R7J MAY 16 2018 HENRY STOLARHenry S. Stolar
1500 Ocean Drive — Apt. 803
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-8172 E-Mail: henrystolar@bellsouth.net
Fax: 305-673-8501
May 14, 2018
Memorandum in Opposition to Appointment of Ana M. Salgueiro as Building Director of
the City of Miami Beach
May 16, 2018 Commission Meeting — Item R7 J — Agenda Pages 1396-1415
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
I thank all seven of you for meeting with me one-on-one to discuss the above nomination. Each
of you accorded me a respectful and attentive hearing.
When this nomination was initially to be considered at the February meeting of the Commission,
I expressed my opposition in a February 12, 2018 email to all of you. This Memorandum
enlarges upon the views expressed there.
Summary — Reasons for Rejection of this Nomination
Following is a summary of what I consider to be four reasons which lead to a conclusion that this
nomination should be rejected. These four reasons are explained more fully in the body of this
Memorandum (beginning on page 4, below).
(1) Ms. Salgueiro should never have been hired a year ago as Deputy Building Director—with all
88 Building Department employees reporting directly or indirectly to her—because she was
completely lacking in supervisory experience (pages 4-6, below).
(2) Ms. Salgueiro should never have been appointed Deputy Building Director, and should not
now be confirmed by you as Building Director, because the City ignored every precept of sound
human resources practices for recruitment and hiring (pages 6-10).
(3) During the one year that Ms. Salgueiro has served as Deputy Building Director, she has
evidenced either a shocking lack of knowledge and/or a willful disregard of one of the most
fundamental, basic, bedrock, foundational, and sacred provisions of Florida law—Public
Records, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. In this respect, she has been Mariano Fernandez 2.0
(pages 10-14).
(4) During the one year that Ms. Salgueiro has served as Deputy Building Director, she has
evidenced qualities of personality, character, and temperament which render her unsuitable to
hold the sensitive, senior executive position of Building Director. In this second respect, she has
been Mariano Fernandez 2.0 (pages 15-16).
1
Recommendation — Conduct a Proper Search
This nomination should not be confirmed. Instead, a proper and complete search should be
conducted for a new Building Director. That includes general advertising in appropriate media
and publications; inquiries which might lead to qualified candidates; solicitation of
recommended prospects; and, perhaps, retention of an established, reputable outside search firm
with substantial recent experience in the recruitment of senior executive personnel for local
government positions.
Ms. Salgueiro could certainly apply for consideration. With an appropriate broad search, her
qualifications could be properly weighed against other candidates' qualifications.
A Rhetorical Question
How Many Executive Personnel Failures Can Our City Take?
For the four reasons described in this Memorandum, I consider the appointment of Ms. Salgueiro
as Deputy Building Director, and her nomination as Building Director, to be casebook examples
of failed due diligence and the wholesale abandonment of universally-accepted human resources
practices.
As I understand the facts, and the conclusions which can fairly be drawn from them, I believe
that the proposed appointment of Ms. Salgueiro as Building Director represents an unnecessary
gamble. If five or ten years from now, she turns out to have been a spectacular success—even
though I believe that the most that can be said for her now is that she may be a diamond in the
rough—then we can all congratulate ourselves on having been lucky at gambling. Very lucky.
But, why should we be running risks? Why should we depend upon getting lucky? How many
executive personnel failures can our City take? Please consider just a selection of examples of
the City's experience in recent years:
On the non-criminal side, we have (an incomplete list):
(1) the recent termination of the City Engineer — Based upon just The Herald's reporting,
I had believed that his alleged wrongdoing related only to the Indian Creek Seawall. I
was stunned to read the City's own report that:
"On several City projects, Mr. Mowry either had a blatant disregard for the
requirements of the environmental regulatory agencies or developed an
adversarial relationship with regulatory agencies and residents." (LTC # 160-
2018, March 27, 2018, page 1, third paragraph — emphasis supplied);
(2) the sudden, on-the-spot resignation of the Finance Director and Deputy Finance
Director in the face of claims of alleged wrongdoing; and
2
(3) the theft of approximately $3,500,000 from the City's bank account, allegedly
attributable, at least in part, to a failure, over a long period to perform that most basic of
all bookkeeping tasks—reconciliation of transactions as reported by the bank.
On the criminal side—with no claim or implication of any such conduct by Ms. Salgueiro—we
have (an incomplete list):
(1) the three-year sentence imposed upon our former Procurement Director, owing to his
guilty plea to racketeering, money laundering, and bribery;
(2) the convictions of two very senior Building Department employees: the Chief
Structural Inspector and the Chief of Violations: and
(3) Mariano Fernandez's involuntary termination for gross misconduct, and the State
Attorney's Office's issuance of a 117-page Arrest Warrant against him.
