressed to insure that the policy
falls within the guidelines of the Ethics Commission's recommended policy, which is based upon
the requirements of the Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest and Ethics Ordinance, made
applicable by County Charter to all municipalities within Miami-Dade County. Each of these
issues is described below.
1) In the sixth introductory paragraph to the resolution establishing the new Miami
Beach policy, it is stated that "...public purpose is further served via the distribution
of tickets to exemplary City employees and other notable members of the
community..."
t
The provisions in the Ethics policy which correspond to the language cited above are
contained in Section B. 5. of the Ethics Commission Addendum. The latter section
refers to distribution of these benefits to "a. Employees, as part of an employee
recognition program with defined criteria; b. Residents who have made special
contributions to the community, as established by defined criteria."
We suggest that.' in order to bring the Miami Beach policy clearly within the
Commission's suggested policy, the above language in the resolution be amended by
deleting the words "exemplary City employees and other notable members of the
community" and replacing them with "City employees officially recognized for their
exemplary service and members of the community officially recognized for making
special contributions to the public welfare." Of course, it is also a permissible public
purpose to distribute such benefits to the general public on a first-come, first-serve
basis.
2) #4 of Exhibit "A" of "Acceptable `Public Purpose' Uses (By Category) of CMB
Tickets," attached to the City's resolution, lists "Monitoring and evaluation of City
venues and the quality of performances therein (in particular, attendance at opening
day events at City-owned venues), and/or monitoring and evaluation of the value of
City-sponsored events and their compliance with City policies, agreements and other
requirements." There are corresponding provisions cited below which were adopted
by the Ethics Commission in its Addendum, but these provisions do not create as
broad an allowance for the distribution of public benefits as the City's proposal
appears to do.
A.121 of the Addendum recognizes "Assess facility needs, proposed changes and
constituent concerns in response to a documented complaint specifically addressed to
the attendee." This would not justify an open-ended invitation to any public official
to attend any event for the purpose of"monitoring" the venue, unless there were a
specific issue brought to the attention of that official which provided a reasonable
basis upon which to attend an event, notwithstanding that it is likely that most such
complaints could be dealt with without attending the event itself. Without such a
specific issue to deal with, the attendance at an event for "monitoring"purposes
would likely be considered'to be outside of the guidelines approved by the Ethics
Commission.
A.12.j. of the Addendum would permit "Attending the opening day game or
performance of a County/City-owned facility." This was included at the time because
of the opening of the Marlins Stadium, an event that would certainly justify the
attendance of public officials at the opening ceremonies for such a facility. It was
clearly intended for "facility" openings, however, not for the opening night of every
theatrical event or sports series . Such a broad interpretation would render the rest of
the policy meaningless. It is not a proper public purpose to provide public officials
with opening night tickets to every performance event at a publicly-owned facility.
I
I hope that this has provided you with a better understanding of the County Ethics policy,
such that Miami Beach officials can be guided toward a policy that is consistent with that
of the Ethics Commission. Please do not hesitate to call me or my staff if you have
further questions.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph M. Centorino
Executive Director and General Counsel
Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust
cc: Jose Smith, Esq., Miami Beach City Attorney
Smith, Jose
From: Centorino,Joseph (COE) <CENTORI @miamidade.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:48 PM
To: Smith,Jose
Subject: FW:Opinon regarding proposed comprehensive ticket policy for the City of Miami
Beach
Attachments: INQ - MayorMattiBowertickets.docx
From: Centorino, Joseph (COE)
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:45 PM
To: 'mayorbower @miamibeachfl.gov'
Cc: 'josesmtih @miamibeachfl.gov'
Subject: Opinon regarding proposed comprehensive ticket policy for the City of Miami Beach
Mayor Bower,
Attached is a copy of the opinion that you requested regarding the proposed comprehensive ticket policy for the City of
Miami Beach. Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Joe Centorino
Jose. li J►I. Centorino
Executive Director and General Counsel
Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust
19 W. Flagler Street, Suite 820
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 579-2594
Fax: (305) 579-0273
www.miamidadeethics.com
7
1
1