Loading...
Abbott Florist Ethics InquiryFrom:ABBOTT FLORIST ROMINA To:Williams, Rickelle; Dopico, Ricardo Subject:Fw: Abbott Florist Owner (Ethic"s Dept) Date:Wednesday, February 7, 2024 1:46:36 PM Attachments:Outlook-ewnu3eqb.jpg Outlook-oacnlseo.png Outlook-m2acsc3z.jpg Outlook-g55k4ul1.png Outlook-qukqkaa2.png Outlook-1ebxoh5k.png Outlook-q4p5t032.jpg Outlook-4mpkbo1s.png Outlook-0445bjc1.jpg Outlook-q1nv4mlo.png Outlook-wrdxrksb.png INQ 2023-149 Infante (c)(d)(j)(m).pdf Good Afternoon, I am forwarding the email I received from the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust Romina Orozco-Encio 1008- 71 Street Miami Beach, FL 33141 (305)865-9808 Mainline (305)930-3972 TEXT or WhatsApp www.abbottfloristmiami.com https://linktr.ee/abbottfloristmiamibeach? utm_source=linktree_profile_share&ltsid=5c91cd25-f537-4ac9-b668- 1e7a5eedf9cf www.facebook.com/abbottfloristmiamibeach ​ www.instagram.com/abbottfloristmiamibeach/ https://g.page/r/CWVvTJLHfLYBEBM/review From: Felix, Loressa (COE) <Loressa.Felix@miamidade.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 12:47 PM To: ABBOTT FLORIST ROMINA <romina71@hotmail.com> Cc: Arrojo, Jose (COE) <Jose.Arrojo@miamidade.gov>; Bunker, Nolen A. (COE) <Nolen.Bunker@miamidade.gov>; Akoni, Etta (COE) <Etta.Akoni@miamidade.gov>; Nesmith, Susannah (COE) <Susannah.Nesmith@miamidade.gov> Subject: RE: Abbott Florist Owner (Ethic's Dept) Good afternoon Ms. Orozco-Encio, Thank you for contacting the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust and seeking our guidance regarding your participation in the Commercial Façade Improvement Program administered by the North Beach CRA while serving as a board member of the North Beach CRA Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Upon review of the CRA and Advisory Committee governing resolutions, it has come to our attention that your agency as well as the North Beach CRA are not under the jurisdiction of the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. Instead, your agency must adhere to the requirements of the State of Florida Code of Ethics. We would encourage you to seek guidance from that agency before moving forward with your participation in the mentioned program. While you are not under the jurisdiction of my agency, we have issued an opinion to another CRA board member seeking to contract with the CRA, which you may find instructive. Please see opinion attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance. Best regards, Loressa M. Felix General Counsel Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust Overtown Transit Village North 701 Northwest 1st Court, 8th Floor Miami, Florida 33136 Loressa.Felix@miamidade.gov Tel: (305) 579-2594 Fax: (305) 579-0273 From: ABBOTT FLORIST ROMINA <romina71@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 5:28 PM To: Ethics (COE) <ethics@miamidade.gov> Subject: Abbott Florist Owner (Ethic's Dept) EMAIL RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE Attn: Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust I have been a member of the Ad Hoc North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee since its inception as an ad hoc committee in 2021. As of July 8, 2023, I began serving as a member of the permanent North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee (the “Committee”). The North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (“North Beach CRA”) recently launched a Commercial Façade Improvement Program (“Program”). The Program is a matching reimbursement grant incentive program available for business owners and commercial property owners to help pay the costs of physical improvements to the building façade of their place of business. The Program is available to commercial buildings in North Beach’s Normandy Isles/Vendome Plaza neighborhood, located within the North Beach CRA Redevelopment Area and the Normandy Isles National Register Historic District. The Program focuses on cultivating an improved visual experience and sense of place through external enhancements to existing buildings. Program funding awards consist of matching grants of up 70% the cost of eligible projects, up to an amount not to exceed $20,000 per application provided on a reimbursement basis for expenses paid on completed work. The program aims (i) to assist business and property owners to improve, repair, and preserve older buildings; (ii) to stimulate investment in and revitalization of private property; and (iii) to highlight historic architecture to foster a sense of place that is attractive and welcoming to the entire community. Additional information regarding the Program is included in the “North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Commercial Façade Improvement Program (CFIP) Guidelines and Application” attached. I am the owner of Abbott Florist, LLC, a floral shop located at 1008 – 71st Street in the Normandy Fountain area. I am interested in applying for a grant under the Program and hereby request an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission (the “Commission”) confirming that in the circumstances described below, I will not be violating any of the rules of the County’s code of ethics. First, it is important to point out that the Committee’s