It is more than time for the City to proceed only with due diligence and extreme care in the
appointment of our senior executive management personnel.
General Comments — Ana Salgueiro and Mariano Fernandez
The nomination of Ana M. Salgueiro to serve as the new Director of the Building Department
follows (as noted above) the City's firing of the previous Director, Mariano Fernandez, for gross
misconduct, and the State Attorney's Office's issuance of an Arrest Warrant against him.
I neither suggest nor imply that Ms. Salgueiro was in any way a participant in Mr. Fernandez's
alleged wrongdoing. But, his involuntary termination and arrest are important reminders of the
Building Department's troubled history and worrisome vulnerabilities. The new Building
Director will occupy one of the most important and sensitive positions in City government.
The leading—essentially exclusive—role of Mr. Fernandez in Ms. Salgueiro's one-year career
with our City will be discussed here in detail (pages 6-8, below), because I consider that role
directly pertinent to your decision on her nomination. But, again, for emphasis, I have no
knowledge of, and make no claim of, any involvement by Ms. Salgueiro in Mr. Fernandez's
alleged criminality—or, for that matter, any criminality whatsoever on her part.
The Role and Responsibility of the Mayor and Commission
We have a City Manager form of government. Under that structure, the Mayor and Commission
should normally give considerable weight to the City Manager's personnel recommendations.
However, in this particular instance, I believe that the recommendation deserves very little
weight. As more fully explained in this Memorandum, I consider there to have been a total
absence of due diligence and a total absence of adherence to well-established human resources
principles.
3
So, I view this case as one in which it is clear why the Charter grants the Mayor and Commission
final authority to accept or reject nominations at the very high level of Department Directors.
The reason is that Department Directors are senior executives with broad authority. Their
appointment deserves an extra measure of review and scrutiny, which is why the Charter leaves
the final decision to you.
The Four Reasons to Reject this Nomination
On the first page of this Memorandum, I have summarized four reasons for rejection of this
nomination. Following is a complete statement of each of those four reasons:
(1) Ms. Salgueiro Should Never Have Been Hired One Year Ago as Deputy Building
Director. It is essential to review now why that is true, so that that mistake is not compounded
by promoting her to Building Director.
Ms. Salgueiro's service in the public sector began on June 19, 2006. She was hired by Miami-
Dade County as a Structural Plans Processor in the Regulatory and Economic Resources
Department.
Ms. Salgueiro's County employment ended on April 21, 2017, by reason of her acceptance of the
offer to become our Deputy Building Director, effective April 24, 2017. Accordingly, she was
employed by the County for almost eleven years. (Her last twenty-two months of County
employment were at the Airport Satellite Office.)
At the end of that eleven-year employment, Ms. Salgueiro's position was that of a Structural
Plans Processor—the exact position where she started in 2006. During that substantial stretch of
employment, she had no advancement. Nothing could better illustrate Ms. Salgueiro's junior
position in the County than the fact that her last County performance evaluation was conducted
by a person with the title of Airport Satellite Office Lead Worker.
Even more important is the fact that, at the County, Ms. Salgueiro had zero executive,
managerial, or supervisory responsibilities. Structural Plans Processors—all of whom are
engineers—certainly perform a vital public service; no one wants a County building to collapse.
I do not disparage or diminish their importance or responsibilities for a minute.'
However, Structural Plans Processors are at the very bottom of the County's table of
organization. At the time of Ms. Salgueiro's resignation last year from the County to accept our
'Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder how much of an in-depth review is performed by a Structural Plans
Processor. In one of Ms. Salgueiro's last few performance evaluations, the reviewer stated that, during
the preceding one-year period, "...Ms. Salgueiro reviewed a total of 4,760 plans... with an average of
approximately 95 plans per week." That would be an average of 19 plans per day, with an average of 25
minutes spent on each set of plans.
4
offer to be Deputy Building Director, there were eight Structural Plans Processors. There is no
one who reports to any of the Structural Plans Processors. Here is a Structural Plans Processor's
position in the County hierarchy:
(A) A Structural Plans Processor reports up to the Structural Section Supervisor.
(B) Then, the Structural Section Supervisor reports up to the Director of the Compliance
Division of the Regulatory and Economic Resources Department.
(C) Then, the Director of the Compliance Division of the Regulatory and Economic
Resources Department reports up to the Assistant Director for the Construction,
Permitting & Building Code Division.
(D) Then, the Assistant Director of the Construction, Permitting & Building Code
Division reports up to the Deputy Director for the Regulatory Service of the Regulatory
and Economic Resources Department.
(E) Then, the Deputy Director for the Regulatory Service of the Regulatory and
Economic Resources Department reports up to the Director of the Regulatory and
Economic Resources Department.
