R7H-Repeal Resolution 93-20694 City�s Complimentary Ticket PolicyCOMMISSION 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 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.
Ke Intended Outcome Su orted:
Increase community satisfaction with city government and Promote transparency of city operations
Issue:
hall the City Commission Adopt the Resolution?
Item Summary/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 a DRAFT "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 Attachment 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 (Attachment 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
"DRAFT" 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.
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.
Financial Information:
Source of Funds:
Finance Dept
Financial Impact Summary:
Amount
MIAMI BEACH
529
Account Approved
AGENDA ITEM
DATE f-/2*f~
of Miami leach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMI ION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney•
DATE: September 12, 2012
SUBJECT: 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.
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. Please see attached (Attachment
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 (Attachment 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 recipienUOfficials
on quarterly gift disclosure forms (see Attachment 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
530
City Commission Meeting
Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy
September 12, 2012
Page 2 of 3
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 (see Attachment 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 DRAFT "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 Attachment 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 (Attachment 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 "DRAFT" 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).
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
2
531
City Commission Meeting
Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy
September 12, 2012
Page 3 of 3
The Administration was asked to review the attached DRAFT 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 (Exhibit "C"). 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.
CONCLUSION
The Adminsitration and City Attorney recommend the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS (A-I)
T:\AGENDA 12012\9-12-12\Complimentary Ticket policy Memo.doc
3
532
EXHIBIT "A"
ACCEPTABLE 'PUBLIC PURPOSE' USES {BY CATEGORY) OF CMB TICKETS
(PER CMB RESO NO. , II.)
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 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;
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;
5
533
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.
6
534
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. , II (f.n.#1 )).
(see attached)
7
535
3H 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 usc ofthese 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 govemment in its use of such
resources, as well as help to remove the perception that elected and other govemment officials
distribute these puh!ic benefits with unfettered discretion and for purposes inconsistent with
the proper disposition of public property. Further, it is the ofthese guidelines and
recommendations to make clear that public benefits may be utilized under ce1tain permissible
circmnstances by elected and other govemment 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 STAFF
EMPLOYEES
l. 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 H·om 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 ofthe event organizer(s) or a person or entity authorized to extend
such invitation;
10. Host group(s) of govcmmental 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 ofthe following ftmctions 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
536
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;
c. Greeting 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, 1'1ayor or other person qualified to delegate that
responsibility;
1. 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 PERlVliSSIBLE USES OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
1. Distribution to residents on a publicly-advertised first-come, first-served basis
or by lottery;
2. Sell to members ofthe 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 ofthe
governing body ofthe 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 a±11liation 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.
5. 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 >vho have made special contributions to the community, as
established by defh1ed criteria;
c. Unclected members who serve without pay on County/City boards;
County, State and/or federal officials or local officials fi·om other cities,
in recognition of significant assistance to the local government;
d. Businesses and institutions which have contributed to the welfare ofthe
County/City;
f Visiting dignitaries or foreign officials.
2
537
1. The following City Officials shall each be entitled to receive two (2) tickets to a
single performance/event. An Event shall only include one performance during
each production engagement or run at the City venues or for the City-sponsored
event or other event
* Mayor City Commissioners
• City Manager
• City Attorney
2. remaining tickets shall be distributed as follows:
a.
The City Manager shall create an advisory committee a list of deserving
organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets. Such advisory committee shall
meet no less than once 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) 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.
b.
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 selected City employee with two (2) tickets to an event. City
employees shall also be eligible to receive two (2) tickets to an event on a first-come,
first served basis.
8
538
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.
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 !II (B) 2 (a) above.
c. Others (@15% of remaining tickets)
d.
The remaining tickets may distributed by the City as follows:
L 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 shaH have
defined and such criteria shall be provided to the City
Commission; or,
iL The City may provide the tickets to organizations that assist in
promoting and marketing the City through a municipal marketing
agreement with City, to the extent that such use is permitted by
the entity providing the tickets.
9
539
Ml
OFFtCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: M.
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commisslonep
DATE:
not
JWI!h
. -··---.··· --... ----.-.]
; • :' ·~ :· ~ ! , ; : • ' ' ••• : l ,: ~ '~
81 :::; ~;J 91 K·~·:.liiDl.
• 0 ; ••• •• ·: : 1
' ,; .:.. ~ ~ 1 •• ~ v .,.;,. u
5 0
March 12, 2011
MEMORANDUM Commissioner Jonah Wolfson, City of Miami
FROM: Frank Del Vecchio, 301 Ocean Drive, Apt 604, Miami FL33l39
SUBJ: Ethics Guidelines Acceptance of Gifts, or Services by City Employees
I the city commission a of, conduct prohibiting the
from a favor or service discounted below
fair value an entity doing business with the city or from a lobbyist.
2-449 of the Standards of Conduct "Acceptance gifts, favors. , is the
appropriate section of the city code fo~ such an amendment [Attachment 1.]
United States Depart:rn.ent of Justice Ethics Office
to
to
75
541
Amend Article VII. Standards of Conduct, of Part II, Subpart A, Chapter 2, Miami
City Code, by adding a sentence to Section 2-449; the amended subsection to as
follows:
No officer or employee of the city shall accept any gift, favor or service that
m!ght reasonably tend improperly to influence him in the discharge of his official
[Language added underlined,]
11
542
Vecchio, Miaml
pro1~e~d that the
and accepting a
market value for . an entity dOing busf~
Mr. Vecchio provided examples from the United
states Department of Office Handbook on acceptance of gifts by fedetat
employees. Discussion ensued. City Attorney Jose Smith stated that Miami-Dade
County is au~Te~ntiy reviewing the issue. 1'he Committee recommended that
Administration monitor the county regarding this issue and provide e status report to the
Flnance & Citywide Projects Committee.
3. Diacuulon regarding Security Alliance
AgJtON
The Committee recommended that the Administration begin the Request for
Proposals (RFP) proceu for security ~rvicea and rnclude the new criteria
mentioned In the meeting as part of the evaluation process.
Procurement DMsion Director Gus Lopez presented the item.
Beginning in or around at least the late 1990's and continuing until in or around March
2007, the defendant, JAMES B. LOFTUS, JR., and Brian W. Ouellette oocupled high-
level security positions at Rooms To Go ("RTGn), which was a Florida oorporetlon with
its principal place of business in the Middle District of Florida. 1n those positions, the
defendant and Ouellette were .Qiven substantial discretion by RTG to handle security-
related matters entrusted to them.
Without RTG'& knowledge and approval, however, the defendant and Ouellette created,
among other entitles, Lot 49 inc. and Wiley Management Corp. ("WWley Managemenr),
~~ly to cmab!~ th~mulws to ~tty receive kickbacks from an outside eecurity
vendor named Security Allianoo, U.C, alk/a Security Alliance of Florida, LLC ("Security
Alliance"), which RTG had retained to employ and manage Its security guards.
Unbeknownst to RTG, Security Alliance had created another company, Choice
Management Solutions, LLC echoice Management"), to make these kickback payments
to the defendants and OUellette.