role is advisory in nature. While the Committee may provide advisory recommendations, the awarding of grants will be made by the Board of the North Beach CRA based on the evaluation and recommendations made by the North Beach CRA Executive Director or designee. Although the Board will be aware of the Committee’s recommendations, such recommendations are not binding on the Board. Second, in order to ensure there is no conflict (or perceived conflict) of interest, I will recuse myself from any discussions or decisions related to the selection of businesses for the Program. I will not be involved in any way in the evaluation or decision-making process. This will ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that the selection process remains fair and impartial. Finally, I would like to emphasize that my application for the Program is based solely on the merits of my business and its potential contribution to the community. I firmly believe that participating in the Program will not only benefit my business but also enhance the overall aesthetics and appeal of our community. Improving the exterior appearance of my business premises will attract more customers and create a positive impression on visitors. This, in turn, will have a positive impact on other local businesses in the vicinity. I understand the importance of maintaining transparency and upholding ethical standards in all aspects of my role as a Committee member. I am fully committed to adhering to the guidelines and requirements of the Program and will not seek special treatment of any kind because of my role as a Committee member. I respectfully request the Commission’s opinion regarding the matter described. I would like to assure you that I have taken (and will continue to take) all necessary steps to ensure a fair and unbiased selection process. If you have any questions or need additional information to make a determination, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving your favorable response. Sincerely, Romina Orozco-Encio Abbott Florist, LLC North Beach CRA Advisory Committee member (305) 303-9120 Romina Orozco-Encio 1008- 71 Street Miami Beach, FL 33141 (305)865-9808 Mainline (305)930-3972 TEXT or WhatsApp www.abbottfloristmiami.com https://linktr.ee/abbottfloristmiamibeach? utm_source=linktree_profile_share&ltsid=5c91cd25-f537-4ac9-b668- 1e7a5eedf9cf www.facebook.com/abbottfloristmiamibeach ​ www.instagram.com/abbottfloristmiamibeach/ https://g.page/r/CWVvTJLHfLYBEBM/review MIAMI-DADE COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST 701 Northwest 1st Court  8th Floor  Miami, Florida 33136  (305) 579-2594  ethics@miamidade.gov COMMISSIONERS Dr. Judith Bernier, CHAIR Wifredo “Willy” Gort, VICE CHAIR Nelson C. Bellido Esq. DavaTunis, Esq. Lourdes B. Fernandez, Esq. EXECUTIVE STAFF Jose J. Arrojo EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Radia Turay ADVOCATE Loressa M. Felix GENERAL COUNSEL November 6, 2023 Rene Infante, President Redland Market Village Delivered via email to infanterene@yahoo.com Re: INQ 2023-149; Section 2 11.1(c) and (d) Contracting with the County; Section 2- 11.1(m), Certain appearances and payment prohibited; Section 2-11.1(j), Conflicting employment prohibited Dear Mr. Infante, Thank you for contacting the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (“Ethics Commission”) and requesting our guidance regarding possible conflicts of interest between your potential service on the Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency and your ownership of the Redland Marketing Village. Facts You advised that you have been asked if you could accept an appointment to serve as a Board Member on the Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency (“NLCRA”). The NLCRA is a government agency created by the Board of County Commissioners in 2002 to address blight and slum conditions through redevelopment initiatives. Miami-Dade County provides the NLCRA with certain tax revenues derived from the area the agency covers to be spent on redevelopment projects in that area. The NLCRA board members are appointed by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners. The NLCRA currently administers a small business grant program and periodically considers unsolicited proposals to fund specific projects that provide for affordable housing, business and economic development, walkability and transportation, infrastructure and tourism. You advised that you own and serve as president of the Redland Market Village (RMV), a for- profit company that is located within the boundaries of the NLCRA and operates a flea market and farmer’s market. You also advised that the RMV has been awarded but has not yet received a grant from the NLCRA. The grant award has conditions that extend over a number of years, which could affect the award. Page 2 of 5 Issue Whether any prohibited conflict of interest may exist between your proposed service on the NLCRA and your ownership of RMV. Analysis As a preliminary matter, pursuant to Section 2-1465 of the Miami-Dade County Code, board members of the NLCRA are subject to the requirements and provisions of Section 2-11.1 of the Miami-Dade County Ethics Code. Generally, the Ethics Code only prohibits the appointment