Against that background of Ms. Salgueiro's zero executive, managerial, or supervisory
responsibilities with the County, she is hired by us into the key position of Deputy Director of a
key department...our Building Department. Under our table of organization, all 88 Building
Department employees report directly or indirectly to the Deputy Director.
Supervising 88 employees—especially by a person who is entirely lacking in previous
supervisory experience—is no easy task. But, in addition to that general challenge, the Building
Director inherits the daunting task of supervising:
(A) seven employees who are identified specifically by name in Mr. Fernandez's Arrest
Warrant as having been offered and provided "a variety of unlawful benefits"; and
(B) dozens of employees who are identified generally in the Arrest Warrant as two
groups of employees who were offered and provided "a variety of unlawful benefits".
Together, all those Building Department employees constitute a majority of the Building
Department's employees. Their loyalties may well be elsewhere.
As a further overarching challenge in this particular job:
"Miami Beach can't seem to shake its reputation for attracting public corruption."
(Miami Herald, February 10, 2018 — Page 1A).
So, a new Building Director—in addition to all the other vitally important and complex tasks,
duties, and responsibilities of that positon—(A) inherits a Department in which a majority of the
5
employees have allegedly received "unlawful benefits", and (B) inherits a Department against a
broad background of general awareness of "public corruption" in our City.
Thus, after eleven years with the County—eleven years of no promotions and no management of
anyone—our City catapults Ms. Salgueiro into a critical position of executive responsibility.
Part of that catapulting was a $41,000 salary increase with the City (33%) over her final County
salary.
Nine months after Ms. Salgueiro joined the City, she was earning $49,000 more (40%) than her
final County salary. A meteoric rise in position, responsibility, and compensation with our City
in just nine months—after no advancement for eleven years with the County.
Despite all the above considerations, I do not suggest any change in her status. Ms. Salgueiro
has a right to rely upon the City's employment actions as they relate to her up until this time.
But, we do need a professional search for a person properly qualified to be our Building Director.
(2) Both Ms. Salgueiro's Appointment as Deputy Building Director and Her Nomination as
Building Director are Fatally Flawed.
(A) The Leading Role of Mariano Fernandez in the Miami Beach Career of Ms.
Salgueiro. On January 27, 2017, an anonymous letter (bearing no date) was received in
the City Manager's Office. That date of receipt in the City Manager's Office was
authoritatively reported to me. When I inquired further about that January 27, 2017 date
of receipt in the City Manager's Office, it was authoritatively confirmed to me.
If that date is correct, it is not accurate that:
"Shortly after she [Ana Salgueiro] joined the City [on April 24, 2017], I received
the anonymous letter that led to my involving the State Attorney's office and the
Police department." (City Manager's February 12, 2018 email to Mayor and
Commissioners — emphasis supplied).
The anonymous letter made various accusations against Mr. Fernandez, including the
following:
"The Building Department will soon become the next scandal for the city. You
[Mr. Morales] have given Mr. Mariano Fernandez ultimate authority over his
department he [sic] does so without consideration for rules and penalties for
breaking those rules....
"...He ignores the H.R. hiring procedures and hires friends and family members
for positions that were never advertised to the public."
The anonymous letter set in motion the investigations which resulted in Mr. Fernandez's
suspension by the City; his firing by the City; and the State Attorney's Office issuing its
117-page Arrest Warrant against him.
6
So, the anonymous letter was apparently deemed credible by both the City and the State
Attorney. The letter contained the above allegation about Mr. Fernandez's violation of
HR requirements. Nonetheless, I have found nothing which suggests that there was any
withdrawal or modification of his previous assignment to recruit a Deputy Building
Director. On the contrary:
"I had actually encouraged Mariano to hire a deputy building official...." (City
Manager's February 12, 2018 email to Frank DelVecchio).
As far as I can tell, Mariano Fernandez was not the central person in that recruitment and
hiring of Ms. Salgueiro; he was the only person. Ms. Salgueiro has been characterized in
the public record as "a direct recruit by Mr. Fernandez."
Thus launched and given his assignment, Mr. Fernandez himself served as the sole
recruiter of Ms. Salgueiro. And she was the sole recruit. He knew her by reason of the
overlap between his City of Miami employment and her Miami-Dade County
employment.
So, beginning with the City's receipt of the anonymous letter on January 27, 2017, the
City was on notice that there were serious questions about Mr. Fernandez's honesty and
integrity—and, specifically, his honesty and integrity concerning HR matters. Yet, with
that notice in hand, the City nonetheless proceeded—three months later—to hire Ms.
Salgueiro as Deputy Building Director, in reliance upon the "HR work" of Mr. Fernandez
himself.
You have been advised that: "...Ms. Salgueiro was not an employee of the City until last
April [2017] and therefore was not with the City during the period the alleged crimes [by
Mr. Fernandez] took place." (Letter to Commission # 069-2018 — February 13, 2018).