To conceal and cover-up these kickbacks from RTG, the defendant and Ouellette,
among other things, secretly prepared sham invoices addressed to Securlt.y Alliance and
Choice Management which fraudulently sought payment for "consulting" services, and
which required that such payments be made indirectly to the defendant and Ouellette
2
110
------------------------~543---------------------------
CEO 92-33-July 17, 1992 1 of4
--July 17, 1992
TO
To: (Name withheld at request.)
City commissio:nera received a not a of office, the them
a block of tickets to pmo:rmances at a mu:nicipally~cr\Jta.ed theater. which the city
receives as a condition of with the producers. However, there is no
....., ......... ~~,.u.u that the are gifts a lobbyist or from a
or principal of a lobbyist who lobbies city ..,..., .................... "......,
ma:ioailon that the city contract ~er is a lobbyist who lobbies
""""'""""''"' of Section 112.3148, Florida Tims, the ....... v.>-Uu'""'"'
conml:l:saiiin may accept sets of tickets, but the ..,u ................. ....
~o1e&UJ $100, the mmt disclose
your mitialletter inqu.iry and through subsequent correspondence md discussions with our
staff, we are advised that City of lvfiami Beach o'\vm and operates a perfo1.!1'1ing aruf theater where
ballets, and oonoorts ere to the pnblio. You advise that the City has entered
into two contracts at the theater. City
a contract with a company which that the City will be provided 26 per
performance for e/Verf evem staged at the theater. For Broadway s:hows. the City contracts directly with
a producer$ and that contract requires the producer tc give the City 20 tickets for the opening night
prirmm::te'6 and 10 ticketa for each perrormmoo during the remainder of the show's flll:1. Thus. for a
typical Broadway show: the producer gives the City a total of 170 tickets~ md each Comm.issioner
..... 1'"'"''"'" 20 ti~.
The efl:!~cteH1 in the following manner. Prior to show or
Commissioners allotrnenl of tiokets m an envelop~ and
UJJ:Dmli!BJ.om:rs by personnel in the lv!ayots Office. Commissioners m::e
then to me or tickets to at their discrntlOXL You question the ~lieability of tho
provisions conmmed in Section 112.3148, Florida Sta~ as well as the Commission's
promulgated in Chapter 34-13. Florida Administrative Code, to th:ia sitwltioll.
Section 112,3 12(12). Florida StatUtes, contains the following definition
http://www.ethics.state.fl.WJ/opinions/06/ .. %SC92%5CCE0%2092~033.h:tm. 6/25/2012
544
-July 17, 1992 2of4
required by law, memz that which is accleptfHl
""'"''" ..... on me behalf. or vvhich is
......,.,.,vw.1 indirectly, or
which equal or
or to
service or having an attributable value
not a.b::eady provided for this section.
1Giftl does not include:
L services, or
rec:rj:ne,nrs employment.
It is our view that these would not be 11 bemefits''
Camx:L!issioners' public Twenty to a Broadway show was not the type
when we promulgated this The me of me ten:n "benefits" Rule 34-13.210 was .u:o•~, ....... ...,.
convey typically one1s such as health mmzrm1ce,
or paid parlci:ng. It was not intended to include such number of tickets to
perfo::mmces. Thus~ we are of the vi6W' that of would preclude
them i:om being considered a gift.
focus of om ttmm to 112.3148, ...... "u ..... .::o!4!.u.~.~;;~>,
.,.,.,.,,,.,,.r;.,.,,.,. ma1V1Clllill or"'"""''"'"'""""""
""~'~"'t'~>.nr to an agency that
'!"P.aim·m<wl or other designation process
mnuence disci!!io:rrrru!kirtg or to encourage the 1-'tlbl~""o""•
or of any proposal or recommendation by agency or an
employee or official of me the term "lobbyist" includes only a
who is to or otherwise as a
lobbyist in with or 1aw or was
545
6/25/2012
\
j'
CEO --July 17, 1992
12 months .,.,.,T,,.,.., •. r1 to registered or
lobbyist in with such
o:ramru::Jce, or law.
(4) A reporting individual or or my other
on behalf is prohibited from knowingly directly or
a gift a political or continuous
........ Q..,.."'"'"• as defined s. 106.011, or a lobbyist who l.Obltnes
-... ~·~-·"' individual's or procurement employee's agency, or uu.""""'Y
on behalf of the fum, employer, or principal
lobbyist, if knows or reasonably that the gift has a
excess of $100; however, ruch a gift may be accepted by such
behalf of a governmental entity or a charitable organization.
accepted on behalf govern.menw entity or clwitab1e
parson receiving the gift shall maintain custody of
period beyond wt reasonably to mre:nge
of custody and of the gift.
(5) political or a of oontinuDUB ........................ .
as defined ins. 106.011; a lobbyist who lobbies a reporting individual's or
employee 1s agency; the partn.er, :fum1 ero.ployer, or pru1mpa.J.
a lobbyistj or on behalf the lobbyist or ... ~.-~!"1'1-
"'"' ..... ""'l'·w.. or employer of lobbyist is prohibited
..,,.,...,-.r,., or indirectly, a tha.t has a value
!~IO:rtmg individual or procmememi
nn'tl:tAu,to~r such person
l'e'DIJmilS£ individual or prcicm:em.ent
mteli!.ilfl!l to transferred to a gov·ernme.:Jtltal
organization.
(6)(a.) Notwithstanding provuno!l..!! subsection (5), an entity
of the legislative or judicial branch, a department or commission of the
executive brmch, a a municipality. an airport authority, or a
school board may give, eitb.m' directly or indirectly. a gift having a value
excess of $100 to a:ny reporting individual or procurmnent employee if a
public pu.:rpose em be shown for the gift; . . . .
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4), a reporting
individual or procurement 5m.ployee may accept a having a value in
excess $100 from an entity of the legislative or judicial a
department or commission of the executive brmch, a county, a
mu:mc1pahty an airport authority, or s. school board if a public purpose
the gift; ....
Subsection 112.3148(4) would prohibit a City from accepting a
3 of4
in excess 00 from a lobbyist who lobbies t:he City, or partner, fum, employer, or prtncl;pe.l.
of a lobbyist. While we public employees can and do attempt to icilum:1ce
"'""'"'"'" of the of we do not believe that the definition of 11lobbyist11 was
!.ll.~, ...... ,, ... to persons or their duties with :respect to their own agencl4~S ,.._,,.,c;1ri'h,·r ..
"1obbying.11 thore any indication tba.t the City Contrs.ct Manager m tbis instance is
behalf of s. firm., employer. of principal of a lobbyist who lobbies !he City. Accordingly,
out view that 112.3148( 4), Florida Statutes, is inapplicable to this ooenmo.
Subsection112.3148(5) prohibits a lobbyist who lobbies the City Beaoh, o:r the
:fum. ·employer, err principal of a directly or indirectly giving a gift with a vW.ut ir1 ~~
of $100 to of the City the reaso!l..!! stated in the we do
http://www.etbics.state.fl..us/opinions/06/ .. %5C92%5CCE0%2092-03 3.htm 6/25/2012
546
CBO 4of4
L:OJ:lttact ... v,.......,'l!!i'" ... as a. lobbyist who lobbies the City Concmission,
Thus, Subsection 112.3148(5), is fi_,._A ... ,_
our a:nalysis.