of a board member if that appointment would “cause such a severe conflict as to cause an instant and irrevocable conflict between the appointee’s private interests and his public duties.” INQ 14-107. For example, a business owner who had entered into a contract to receive a grant award from the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (“SMCRA”) could not accept an appointment to the same agency. Id. In that case, the grant award had ongoing requirements that extended over years and could therefore create recurring conflicts. Id. See also INQ 22-04 (a member of the Northwest 7th Avenue Community Redevelopment Agency did not have a conflict of interest when contracting with a County department that was not overseen or advised by the board she sat on). This inquiry involves several sections of the County Ethics Code, each of which is analyzed below: A. Section 2-11.1 (c) and (d) Limitations and prohibitions on board members doing business with the County Sections 2-11.1(c) and (d) of the County Ethics Code address limitations and prohibitions on board members doing business with the County. Specifically, Section 2-11.1(c)(3) provides that a board member may enter into a contract, individually or through a firm, corporation, partnership or business entity in which the board member or his immediate family has a controlling financial interest, but only if the board member does not contract with a County department or agency which is subject of being regulated, overseen, managed, engaged in policy-setting or quasi-judicial authority of the member’s board/agency. See INQ 19-78. See also INQ 14-107, discussed above, and RQO 18-03. Here, your company already has a contract with the NLCRA, under Sections 2-11.1(c) and (d), if you were to accept an appointment as a board member of the NLCRA, the contract that RMV has with NLCRA would present and ongoing conflict of interest for you.1 1 You should also be aware that Section 2-11.1 (v) prohibits advisory board members from voting on any transaction that involves companies for which they serve as an officer, employee or other enumerated position. Page 3 of 5 B. Section 2-11.1(m) – Certain Appearances and Payment Prohibited The County Ethics Code provides that no member of an autonomous board, “shall appear before the County board or agency on which he or she serves, either directly or through an associate, and make a presentation on behalf of a third person with respect to any . . . benefit sought by the third person.” County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(m)(2); see also INQ 21-13 (Citizen’s Independent Transportation Trust (“CITT”) Board Member may not appear before CITT on behalf of the non- profit for which she concurrently served as Vice-President). Additionally, the County Ethics Code provides that no member of a County autonomous board member shall, “receive compensation, directly or indirectly or in any form, for services rendered to a third party, who has applied for or is seeking some benefit from the County board or agency on which such person serves, in connection with the particular benefit by the third party.” County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(m)(2). This type of conflict was explained in a prior opinion you obtained in 2017. See INQ 17-69. In that opinion, you were told that, as a voting member of the Naranja Community Redevelopment Agency (the predecessor of the NLCRA) you could not appear before the Naranja CRA on behalf of the Economic Development Council, a non-profit entity of which you were Chairman of the Board, nor should you have been involved in the preparation of any such presentation. Id. Similarly, members of the Youth Crime Task Force (“YCTF”) and the Dade-Miami Criminal Justice Council (“DMCJC”) who are employed by non-profit organizations may not appear before the YCTF or the DMCJC either directly or through an associate on behalf of their non-profit employers. See INQ 13-224. Here, as a member of the NLCRA, you would be prohibited from appearing before that board on behalf of yourself or on behalf of RMW or any of its clients. See INQ 21-13; INQ 17-69; INQ 13-224. Furthermore, you would be prohibited from helping to prepare or review any presentation to be made to the NLCRA on behalf of RMW or any of its clients because you may not present to the NLCRA through an associate. See INQ 17-69. Finally, you could not accept any compensation, either directly or indirectly, from RMW for any work done in connection with any grant the NLCRA awarded to RMW. See County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(m)(2). C. Section 2-11.1(j) – Conflicting Employment Prohibited The Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (“County Ethics Code”) provides that no person who is considered County autonomous personnel “shall accept other employment which would impair his or her independence of judgment in the performance of his or her public duties.” See County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(j). Outside employment is considered “any non-County employment or business relationship in which the County employee (or autonomous board member) provides a personal service to the non-County employer that is compensated or customarily