That may be completely true, but it also completely misses the point.
Yes, the last of Mr. Fernandez's thirteen alleged crimes, as alleged in his Arrest Warrant,
occurred during the period of September 1-5, 2016. In that case, he arranged for, in
addition to his and his wife's personal benefits, a heavily discounted rate at the RIU Plaza
Hotel, in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, for Building Department employees and their
friends and family members, for approximately 176 room nights (44 rooms x 4 nights).
So, that last alleged crime occurred eight months before Ms. Salgueiro began service as
Deputy Building Director on April 24, 2017. But, Mr. Fernandez was not suspended
until August 28, 2017.
Thus, Mr. Fernandez and Ms. Salgueiro overlapped in the Building Department for four
months—he as Director, and she, reporting to him, as his Deputy Director. During that
period, presumably Mr. Fernandez as Building Director was training Ms. Salgueiro as
Deputy Building Director.
7
Even if Mr. Fernandez had not been suspended, and then involuntarily terminated, by the
City, and even if he had not been criminally accused in a 117-page Arrest Warrant, I feel
obliged to ask the following rhetorical question: Would anyone who had any contact with
or knowledge of Mr. Fernandez even remotely consider hiring him as headhunter or
executive talent recruiter?
So, Mr. Fernandez served as Ms. Salgueiro's recruiter, appointing authority, advocate,
boss, mentor, and trainer. It is difficult to imagine a worse arrangement.
(B) Violation of Accepted Executive Recruitment and Hiring Practices. In both
instances—Ms. Salgueiro's appointment as Deputy Building Director, and her present
nomination as Building Director my opinion is that every sound practice for the
recruitment and hiring of senior executive personnel has been violated:
(i) On both occasions, there was no advertising or other verbal or written
solicitations for the position—no headhunter; no recruiter of executive
governmental personnel; no ads in either general circulation newspapers or in
specialized journals and publications.
(ii) The City did not contact anyone who might fairly be considered an
appropriate candidate. Indeed, if Ms. Salgueiro's qualifications, experience, job
performance, and complete lack of managerial and supervisory experience in her
position as a County Structural Plans Processor are somehow viewed as sufficient
for her to be appointed Deputy Building Director—and now to be considered for
appointment as Building Director—why were the other seven County Structural
Plans Processors not given the same consideration?
(iii) The City neither solicited nor received any resumes, applications, or verbal or
written expressions of interest by possible candidates. Indeed, it appears that no
one outside of City Hall—and probably few inside—knew there was an opening
for Deputy Building Director.
(iv) Our Building Department, with its 88 employees, has a substantial
management roster. As far as I can tell, none of those managers was even
considered, or advised of the Deputy Building Director opening, or was
encouraged to apply. I suspect that none of them even knew about the "search".
By definition, Building Department managers manage other people. Yet, Ms.
Salgueiro—a County Structural Plans Processor who, in eleven years, never
managed anyone is somehow the sole recruit.
In a word, the City conducted no search of any kind. It is difficult to imagine a greater
abandonment of personnel due diligence.
8
In the course of this matter, I have been educated to understand the very specific and
stringent legal requirements for a person to qualify for the position of Building Director.
But, that fact cannot be stretched to justify (i) sole reliance upon a person, Mariano
Fernandez, whose credibility and integrity are so clearly in doubt, and (ii) a simultaneous
abandonment of core executive search principles and practices.
The fact that a search may be difficult does not lead to the conclusion that there is to be
no search. We should not be appointing by default.
(C) Failure to Afford an Opportunity to Express Concerns. You were advised that
consideration of this appointment would be deferred to the March Commission meeting,
in order to allow time to "address any concerns". (Letter to Commission #069-2018,
February 13, 2018).
In fact, no opportunity was granted to express "concerns" so that they could be
"addressed". Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 at the end of this Memorandum (pages 17-19)
reflect my unsuccessful efforts to be granted an audience for this purpose.
(D) Failure of Ms. Salgueiro to Respond. In the same LTC, you were advised that
deferment to the March Commission meeting would "give Ms. Salgueiro herself an
opportunity to respond." In fact, and without any subsequent LTC or notice that I can
find, this nomination was quietly deferred from the promised March meeting, and then
quietly deferred again from the April meeting.
Yet, though thirty days was stretched to ninety days, Ms. Salgueiro has not availed
herself of her "opportunity to respond". Plainly, that compounds the denial of the
promised opportunity to express "concerns" (as discussed immediately above).
Incidentally, Ms. Salgueiro had plenty to which she could have "responded". There is
nothing material in this Memorandum which would not have been generally known—or
which was not explicitly communicated in written detail by me months ago—to Ms.
Salgueiro and her management.