With regard to Subsection 112.3148(6), Florida we co!lBtrue
exception to the prohibitions contained in Subsections 112.3148(4)
for goverm:nental entities who are engaged in lobbying For exa:mple.
a lobbyist to lobby the Legislature fo:r additional funding the arts
member of the Legislature theater tiekets worth more tha:n. $100,
Sta11:Ute:a, would he applicable md a public would to exist both
give the tickets to the members of the Legislature. and to
We do not view the situation before us to one of thls
to
uosf~Ctlons 112.3148(4), (5). nor (5)
"'"'"'""'"''"' t.b.e the City receives pur<SUaJilt
~.,.;oinmlsm~onem may accept the
Smtutes. Thus. face value of
Coxmml!!sicl:tmr "'"'"'"'""-exce'eas $100. Commissioner must disclose
we ha,ve promlliga.ted specifically for
,,.,,,.,.,.., is answered accordingly.
http://www.ethlcs.stat.e.flralopiniom/06/ .. %5C92%SCCEOo/o2092-033.htn
547
meJnOe!l:'s of City
con~rac·ts. we me of the
accorrum.ce with
"'"""'"'"'" a
on
6/25/2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE C!TY COMMISSION OF ThE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING THAT COMPLIMENTARY TICKETS FOR
i:>ERFO!UIANCES AND 'SVENTS AT TOl'A AND THE CONVENT.ION CENTER
WHICH WOULD OTliERWISE BE RECEIVED BY THE M:AYO:R, CITY
COMMISSIONERS AND CITY EMPLOYEES SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE
:l\VAI:LABLE TO DISAD\'1\NTAGED YOUTHS, DISABLED PERSONS,
SENIOR CITIZENS AND O'l'li:ER HIDIV!DtrALS DO DO NO:t' ll:l\.Vlil 'l'EE
FINANCIAL ABILIT~ TO PURCHASE TICKETS ~OR CULTURAL
EVENTS, I
WHEREAS, pursuant to contracts between the City of Miami Beach
and producers and promoters of performances and events of the city
of; Miami Beach Theater· of the Performing Arts (TOPA) and the ~!iami
Beach Convention Center, the Mayor, City Commissioners and
employees currently receive tickets for various events and
performances occurring at those facilities; and
VffiEREAS, the City Commission believes that these tickets
should be utilized for the benafi't of disadvantaged youths,
disabled persons, senior citizens of the City ami other individuals
who do not have the financial ability to purchase tickets for
cultural events; and
our fine senior citizens and other individuals who do not have the
financial ability to purchase tickets for oultural events; and
WHEREAS, 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
tickats for cultural events are necessary and proper; and
WHEREAS, organizations, such as the Miami Heat, have created
programs for this purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THlil GI'l'Y COWii92IOl:l OF TEE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that:
ll That the :following City Officials shall receive a max1rnurn
of four (4) 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 Commissioners
(2) City Manager
--------------------------s4a----------------------~~-
(J) City Attorney
The following City officials shall receive a maximum of
two (2) complimentary tickets for one performance of ell
new productions or avsrrts at 'l'Cl?A and the Convention
Center for which such tickets are available.
(1) Simior Assistant City Mahagar,
Admini<rtrator
(2) Chief Deputy City Attorney
contract
2) Any and all remaining tickets shall be donated to
disadvantaged youths, disabled persons, senior citizens
of Miami Beach and other individuals who do not have the
financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural
events.
3) The city administration 10ha1l develop guidelines and
procedures with regard to the administration
of thh program and ehaU submit said guidelines and
procedurea to the City Commissi-on for final
n-7, RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
o, DISTRIBUTION Of COMPLIMENTARY TOPA/GONVENTION CENTER EVENT TICKETS.
l, DECEMBER 29, 1992, MEMORANDUM FROM MAYOR SEYMOUR GELBER.
a. A RESOLUTlON OF THE CITY COHlilSS!ON OF TilE Cl'IT 0!' MIAMI !lEACH, fLORlllA,
PROVIDING THAT GOMPLIH~TARY T!CKETS FOR.PERFORMANCES!fu~O EVENTS AT TOPA AND
THE CONVENTION CENTER YHIDH ~OULD OTHERWISE BE RECEIVED BY THE MAYOR, CITY
COMM!SS!ONERS, AND CITY EM!'l.DYEES, SHAU. HE!'U!AFTER BE HA.!lB AVAILAbLE AT A
DISCotnn: TO SEl'I!Ol!. !l!TUEMS RESIDING 111 MUM! BEACH, WITH THE RE\JEi<UE FROM SA!O
SALES TO BE ADOEtl TO THE DN~ DOLLAR TICKET EURCHARGE BANK ACCOUNT FOR BXP.ANll&!l
'fUT'JR!l SENIOR CITlZEN l:JXSCOUNTS BY Tlli1. A!l!l!TIONAL PORCHASE OF T!CKETS FOR
GENERAL PERFO!illAilOES AND RESALE TO S!!tliOR CITIZENS RES!Dl:Ntl AT Hlfu'!I BEACH AT
A DlSOOUNT OF 50% OR MORE. (REQUESTED EY MAYOR S~OUR GELBER)
2, OECEl1BER 29, 1992, HF.MO!WIDUH WROH CITY A'ITORNE'i,
a, A RESOLUTION OF THE G!T'l COf!lilSIHON OP TilE CITY OF UIMI BEAD!!, :Fl.ORIDA,
PROVIDING THAT COMPLIMEWTARY TICKETS FOR PERFORMANCES ~~D EVBN!S AT TOPA AND
THE CONVENTION CENTER 'mUOll \lOULD On!ER\1!8E BE RECEIVED !IY n!E liAYOR, Clrt
OOHH!SSIONER8, AND CITY EHI.'l.DYUS, S!W.L HEREAFTER BE MADE AVA!LAlll.E TO
DISAJllJAN'l'AGEll YOO!HS, lliSASL!>ll PUSDNS, SENIDl!. CI'UZENS, AND OTHER INll!V1DtlALS
lroO ilO NOT HAVE TilE HNANClAl. ABIUTY TO PURCBASE TICKETS FOR 0\JLTIJRAL E\IEN'fS.
(REQUESTED !IY COMMISSIONER NEISEN KASDIN)
3 !lECE>lBER 29, 1992, MEMORANDUM FROM CONTRACT ADMIHISTRATOR ~ORMAN LITZ, TO
COHHISSIONER SUSAN GOTTLIEB, REGARDING COMMUNITY BENEFIT COMMITTEE (CBC) FOE THE
PERFO~~ING ARTS, WITH RESOLUTIONS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Mih~TES, ETC,
Joel Arnold, FTC-Florida, Inn, counsel and CBC Chairman, advised that Pte
tha~ ~:aula of fr<>e tickets >Ills improper l th4t FTC GUggastad (amioned by C!lC)
that tha City Manager establish the ticket distribution procedure, with the users
afforded an opportunity to diacu~s any proposed procedure before implementation,
Go~missioners offered several suggestions, including;
Thee chs Co~~ission address the issue of the number of complimentary ticksts when
nmewel of the l:'TG contract. (Cornr, Gottlleb)
That the request staff to advise producers that it would no longer
aac.apt the tickets. (Comr. Paatlson)
That tha Commission a resolution indioetl.ng t:hat l. t no longer wished co recel.v@
chess quantities of , and ask a oornmittea to develop a plan for Commission's
consideration char would address the issues rsiaad. (Mayor Gelber)
That the Administratlon/SMG survey tha ticket distribution polieyjpractice of other
such fseili.tl.u and submit ceport/tecommendadm; for Comm.lasion' s eo:msideratl.on.