compensated.” RQO 17-03. Several factors are considered to determine whether a potential conflict of interest exists between an individual’s City position and his or her outside employment, including: the nexus between the public duties and the outside employment; whether the individual has decision-making authority over the same subject matter that the outside employment concerns; whether the individual solicits business or customers in the same area over which he or she has jurisdiction; whether the individual will come into contact with the same or similar people or entities in both his or her public position Page 4 of 5 and outside employment; and whether the public entity with which the individual serves either provides funding to or has a contract with his or her outside employer. See RQO 17-01; INQ 21-66. Additionally, the Ethics Commission has interpreted the prohibition against conflicting outside employment to prohibit covered individuals from engaging in employment that will create a substantial or frequently recurring conflict between his or her private employment interests and the performance of his or her public duties “such that this would impede the full and faithful execution of his or her public duties.” INQ 22-15. In practice, a member of the Fisher Island Community Zoning Appeals Board (“FI-CZAB”) who worked as a Commercial Real Estate Broker for a Fisher Island developer did not have a recurring conflict of interest and could continue his public service concurrent to his outside employment so long as he recused himself from voting on or participating in any matter presented to the FI-CZAB involving his developer employer and development on the island. See RQO 99-05. Similarly, officers and board members of Fisher Island condominium associations could not serve on the FI- CZAB because “as a practical matter, most matters that come before the community council would directly or indirectly affect any condominium association, due to the size and nature of the community,” resulting in a recurring conflict of interest that would prevent effective service on the FI-CZAB. RQO 01-46. Additionally, the Mayor of North Miami Beach may have had a recurring conflict of interest between his public service and his outside employment as a Real Estate Broker to the extent that his retainers as a Real Estate Broker were contingent on subsequent municipal action, and to the extent that his official actions impacted his business relationship with a developer. See INQ 22-15; see also INQ 11-174 (a member of the Black Affairs Advisory Board (“BAAB”) who simultaneously served as the Executive Director of a non-profit with regular business before the BAAB may have found it difficult to avoid frequently recurring conflicts that would impede his ability to full and faithfully execute his public duties). Here, based on all of the facts presented and the precedent discussed above, your ownership of RMV would give rise to a prohibited conflict of interest if you were to accept an appointment to the NLCRA because of the substantial conflicts that would impede the full and faithful execution of your public duties. See RQO 01-46; INQ 22-15; INQ 11-174. Opinion Based on the facts presented here and discussed above, you are prohibited from concurrently serving as a Board Member of the NLCRA and engaging in outside employment as owner and President of RMV because RMV’s contractual relationship with the NLCRA causes a substantial conflict of interest that would impede your ability to execute your public duties fully and faithfully. See County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(j); RQO 01-46. Similarly, RMV’s contractual relationship with the NLCRA means that were you to accept an appointment to the NLCRA, you would have a per se conflict of interest. See County Ethics Code § 2-11.1(c) and (d). This opinion is based on the facts presented. If these facts change, or if there are any further questions, please contact the above-named Staff Attorney. Other conflicts may apply based on directives from the County Commission or under state law. Questions regarding possible conflicts based on County Commission directives should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office. For an opinion regarding Florida ethics law, please contact the Page 5 of 5 Florida Commission on Ethics, P.O. Drawer 15709, Tallahassee, FL 32317, phone number (850) 488-7864, http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/. Sincerely, Susannah Nesmith Susannah Nesmith INQs are informal ethics opinions provided by the legal staff after being reviewed and approved by the Executive Director. INQs deal with opinions previously addressed in public session by the Commission on Ethics or within the plain meaning of the County Ethics Code. RQOs are opinions provided by the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust when the subject matter is of great public importance or where there is insufficient precedent. While these are informal opinions, covered parties that act contrary to the opinion may be referred to the Advocate for preliminary review or investigation and may be subject to a formal Complaint filed with the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.