Non-responsiveness by Ms. Salgueiro was an already previously-established pattern of
conduct by Ms. Salgueiro, as discussed below, both in the context of our state Public
Records Request Law (pages 10-15) and in the context of our City's customer relations
policies (pages 15-16).
(E) Inappropriate Reliance on Nothing Having Gone Wrong...So Far. You are now
asked to confirm this appointment on the strength of:
"Over the last nine months Ana has proven that she can lead the department with
integrity and with a focus on quality customer service." (Agenda page 1398 —
emphasis supplied).
9
So, in my view, Ms. Salgueiro's City of Miami Beach three-step career path looks like
this (and is, astonishingly, characterized as "part of our succession planning" (Agenda
page 1396)):
(i) Hired twelve-plus months ago as Deputy Building Director, notwithstanding a
stunning absence of supervisory, management, and executive experience—and
following a deeply flawed recruitment and hiring process, all as described above.
(ii) Appointed both Interim Building Director and Building Official eight-plus
months ago—notwithstanding a body of opinion that considers it unwise to unify
those two positions in one person.
(iii) Now, after that very short career with the City, she is proposed to be
appointed Building Director and to continue as Building Official by reason of her
performance "over the last nine months".
To put it mildly, that might fairly be characterized as a rather brief and compressed career
on which to base confidence that all will be OK in the sensitive and difficult job of
leading the often-troubled and always-tempted Building Department.
(3) Ms. Salgueiro has clearly demonstrated a shocking lack of knowledge or a willful
disregard of the most basic requirements of the Florida Public Records Law (Chapter 119,
Florida Statutes).
It is difficult to imagine how Ms. Salgueiro could conduct herself in a way which is so oblivious
to or contemptuous of our State Public Records Law (Florida Statutes, Chapter 119). It is
equally difficult to understand how she could—after eleven years of County employment—be so
unaware, or consciously indifferent to, the Law, even if only in a general sense.
This statute is foundational, basic, bedrock Florida law. In recent years, the efforts in
Tallahassee to weaken the principal provisions of the statute have been largely unsuccessful
(although a great many specific, targeted exemptions have been added). Local implementation
of the law has been considerably strengthened just within the past eighteen months by the
following two actions:
(A) County Action. In addition to the statutory remedies for violations of Chapter 119,
the Citizen's Bill of Rights of the Miami-Dade County charter grants to the County
Ethics Commission the authority to hear and act upon complaints under the Public
Records statute. At the November 2016 general election, Miami-Dade County voters
approved an amendment to the Charter which makes County records even more
accessible. As a result of the amendment, it is no longer necessary to inspect records
before requesting copies of records.
(B) City Action. On December 13, 2017, you unanimously adopted a revised and
considerably strengthened City of Miami Beach Public Records Processing Policy
(Resolution No. 2017-30124). Your adopting Resolution:
10
(i) reaffirms our City's "long-standing commitment to transparency in
government";
(ii) states that the Policy is being amended and reissued "for purposes of ensuring
compliance with Florida's Public Records Law";
(iii) refers to the "mandatory duties of City personnel relative to the City's public
records and corresponding rights of the public to disclosure thereof'; and
(iv) states that the new Policy provides "updated/greater detail of the procedures
attendant to City personnel's retention of public records..., as well as processes
related to the City's responses to document requests." (emphasis supplied).
So, the statute is alive, substantively well, and taken seriously at all levels of government,
including in the City of Miami Beach.
I filed a Public Records Request on November 7, 2017 (PRR #14282). It consisted of specific,
numbered, precisely-identified records that were being requested. (The subject matter was a
long-troubled building in our north Ocean Drive neighborhood, namely, 1446 Ocean Drive.)
Pretty consistently, I had found Mariano Fernandez to be non-compliant with Public Records
Requests. My hope was that Ms. Salgueiro would be a breath of fresh air; would already have
been completely familiar with the law and recognized its importance; would conscientiously
comply with the law; and, more generally, would undertake the task of getting the Department to
fly right on Public Records Requests.
It was not to be. She proved to be Mariano Fernandez 2.0 on public records.
First, I received from her the three-sentence e-mail which appears in full at the end of this letter
as Attachment No. 1 (page 17, below). Those three quickie sentences from Ms. Salgueiro never
even acknowledged that there was pending, and assigned to her Department, a formal filed and
numbered Public Records Request, seeking specifically numbered and identified items.
Instead, her email speaks broadly and generally—and entirely inaccurately—with no apparent
recognition by her of the fact that she had before her a Public Records Request which contained
exact descriptions of what was being sought.
Here are the first two of her three sentences, and my responses to each:
1. E-mail record requests are to be processed through the city clerk's office.
(emphasis supplied).
Was that statement an effort to make a narrow, legalistic, and technical point? Was Ms.
Salgueiro simply disavowing her public records duties as the Department's chief executive?