(Comrs. Gottlieb and Kaadin)
ln ruponse to Commissioner Gottlieb's inquiry, the City Attorney advised that "lthough
no rasolution had been ndoptod the policy, it was written into the eontrocts
which ware authorized by resolution, approving the receipt of tickets by the
Giry, Commis"iomn l'"ulson concern that under ei t:h"r proposal, the t:ieket.s
would continue to flow to who would be making the cont:ract:s wl.t:h producers.
2. aesolution No. 9J-Z0694 adopted. _,._ -' . ,, (Vote: 7·0.)
Cornminioner Pearlsor. advised the Admiuistrat:ion th~t h" no lmoge:: )/ished to ;:::llcd.lr~
any tickets, and it may direct them u it wished (suggested they be given r:c tho
Personnel Director for an employee incentive and emplayee•of-the-month program which
he was attempting to create with the new Personnel Director). Commissioner Go'ttlhh
advised of ha& l2/2l/92 letter to tha City Manager that ahe would no
secept tickatB for any event in TOPA: and Commissioner advised that he
"""t a "imil"r ler:tl!r to the Man .. ger.
th.u:ing th" dt .. eU3,ion, u.,.,.i .. mionar Ei .. "nberg
inacouracy and erroneous Lmpreesl.on left to the
this ,,.;tter.
di!H!!Oti..ofmc<:ion with the
the IHBllil 1l~r11ld erticlea on
Note; l/5/S3 latter from PTG-Florida, Xnc. , exptlluing concerns reg.,rding th" proponl
to disburse t.icket~ via the Citizens tlertefit Committee, subm1ct:ed at meeting and
filed with ~:he records.
J~"'UARY 6, 1993
-------------------------550~----~~~~~-----------
Poorwmt to the Bt:hicil Cmmrili!sioo's em.btmg the put!mse
:is to serve as the guardian of the public trust by, among other t.binas, cdtl!~tg
appointed officials and other public servants e to the required standards
Commission is empowered to exercise all powers either specifically 5' ... ,....,.
of those cnumerat.Qd powers. Accordingly, after the conclusion of a
Com1ption Unit ofthe Miami-Dade State Attorney's Offioe
Ethics (COE); we felt it appropriate to follow up on conoems ide1ntjlied
and suggest recommendations and guidelin~s to address those OOil(fe~:m.
involved a grant dispute between the City·ofMiami Beach \V1VLLJ.1 ~a:u
Symphony (NWS). The initial complaint was niade by a prQmi!ltelf
Miami Beach mayor who was also the Chairman of the Board ot-'.lfi.tJ~r.s
allegation was·that the CMB was refusing to pay the NWS monies
Agreement (GIAA) unless the NWS provided the Mayor, CoJ:ntn:i~ij::meJrs
Administrative staff with complimentary tickets to NWS p«Jfon:-oes.
memo is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Although the joint investigation did not uncover any vnu;c.uor•n
expose flawed· policies that have resulted in unwarranted and imp1'J:opria1:e bl=ncfits
and appointed officials. Elected and appointed officials can explOfll
them with thousands of dollars worth of tickets to coveted events .)llSIPfed.
that have a contractual relationship with the local governments
Moreover, further investigation has shown that several other munic:~palmi;:&
1 Section 2-1 065 of 1:he Code of Miami-Dade County,
551
1
i
' to \ 1
' 1 2 j
!
' I
as
A
be it re-solved by the Commission ofthebi{Y ofMtamt
.uu,dwn. N'lr.,,..,.,,., that; 1""
1) The following City officials a ~r (4)
complimentary tickets for one peiformt:mce of all new pr
and the Convention Center:
(1) members of the Ci{Y Commission
(2)
(3) City Attorney
-r.,.,,,,... ... n.-.. City officials shall recetve a maximum of two ~ complimimta
tickets for q[all or events 1 TOPA
Convention which such tickets are available: ·t·
(1) Senior Assl$tant City Manager, CcmtractAdmmi . ator
(2) Chief Deputy City Attorney .
2) Any all shall be donated to disa~ntagedyou:rn.t;
dtsabk.d persons, aenior citizens ofMiami Beach and other ~dividuals
not have the financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural vtmts.
3) The City ad;ntntstr·attc:m shall develop guidelines and
nrtlnt:~tmr.2.~ with to the administration of this progr.
saldguidelines appropriate procedures to the
552
2
con1mttt~ apPointed by the Ctty Manager shall meet k a pf
or~~e:m:tzattoi'ZS m"lnh~,. groups eligible to receive promoti tickets ... the ltsll
ur;t'iatl01ti every quarter. . 1 1
2) A current list oflooal organizations or civic P1'fJU:n.'l
which a rotation of recipients shall exist.
3) Dcmamd promotional tickets
fondraisers ...
ten (1 0) promotional tickets shall
one show/event.
a representatiVe from an organization receives the tickets
Jrf(c.miZimoim~ will a form rrni J"etur
CttyMo:nager's Within two ofthe show/event ..
not return the complePJdform, then the City Manager will
tickets to that organization ...
It mould
553
3
by nrat'!t.wr.l'! is likely to
favor with blocks ofl,C!UmtiW. vctm-s and/or
I tis
20694)
event a policy or procedure that imulates ele(:t~li
involvement process ofthe ...................... ,
to when there is a public nurr1n11P.
554
4
a public one.
property
public purposes is """"''"'""'":!
City of Miami
UWUl:Wlii:m (SETf), .....,...,,.iUA
~~••;;wo.u• City ~v.u;.ua15,"'
'
and. the City Ma:oa.ger eaoh received two. (2) tickets per session for
sessions plus a. parking spaoe for the SETT. A City official advlise4
tid.<.ets are provided as part of an agreement between the City's !JeJ$arlll:le
Management and MiamikDade County for use of the Marine Stadi~tn
official in the City advised that he gives th~ tickets away to ''iii
people. •• Thus, we see another example of elected officials using
in a manner that inures to their personal or political benefit In pmqtioe, the *'public ', a....;r.,...,
little, jf any, benefit, from suoh a. self -irlterested mode of dimiuut;Lv;u,
Inquiry into similar practices by the City of Homestead (
lease agreements for the Homestead Sports Complex and the Bom~stel!td
, Agreements"). For eaoh event held at the complex (pursuant to the
La. Ley Sports at the City of Homestead, Inc.), COH receives: the
forty ( 40) sk.ybox ticket~ and twenty (20) parlcing passes. .ntr:mw:rt~to
Homestead Motorsports Joint Venture and Ralph Sanchez, COH
complimemary general admission tickets, the use of two (2) skjibo:~s. and c•OJ:ni:dim
tickets for each seat in the skyboxes for each event held at the sp
ofCOH are granted a twenty-five percent (25%) discount off of the
motorsports events held at the speedway. Each eligible employee
two (2) discounted tickets.