11
Yes, of course, the City Clerk's Office does the "processing": it receives the request and gives it
a number. But, as we all know, and as common sense compels, the role of the City Clerk's
Office is strictly ministerial. When the City Clerk's Office receives a Public Records Request all
that it does—and indeed all that it can do—is to ship the Request out to the Departments that
have the requested records.
Nothing could be clearer than the fact that it is then the Departments which have the substantive
responsibility for producing the requested records. What more could be said to make that point
than the following:
"The transmittal of the completed [public records] Request Form to the Office of the City
Clerk is for tracking purposes only. The City Department serving as records custodian of
the requested records is responsible for responding to the request." (emphasis supplied).2
Turning now to the second sentence of Ms. Salgueiro's November 14, 2017 three-sentence non-
response to the Public Records Request, her statements become curioser and curioser:
2. Our records section is for building permit record drawings and permit
documents only. (emphasis supplied).
The Public Records Request was addressed to the Building Department, not to the Records
Section. The City's web site lists six Building Department sections. The plain meaning of Ms.
Salgueiro's statement is that the Public Records Law applies only to the records of the Records
Section. And, the records of the Records Section consist of "building permit record
drawings and permit documents only. (emphasis supplied)."
So, Jane Citizen files a Public Records Request at her peril. She is just plain out of luck if she is
seeking anything other than "building permit record drawing and permit documents". And, she
is just plain out of luck if she is seeking records from any of the five Building Department
sections which are not the Records Section. I find nothing in the Public Records Law to support
those two categories of alleged "exemptions".
That type of artificial compartmentalization of Public Records Requests is directly contrary to
the second sentence of the above-quoted excerpt from the City's Public Records Request Policy:
"The City Department serving as records custodian of the requested records is
responsible for responding to the request." (emphasis supplied).
'City of Miami Beach 2017 Public Records Processing Policy (Resolution No. 2017-30124 — December
13, 2017 - fourth page, II Procedure, A. General Provisions, Paragraph No. 2). This provision continues,
without substantive change, the previous position which was in effect when some of the 2017 events
described here occurred, i.e., before the December 13, 2017 adoption of the new Policy (City of Miami
Beach Public Records Request Policy, January 27, 2005 — Page 1, Procedure section, Sub-Section 1,
second paragraph).
12
"Department" means department. "Department" does not mean a section of a department.
"Records" means records. Our Public Records state statute cannot be defeated by a department's
division into sections or by limiting access to two categories of records held by one section.
Beyond our "mere" municipal Policy, the state statute is certainly applicable and compelling. I
read F.S. Sec. 119.07(c) to impose upon Ms. Salgueiro an affirmative duty to:
"...respond to such [public records] requests in good faith. A good faith response
includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within
the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be
accessed." (emphasis supplied).
Sadly, this is not the first time that I have encountered an effort to avoid responsibility for proper
responses to Public Records Requests. In fact, Ms. Salgueiro knows all about it. She was
present—together with the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager to whom she reports,
Mariano Fernandez (still then serving as Building Director), and Deputy City Attorney Steven
Rothstein—at a May 1, 2017 meeting in the City Manager's Office that I had requested.
In that meeting, I presented my views of the administration, operations, and procedures of the
Building Department under Mariano Fernandez as then-serving Director. Concerning my
specific claim of his non-responsiveness to Public Records Requests, I understood him to say
(not intended to be an exact quote): "I don't have any records. When I want records, I call
someone."
I do understand the common-sense meaning of that statement: he has subordinates who handle
records. But, what I found remarkable is what I saw as his failure to recognize his ultimate
responsibility for (1) the integrity and completeness of the Department's records, and (2)
compliance with Chapter 119.
Ms. Salgueiro's apparent passing off of records responsibilities to one of her six sections—and
then narrowing the scope of even what that one section is obliged to produce—strikes me, again,
as Mariano Fernandez 2.0.
In an effort to be both amicable and helpful, I sent to Ms. Salgueiro an item-by-item description
of the multiple failures in the Building Department's purported response to my Public Records
Request. I received no reply from her.
Then, Ms. Salgueiro was copied on an email to me, which said: "I understand that you want
some emails". She made no effort to correct that plainly erroneous statement. No, my Public
Records Request did not seek "some emails". It requested very specifically-identified
documents and other records.
For example, one of the documents sought in the Public Records request was the:
13
"final inspection report by special inspector James A. Belliveau, Jr., P.E. #53324 dated
04/05/2017".
What could be more specific than that example? But, what I received, instead of that 2017
report, was another data dump which included the same 2016 Belliveau reports which had
previously been furnished. (It was indeed a "data dump" by reason of all the non-requested
items which were included.)
By then, I had exhausted my charitable effort at spoon-feeding and hand-holding with Ms.
Salgueiro, with a view to giving her some informal, amicable guidance about Chapter 119's
requirements. Clearly, I was being stonewalled, and I was preparing to file:
(A) a lawsuit in County or Circuit Court for enforcement of the provisions of the state
Public Records statute; and
(B) an ethics complaint with the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission — The County
Charter's Citizen's Bill of Rights grants the Commission jurisdiction over claims of
Public Records Requests violations.
Fortunately, and to its immense credit, our City Attorney's Office ("CAO") intervened and
stopped what I consider to have been Ms. Salgueiro's dragging the City head-long into totally
unnecessary, burdensome, and costly litigation in two forums—and, in my view, litigation that
the City was likely to lose.
The CAO represents only the City. So, I cannot get inside the head of Steven Rothstein, the
Deputy City Attorney who rode to the rescue here. But, I think that almost any lawyer—and, in
fact, any non-lawyer—would have thought the following:
"If a requested document exists, and if it is not subject to any of the Public Records
Law's exemptions, then the City should produce it. If a document satisfies those two
tests, why plunge the City into litigation by failing or refusing to produce it?"
Assuming that that was Mr. Rothstein's line of thinking—or even if it wasn't—what he did was
to go through the Public Records Request item by item, and produce those items which satisfied
the above two tests. Ms. Salgueiro would not do it or have her Building Department people do
it.
As one might expect, once the City Attorney's Office intervened, the requested two-page James
Belliveau final inspection report by special inspector James A. Belliveau, Jr. dated 04/05/2017
was produced. The CAO has more than earned its keep in this matter. But, its intervention
should never have been necessary.
I consider Ms. Salgueiro's conduct on this Public Records Request matter to be a textbook
example of non-compliance with our Public Records Request Law. On the subject of
compliance—both with that law and all other laws—a senior executive's performance should be
14
beyond reproach. At a minimum, a senior executive should have the instincts to get help and
advice within City Hall when she is on unfamiliar terrain (assuming that somehow that could be
the case here). Ms. Salgueiro has demonstrated that she lacks those instincts.
(4) During the one year that Ms. Salgueiro has served as Deputy Building Director, she has
evidenced qualities of personality, character, and temperament which render her
unsuitable to hold the sensitive, senior executive position of Building Director. In this
second respect, she has again been Mariano Fernandez 2.0.
Our City's standards for relationships with the public are clearly articulated in the standard form
of Management Team Individual Performance Plan — Evaluation Form:
(A) "Customer Service Focus — Promotes and instills a courteous, yet effective, customer
service approach in all areas of operation and responds expeditiously to service issues in
a manner that provides value to customers. Anticipates both external and internal
customer service needs and empowers staff to develop and implement sound, innovative
approaches to service delivery." (Page 5).
(B) "Management Skills and Leadership - ...Clearly communicates (written and verbally)
to citizens, organizations and elected officials. Promotes ethical behavior... Demonstrates
courage, both in decision-making and executing job responsibilities." (Page 6).
Doubtless these basic standards are repeated in other documents governing the conduct of City
employees. One would have thought that they are so basic that they are intuitive and do not even
need to be published.
In this case, the principal events concerning the Public Records Request began about six months
ago and continued for about two months thereafter. Throughout that period, Ms. Salgueiro
ignored the Public Records Request until the City Attorney's Office needed to intervene to
prevent the litigation that she was about to cause.
Also throughout that period, I often wondered if Ms. Salgueiro's computer and telephone were
both broken. For whatever reason, she was incapable of communicating the simplest of simple
messages, along the lines of:
We seem to be at an impasse concerning your Public Records Request. Could we sit
down in my office and work through it, item by item, and see if we can come to some
type of resolution?
Had that opportunity been afforded, I know that there would have been a resolution of most or all
items. I have been down this road before, and it has always worked out satisfactorily. Instead, in
my view, Ms. Salgueiro ignored written communications which sought an amicable resolution.
And she has never budged during this six-month period. I find her unable to reflect on her own
conduct; unable to admit mistakes; and unable to take corrective action.
15
I believe her conduct to have been simple, straightforward stonewalling. I believe it to be the
arrogant, high-handed, cavalier, and disrespectful conduct which often occurs when a person
with no authority is thrust into a position with vast authority, which is precisely what has
occurred with Ms. Salgueiro.
I also consider it to be conduct which violates her Oath of Civility (required by Resolution No.
2017-29750, February 8, 2017). In that Oath, she swore:
"...to all of those I represent and serve, I pledge fairness, integrity, and civility, in all
actions taken and all communications made by me as a public servant".
Conclusion. If ever there was a case in which the Mayor and Commission should exercise their
authority to deny confirmation, it is this case. It's been done before—the de facto rejection not
too many years ago of the appointment of Cynthia Curry as Building Director (which was
withdrawn without its having even been brought to a vote).