555
\
!
: . .. 6
556
taken by the recipients in his or her public role.
official does, of course, subject the official to the gift reporting
the tickets exceeds $100.00.
A~;ttnt'1an® v mrt gf otfipim c!tYiomm.tY business:
Investigation also determined that, in addition to the m:yJ:iaq
punruant to "public benefit" clauses, eleQted and appointed omow$
numerous events as a matter of"offioial city business." \ : :
Attendance at ••official city business" events generally doe' not require · ~scloSttre u
long as the elected/appointed official is, in fact, performing some ~fide official at
the event (see generally~ FSEC opinion 01-019). However, it d be noted that
ventl~to official . ' <'
city business. ·~official functions" can include, but are not limi.ted o: participating ' 'a ribbon
cutting, giving a speech, or leading the pledge of allegiance.
There may aJ.go be occasions when, due to the presence of
special invited guests. it will be appropriate for officials to atl:end
persons as representatives of the local government Such oooo.si
to special occasions mlher than regularly scheduled events, and o
designation by the coooty/city government to those officials in atte¢t~m:oe.
7
55~7~---------------------------
It is willkely that
1 1 ~ mdividi.m.l," includes "(a) (I,) is elected to office in
' state, and every~ who is appoi:nLed to n vacancy fur in
112.3145(1), Florida St!rtuts.
it is that e!e,m;:u officials extreme ~tion
to gov·anmeJ(lt
is excess of $100.0 .
( 4) Dlsala:m:re. Any person included in the term de
through (6) shall disclose as provided herein any gift
reC<om:~LllMtdaiioo is
v~·-Q~isan m
It is
to
560
public
It
is to
"public benefit1s"' ru.Jivwl ...
am:J•omtec officials.
bexlettt" clauses, as long as
We want to underscore. policy stat:ement.
they MJ.U'LU ...
them roles_ ti DHo:VUIIJ.Ii.JlV u•~IO .... LU.l'wU,
benefits should benefit the. public;
................ UleJmei!ves with It is une1WlOIU,
n
of
1.
2.
5.
"be by your ~X~Wrtituency is
4 ~in-"-"(a)(!.) nv..yp"""' who;, .too""' to officcJ ~ and eVIffty ~ wllo is appointed to fill a vacancy fur tmm td
112.3145(1), Florida Statutes.
12
l
l
l l
13
-------------------------563 __________________________ _
From:
Sent:
To:
Ramos, Miriam S. (COE) [MSRAMOS@miamldade.gov]
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:46PM
Abbott, Danle!; Aguila, Raul; Alfonsfn. Lourdes; Amuohastegul, Fernando; Armstrong, Bart;
Barnes, Monica; Bleier, Alison; Bierman, Mitch; Bllzln Sumberg (Christine Bower); Bittner,
Warren; Boksner, Aleksandr; Boniske, Nina; Boutsis, Eve; 8risibe, Emomotimi; Britton,
Tiffany; Brochln, Robert; Bru, Julie; Caballero, Sylvia; Calleja, Karen: Chiaro, Maria J. ; Citrin,
Charles; Cypen, Stephen; Dannheisser, Lynn : Dickens, Sonia Knighton; Dumas, Carmen;
Entin, Monica; Espino, Daniel; Everett, Cynthia; Forte, !Iiana; Friedman, Chad; Galdos,
Roland; Garcia-Toledo, Vcky; Ge!ier, Joseph; Greco, John; Green, Chris; Greenberg, Murray;
Grodnbk, W!!liam; Hearn, John; Held, Gary; Helfman, Steve ; Herin, John; Hernandez,
El!zabeeth; Harren:.~, Jose Pepe; Hialeah Attorneys; Hili, Marion; lrizarri, Ramon; Jacobowl'lz,
Jan; Jaramillo-Velez, Elsa; Jimenez, Jose; Kennedy, Harlem:; Kuper, Richard; Leen, Craig;
lehr, Bruce; Lenard, Howard; Lloyd-Still, Robert; Maer, Miriam; Marks, Uoyd; Martinez-
Esteve, Jorge {GAO); Mahaffey, Kathy; Mendez, VIctoria; Meyers, Robert; Min, Barnaby;
, Moas, Joanna: Moneetlme, Regina; Morales, Jimmy; Nagron, Melissa; Norris-Weeks,
Burnadette; Olin, Jean; O:tlnot, Hans; Palenzuela, Alexander; Papy, Don; Pepe, Thomas;
Pizzi, Michael; Ninoshka; Riesberg, Barbara; Rosewald, Rob; Rothstein, Steven;
Santiago, Amy; Sarafan, Richard; Selden, Jan; Sherman, Craig 8.; Slbila, Estrella; Siege\,
Darcee; Smith, Jose; Suarez:~Rlvas, Rafael; Swltl<es, Robert; Trevarthen, Susan L.; Turner,
Debora: Ventura, Ralph; V!llalobos, Jose; Vizcaino, Diane; Weiss, Richard Jay; Wendell,
Laura K.; Wolfe, Mel; Wolpln, David; Xlques, Veronica
Ethics Commission meeting summary
For Immediate Release: March 27, 2012
Contact: Joseph Centorino, Executive Director
(305) 350·0613 or centori@mlamldade.gov
Ethics Commlsslon on free event tickets
As a foUow up to guidelines it Issued earlier this month for the off\daluse of complimentary tickets by public offlcials,
the Mlam!-Dacle Commission on Ethics and Pubi\c 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 lncludes hosting dignitaries, v!sftors 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 how public officials should distribute tickets that are received through a
contractual agreement with a private entity in order to <!Void possible misuse of publrc 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 schools, chl\dren's
-gro l:l ps ·or cro m m u n !ty · t:J rga 11lzatl tz~ns,_ The -tl cke.ts-a I so .cou I d J:Je.used .as.re.war.d sJ.or_c iti zen.s _o.r . ..emp.lQ.~e,e.s_m;:~Jstng
substantial contributions to the community or local government. The em: wl\! continue to provide opinions to inquiring
officials regarding whether other uses are ethically acceptable.
1
564
i'n a related matter, Ethics Commissioners found No Probable Cause to a complaint (C 12-07) bat officials in the City of
Mi~ml violated County and City Ethics Ordinances by failing to report tickets they had received to events at the Knight
Bayfront Park and the Mayor's Ball, but also approved the drafting of a genera! Letter of Instruction forfuture
reference. That letter will dte 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 ob!lgation to report gifts
(which include 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 to day'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 NiranJan Seepersaud also worked
for American Coach Unes from March 2007 through June of 2010, but fal!ed 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 fll!ng requlrement by the end of 2011,
no action would be taken. He has failed to do so, and the complafnt (C 12.-08) will proceed.
Two complaints (C 12-09 and C 12-13) 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 Councilman Stephen Shelley of "exploitation of official position" by using a photo
of himself on the city website for his business website, The city did pay for the original photograph. However, works of
government are exc.luded 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 sufficient."
Seven complaints were filed against Homestead Councilwoman Judy Waldman relating to her re-election campaign last
fall. Four of them 12·17, c 12-18, C 12-19 and C 12.-23) were deemed "not legally sufficient'' because they don't
violate any laws. Two complaints (C 12.-20 and C 12-2.1) were found "not lega!!y suffic~ent" because they allege
violations of state election laws, which is outside ofthe jurisdiction ofthe COE. The final one (C does not allege
an actlon that violates the Ethics Code.
No Probable Cause was found to a complaint (C 12.-06) accusing a Miami Lakes Council member of exploitation of official
position. A resident ofthe clty ai!eged that Richard Pulldo demanded that, as a of a munlcipa! 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 hmd to a f!ag football league. The investigation found no substance to the charges, and the complaint was
dismissed.
A complaint (C l2.-03) filed against a lobbyist, John Morse, who registered on behalf of Ascent Heaithcare Solutions in
September of 2010 but fa!ied to fiie the required Lobbyist Expenditure Statement by the Ju!y 1, 2011, deadline, was
dismissed after he completed the form. lnvestigators learned he had moved out of town and never received the
notices, but once they called him and explained hls 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 dalms adjuster with Miami-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 Reguest for Opinion 12P07 thatKenneth McCoy's private clients cannot have interests adverse to the
(:;-u-nty-~~·~~t~olo~~~int~ln pr~Pertv associated wtththCCounty-:-The RQO also recommends that, rf granted-· .. ..
permlsslon, McCoy provide the names of his private clients to his supervisor.
2
565
!'he Eth!"ts Commission was created in 1996 as em independent agency with advisory and quasi-judicial powers. It Is
i:o~posed off/wE members, se.rving staggered terms of four years each Through a program of education, outreach and
enforcement, the Commission seeks to empower the community and bolster public trust.
*The addendum Is posted on MiamiDadeEth!es.com
Rhonda Victor Slbl\ia, Community Outreach Coordinator
Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics & Public Trust
4 9 West Flagler, Suite 820
Miami, Florida 33 i 30
305-350-0631
·'Dollvorlng Excelleru;-fJ Every DE4y''
Miamf-..Oado County is a pubfic entity subjec! to Chapter 119 of t!Je Florida Statutes conc<3mlng public records. E·rnall
merss<:Iil!:l.:.> ere covered under such laws and tfnts subjecf fa disclosure.
3
566
l l, I /\ ;., I. ' c. I[_J..~ ..
! v ... l /-\I \" \! u ..
OFfiCE Or t>-!E CITY A TieRNEY
JOSE SMITH, CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust;
and Joseph Centorino Esq., Executive Ethics Commissi n.
February 28, 2012
;Recommendations regarding "'Pttblic Be,nefits" Clauses in Cerurin Qt:tVtml:!Jlent
Contracts.
As City Attorney fur the City of Miami Beach, the following my analysis of
above-referenced draft Guidelines a:nd Recomme:ndations 1 proposed by Joe Ce:ntorino, Executive
Director of the Miami-Dade County Co:m.mi.ssion on Ethics and Public Trust. In essence,
Executive Centorino has concluded that:
• Tickets to events received by City officials pursuant to "Public Benefits" City
contracts should not be distributed by individual city officials; and
• City officials' acceptance oftickets/attenda:nce at such ticketed events is appropriate only
when a public purpose is evidenced by active, official action rather than by "passive
spectator attendance".
Vlhile it is undisputed that City resources (such as event tickets) may be used only where a
''public purpose'' a municipality's policy determination concerning the manner of
accomplishing such purpose should left to the discretion of the Cit:ls governing body.
Absent legislation specifically authorizing the County Ethics Commission to evaluate said
policy, such dete:m:rination is :not subject to review by the Ethics Commission. Although Mr.
Centorino's Proposed Guidelines legitimate public ooncems, 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 Guideli.."les are not appropriate for adoption
by the COE.
1 Tl:ris (undated) draft proposal is entitled: "Guidelines and recommendations regarding 'public benefit'
clauses in certain government contracts".
567
HAS
ETHICS.
Subsequent to the conclusion of the 2011 State Attorney's investigation of City of Miami
Beach's negotiations with New World Symphony (finding no criminal conduct). the
Guidelines were written to address "flawed policies that have resulted in unwarranted
for elected and appointed officials"2• Although the City that
the Proposal is intended as for alJ governmental entities subject to the jurisdiction of
the County Commission, the stated for unfairly City
1.-fiami Beach as a transgressor of ethics laws, to recognize the contribution City
has towards ethics good government
well over the past decade, the City has enacted strict ethics laws supplemental to Federal,
State and County legislation to strengthen ethics rules and avoid the skirting of said laws,
otherwise achievable due to loopholes or the other legislative bodies to so
Included among these novel City-enacted ethics laws been lobbyist
campaign refo~ restrictions
gmremo:ruenxru employees, prohibitions on indirect lobbying activities by and
elected government officials, increased prohibited contractual relationships of government
and increased prohibitions on direct and indirect prohibited business
~· ... ,-::,,~·~::; scope of voting conflict proscriptions. Additionally, most
evident of the to ethics legislation is City provision (self-initiated
by City Commission) voter approval before the enactment law wea!{e:m.rtg
City ethics laws.
All the measures demonstrate an absolute and unwavering commitment by the
City to enact effective ethics laws. Any suggestion that the City has exploited its
ignores City's demonstrated resolve towards enacting and enforcing meaningful
legislation.
TICKET POLICY HAS BEEN IN EFFECT Sll'ICE
APPROVAL ETH1CS COJvflviTSSION IN 1993, WITHOUT CO:M1v.ffi:N1 OR
CRITICISM FROM COUNTY ETHICS CO:tvfMISSION.
City of Miami Beach ticket policy as embodied in City Resolution No. 93-20694, by
then Mayor Seymour Gelber) had as its foundation an opinion from the Florida on
Ethics condoning public officials' of complimentary tickets, conditioned only upon
disclosure of tickets received. In State 92-33, the tickets were held to constitute
permissible gifts to the City cornmissioners 3 , which had to be disclosed quarterly if their value
2 Proposed Polley at page 1, 2,
2
5 8
exceeded $100. The basis for the City's request for the opm1on was a concern for strict
compliance with applicable ethics regulations and a need to ensure legality of the City's
contractual process, whereby (in that instance) it negotiated wit.~ a theater management company
to operate the City's theaters and the City would receive, as partial consideration, tickets
performance every event staged at the theater.
As reflected in State COE 92-33, the City of Miami Beach made full disclosure to the
Ethics Commission of all relevant facts concerning the manner in which the City negotiated for
and received the tickets, and the City's process for distribution and usage ofthe tickets.
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 tickets received4, Since the Opinion's issuance in 1992, the City of Miami
Beach has relied in good faith upon its holding, and has adhered to its dictate of timely gift
disclosure.
Despite the transp·arency of the City's ticket policy5, it has never
Dade County Ethics Commission or anyone else.
questioned by the Miami-
Municipalities in the State of Florida enjoy home rule power, granting them " .. ,govem:mental,
corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perfo:rm
municipal functions and render municipal services, and may any power for municipal
purposes except as otherwise provided by 1aw," Fla Const. Art Vill, sec, 2 (b).
Horne rule municipalities are subject to the additional Constitutional requirement that
ex:penditJTes of City funds be a "public purpose". Fla. Const, Art. VII, sec. 10.