In my opinion, an affirmative vote on confirmation this time around would set a devastating
precedent, because it would lend official approval to hiring people into senior executive
positions:
(1) who are entirely lacking in supervisory experience;
(2) for whom our City has ignored every sound human resources principle and practice
and, instead, made a "direct hire";
(3) who are either ignorant or defiant of the requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 119,
Public Records; and
(4) who fail to follow the City's published practices for dealing with the public, and who
lack the instincts to observe those common-sense practices irrespective of whether they
are published.
Recommendation. I recommend that you direct that a comprehensive, professional search for
qualified candidates be conducted for the position of Building Director.
Factual Statements. The factual statements in this Memorandum are based upon
correspondence, responses to Public Records Requests, and other sources that I consider reliable.
But, I do not want to place or leave in the public record of this nomination any factual statements
which are erroneous.
Accordingly, if you (or anyone else) wishes to see or be advised of the bases for these factual
statements, I will be happy to respond. By the same token, if you (or anyone else) believes that
any of these factual statements are incorrect, I ask that I be advised of the respects in which they
are believed to be incorrect, so that I can consider any appropriate corrections.
16
Copies: Mayor's staff, Commissioners' aides, Raul Aguila, Steven Rothstein, Rafael Granado
Attachment No. 1 (Reference: Page 11 above)
From: Salgueiro, Ana [mailto:AnaSalgueiro@miamibeachfl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:17 AM
To: 'henrystolar@bellsouth.net' <henrystolar@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: 1446 Ocean Drive - HPB Meeting - 9 AM, Tuesday, November 14
Henry,
1. E-mail record requests are to be processed through the city clerk's office.
2. Our records section is for building permit record drawings and permit
documents only.
3. The result of an inspection is usually the only record of the inspection.
MIAMI BEACH
Ma M. Salgueiro, P.E., Deputy Director, Building Official
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7610 ext 6587
AnaSalgueiro@miamibeachfl.gov
Attachment No. 2 (Reference: Page 9 above)
From: Henry Stolar [mailto:henrystolargbellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:40 AM
To: 'Morales, Jimmy' <JimmyMorales@miamibeachfl.gov>
Subject: Ana Salgueiro - Proposed Appointment as Building Director
[No reply received]
Dear Jimmy,
I am writing only to you, without copies or blind copies to anyone.
17
Would you please meet with me for 30-45 minutes? I seek this meeting so that, one-on-one, I
can try to persuade you to withdraw your nomination of Ana Salgueiro to serve as Building
Director. (As a matter of appearances, the actual form would probably be Ana's decision to
withdraw herself from consideration.)
I ask that you give me a quick Yes or No. If Yes, please tell me the name of the person whom I
should call to arrange the appointment. If No, I promise not to make a second request.
Jimmy, I have observed your work as City Manager from the day of your appointment. You
bring immense energy, clear expression, hard work, long hours, high intellect, and remarkable
calm to your work.
Especially notable is your absolute mastery of every issue. I marvel at your being so fully
prepared for each Commission meeting. I consider it unquestionable that you are totally devoted
to the best interests of the City.
A big fight over Ana's appointment is a fight that you do not need. And, were her nomination to
be confirmed, what I consider the demonstrated likelihood of her unacceptable conduct, if it
occurs, will be an aggravation, a diversion and distraction from your work, and an
embarrassment which you do not need.
Please allow me 30-45 minutes to try to persuade you. If I fail, so be it. If I succeed, I think that
you and the City will be better for it.
Sincerely,
Henry
Attachment No. 3 (Reference: Page 9 above)
From: Henry Stolar [mailto:henrystolargbellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:16 PM
To: 'Morales, Jimmy' <JimmyMorales@miamibeachfl.gov>
Cc: 'Monserrat, Marcia' <MarciaMonserrat@miamibeachfi.gov>
Subject: Ana M. Salgueiro - Proposed Appointment as Building Director
[No reply received]
Dear Jimmy,
Marcia is terrific: intelligent, responsive, and thoroughly professional.
But, as I told her on Wednesday, I am taking her out of the middle of what has become three and
one-half weeks of my seeking a simple straightforward answer to a simple straightforward
18
question. The attached email trail—ending with Marcia's email of Monday, advising that she
would get an answer that afternoon—more than demonstrates the point that it is just not fair to
Marcia for me to continue to ask her that plain question.
So, would you please just tell me directly what your plans are relative to the proposed
appointment of Ana Salgueiro as Building Director.
As a related matter, I am completely surprised, and deeply disturbed, by your not responding to
my February 16, 2018 email (immediately below), requesting an appointment to discuss this
matter with you. I would never in a million years have thought that no response at all would be
the outcome. It's simply not the Jimmy that I like, admire, and respect.
I hope that I will have more success in obtaining a response to this email
Sincerely,
Henry
19