Accordingly, although a City may enact a policy with regard to its use ofpublic·resou,rces, such
policy must serve a "public purpose", As win be seen below, the ''public purpose"
determination by a City carries the presurnption of constitutional validity, and is subject only to
judicial review.
3 Note: At the May 26, 2011 County Ethics Commission hearing on Complaint 11-04, COB
Commissioner Seymour Gelber (after recognizing the City of Miami Beach's well-established ticket
policy) stated his belief that the complimentary tickets received by City personnel were not "gifts" and
therefore did not require disclosure. Commissioner Gelber fJrther went on to state that the ticket issue
was "much ado about nothing".
4 In subsequent opinions, the State COB has condoned identical ticket distribution/use policies of the City
of Daytona Beach (State COB 05 re: tickets to Internationa1 Speedway), City of St Petersburg (State COE
Ol-19 re: Tropicana Stadium), and the City of Orlando and Orange County (State COE 95-36 re: tickets to
Amway Stadium),
5 See f.n. #8 herein.
3
569
A. THE CITY CO!v'.lvllSSION'S TICKET POLICY IS PRESUMED VALID.
What constitutes a public purpose in the first instance, a question for the legislature
(i.e., City Commission) to detennine, and its opinion should be given great weight. ~~~
~~=->--=>"-'--''-'--'-'-"'-'='"-""==.J'-"---"'.:::..:=:..-"'-"'-'-'--'-"'--'-=-==, State v. Housing Finance Authority of Polk
==J-• 376 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 1979), holding that the detem1ination of what constitutes a
valid public purpose for expenditure of public funds is a factual determination for the
legislative and governing body involved. The question of "public purpose" thus involves
exercise of legislative judgment and is a matter that the Miami Beach City Commission, as
legislative and governing body of the City of Miami Beach, must determine by City Resolution
setting forth the requisite legislative findings and intent.
Unless expressly or impliedly
restrained by statute, a municipal corporation has discretion in the choice of means and methods
for exercising the powers given it for governmental or public pu..-rposes, and the usual limitations
upon the actions of municipalities within their legal powers are good faith and reasonableness,
not wisdom or perfection. All doubts as to the propriety of means used the exercise of an
undoubted municipal power will be resolved in favor of the municipality. ==._::_:.__:_==.;~
~~~~647 So. 358 (Fla.1908).
2.
When 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
comports with constitutional and statutory rights. 331 So.2d 297
~~~'"'"' Art. ll, § 3, Fla. Const.; and 40 So.2d.
371, 374 (Fla. 1949).
Unlike the courts, which possess jurisdiction to review public policy determinations, .,15,~u" .... ".,
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 snch powers as the statute
confers on them.'" Fla. AGO 75-120 citing 42 Am. Ju.r., Public Administrative Law, sec. 68, and
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
570
... we view this question [expending City funds towards Sister City program} as being
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 Ethics presented in this
situation, we have no authority to decide in an advisory opinion whether the use of City
resources in this manner is proper.
(Emphasis added) .State COB 85-13; and see, Fla .. AGO 83-5 holding that a "public purpose''
determination cannot be delegated to the Attorney Genera1'9 Office.
Accordingly, the issue of"public purpose" is not within the purview of the Miami-Dade County
Ethics Commission. Neither the Miami-Dade (County Code section 2-11.1) or the related Code
provisions enabling the Ethics Commission (County Code Cha?ter 2, Article LXXVIII) the
COE the legal authority to issue guidelines establishing what is and what is not acceptable
justification for a City's public policy regarding its use of goverm:nent resources. thorough
review of the County Code fails t0 reveal any authority, express or implied6, granting oot0
the Ethics Commission the power to second-guess a City's public policy determination. See
~ck Pl§Sia Condominium v. Divisio:tt Qf Florida Lan.d Sales and Condominiums. Dm:tart:ment of
~~~~~~!:li 371 So.2d 152 (Fla. lst DCA 1979).
The only sections of the County Ethics Code relev:ant to the City's use of its resources (such as
tickets to events it has received arrns-length negotiations) are:
e County Code section 2-11.1 (e) governing "Solicitation of Gifts"; and
e County Code section 1.1 (g) governing "Exploitation of Official Position".
Neither of above ethics regulations however establish a criteria for "public purpose",
Moreover, both of these Code sections recognize that so long as the actions were pursuant
to City policy (i.e., City of 11iami Beach Resolution No. 93~20694), those sections ar.e
complied with. (See, County Code section 2-11.1 (e)(2), and (g): " ... No person i•1.cluded in the
tenns defined in subsection (b)(l) through (6) and (b)(13) shall use or attempt to use his or her
official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for hirn.self or herself or others except
as may be specifically permitted by other ordinances and resolutions previously ordained or
adopted or hereajte1• to be Oi"dained or adopted by the Board of County Commissioners".
(Emphasis added.) Id. Although the COB may desire to review issues of a City's public policy
detennination7 , absent County Code authorization, the COB lacks such reviewing power.
6 Although County Code section 2-1066 provides that the COE " ... may exercise all those powers ejfuer
specifica11y granted herein or necessary in the exercise of those powers herein enumerated", such implied
authority may not warrant the exercise of a substantive power not conferred. ~~==-~~""'-;t_,__~~,
167 So. 33 1936); Fla. AGO 73-374, Any implied power must be necessarily implied from a duty
which is specifically or expressly imposed by statute. Fla. AGO 75-161; 323 So.2d 597
(Fla. lDCA 1975). Any power to be implied must also be essential in order to carry out the expressly
granted power or duty i.c-nposed, e.g., Fla. AGO 73-374 and 67 C.J.S. Officers s. 102.
7 However laudable or cm::n:m.endable the actions of the COE, as stated in Eh.~~~~~-""~~!:1-:t.:.
State, 237 So.2.d 797, 799 (Fla. lst DCA 1970), "(i)t is well settled that a statutory agency does not
s
571
1&l~kl.b~~~ill.J,&h_~.b@~o&1lill.Y. 374 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3DCA 1979), in which the
Third District Court of Appea1 found that Miami-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 require any envirom:nental impact statement from appellant:
.. .in our opinion, contrary to appellees' contentions, none of appellant's activities as
reflected by tr.is 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. s 24-3(14)(b),
Dade Code. However, ... the important question before us is not whether activities
complained of should or could be forbidden, but rather only whether they have been.
Id. at 1149.Just as in the issue before the COE is whether the City policy violates
the County Ethics Code, not whether the City's policy should be subject to review by the Ethics
Code. of its good intentions, the COB may not invoke jurisdiction over a matter
when the County Commission has not granted it such power.
3. CONSTITUENTS HAVE ULTIMATE SAY CONCER1\'TI'JGPROPRIETY OF
CITY'S TICKET POLICY .
• bJter all 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"'""""'"'"'' .... '""'
object to the present ticket policy, they are to voice their objections to the governing body,
and the policy is not amended to the public's concerns, the recourse will undoubtedly
be at ballot box;
Courts will not detennine whether or not the action of public officers is wise, economical
or advantageous, such questions belonging exclusively to public officers and boards.
If they exercise their powers foolis:bJy or unwisely, the recourse of their constituents is to
to the ballot box and not to the courts.
(Emphasis added.) 112 So.2d
898. 903 (Fla. 2DCA 1959). Accord, Town of Riviera Beach v, State, 53 So.2d 828, 831 (Fla.
1951) McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (3'rt Bd.), at sec.10.33.
possess any inherent powers; such agency is limited to the
necessary implication, by the statutes (here the Dade Code)
W ater:N!WS, 3 72 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1978); """"""'-""'--'-'--.=.:::=--~""-=<=--===c;.,
~=~=~t-L..~~· 302 So.2d 737 (F1a.l974); and..,_====-==,;.,.._:_c:.=.:="-"'-=="""'-==··
655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
6
572
It is significant to note, however, that the City's residents not to the City's ticket
policy. In a City of vocal, pro-active, government-involved residents with:
• over 41 citizen-volunteer committees (the majority of such committees meeting at
11 or more time per year),
• 4-6 public meetings per week,
• 1 regularly-scheduled City Commission public meeting per month8 (including at
1 monthly Co:rnmission 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 information telephone
line
have not complaints City's use of lfthe
citizens had objected to this ticket policy, surely the City Commission would have addressed
those concerns prior to the COE's instant review of the matter. light of absence of COE
jurisdiction over such policy deterr:nination it is partir::ularly inappropriate the COE to insert
itself into what is essentially a local issue, especially given the absence of citizen outcry.
B. THE TICKET POLICY IS SUPPORTED ITS COtJRSE OF CONDUCT.
Whlle it is clear that the COB lacks jurisdiction to assert that only active participation by City
personnel constitutes "public purpose" for purposes of assessing the City of Xvfiami Beach's
ticket policy, the following ma1ysis upon the City's policy ticket usage.
Although the City abandoned certain terms of its Resolution 93~20694,10 the policy's objective
of ensuring high-level City personnel presence at such events has been the custom of the City
since 1993, and has been unassailed. The fact that this policy has been in effect :for two
decades 11 , and has not been the subject of prior citizen outcry, is relevant support of the City's
legislative policy determination:
In deciding whether such purpose is public or private, courts must be largely
influenced by the course and of the government, the object for which taxes
5 As an undisputable fact, numerous "Public Benefits" clauses have been included vv1thln contracts
presented to the City ComrrJssion in public hearings.
9 See Executive Director Centorino's proposal at page 12, para. 5.
10 No suggestion has been made that the City's noncompliance Vlith imp1ementing terms (such as
establishbg a City board for :non-profit ticket distribution) was due to anything other than badvertent
oversight.
1i See, No. 81605. May 1, 1997: "Further, the1egislatio:n
challenged here has been in existence in state over 20 years. In determining whether a statute
serves a public purpose, a court "may take :L"lto consideration a long course oflegis1ation and usage oftbe
government."
7
573
and appropriations have customarily and by long course of legislation levied
and made, and what objects have been considered necessary to the support for
the proper use of the government -whatever lawfully pertains to this purpose and is
sanctioned by time and the acquiescence of the peoplrP may well be said to be a
public purpose and proper for the maintenance of good government. (Emphasis
added.) 138 849 (1923).
Furthermore, what is a "public purpose" is not a static concept, but is flexible and capable of
expansion to meet the changing conditions of a complex society. The Florida Supreme Court has
recognized this concept and has found that " ... [e] ach generation may determine its concept of
' State v. Washington County Development Authority, 178 So.2d 573, 579 (Fla.
~~_!...!....~~~~~~~~~~..;;r;,~~~· See also ~~..!..-'-.~~!.±...t.~~~~~e::
Indeed, the consensus of modern legislative and judicial thinking
(particularly after the State grant of municipal home rule power) is to broaden the scope of
activities that may classified as involving a public purpose.
L
PERSOJ\'NEL TO ATTEND PUBLIC FUNCTIONS IN" CITY -Ov.rt...'ED
\!)3NUES COh'T,RI§UTES TOWARDS THE CITY'S PROSPERITY·
over yeats, City of Miami has devoted its resources toward ecoJ0omic
development13 with regard to planning and zoning issues, improvement, including
the ongoing maintenance and promotion of facilities providing visual arts
productions cultural events. The City has deemed it a public need for high-ranking City
attendance at functions. of City-owned venues in order to provide them with the
opportw:rity to learn more about the citizens' concerns interests as weU as the host
organizations and their unique issues and :needs. The of information facilitated by
functions helps City officials be more responsive to :needs. It is '"''"''""'"''"'-'J-''-
with the City's goal to allow these high-nmki:ng officials to attend, at City expense, cultural
productions and events taking in the City's facilities, resulting increased.vv ... uu-~.I.Uuu•~~n;u
regarding City affairs with the public outside of City Hall, as well as publicizing the productions,
and events and thus encouraging public attendance.
The Attorney Genera1's Office bas found that so long as the governing body has approved the
use of public resources, public f\mds may be expended for entertainment expenditures that are
12 The City's ticket policy has not been objected to by the public, despite its decades'-long existence.
(See, above argwmmt at ID (A) 2(b).)
13 Economic Development has been statutorily recognized as an appropriate public purpose of
municipalities. See Florida Stat. 166.021(8)(b).
(b) The governing body of a municipality may expend public funds to attract and retain business
enterprises, and the use of public funds toward the of such economic development goals
constitutes a pub1ic purpose. The provisions offrJs chapter which confer powers and duties on the
governing body of a municipality, including any powers not specifically prohibited by law that can be
exercised by the governing body of a municipality, shall be liberally construed in order to
carry out the purposes of this subsection." (Emphasis added.)
8
574
determined by the body to serve a public purpose. In an early opinion from 1968, 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 entertainment. 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 ofhospitality and entertainment. Fla. AGO 68-12.
Fina11y, the fact that City officials may be incidentally benefitted by use of tickets
does not destroy the public nature of the City's policy. Florida's courts have recognized that the
execution of a public purpose that involves the expenditure of money is usually attended with
private benefits, and so long as the principal purpose of the enactment is public in nature, it is
irrelevant that there will be an incidental to private interests.
~~~~~~~· 589 So. 2d431 (Fla. 1"tDCA 1991);
So. 914, 917 (Fla. 1990) (defending against reca11 lawsuit created in,cidental
benefit to elected official while providing primary benefit to public).
The authorities cited above support the legal proposition that the City of Mia.'Ui Beach may,
subject to judicial review, establish policy governing the distribution and usage of its tickets to
City~ owned venues, which policy can-ies 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 1;1ot the Ethics Commission.
With to distribution of City tickets to high-ranking City personnel, it is not
unreasonable to presume that part of their official duties may be to attend certain high-profile
special events (such as Art Basel or the South Beach Wine & Food Festival) that focus national
and international attention on the City ofMiami and thus promote commerce and tourism.
A:s to those "ordinary" or events which do not necessarily national
attention, there is a public purpose in the presence of City officials at these events as well, and
this too is a matter of good faith discretionary decision-making by the City's governing body.
9
575
RESOLUTION NO.-----
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
1
576
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
exemplary City employees and other notable members of the community, 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.1
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 "8,"
attached hereto.)
2
577
SECTION Ill. 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 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 Ill 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 set forth herein within the attached Exhibit "C," as may be
amended by City Administration from time to time (amendments to be publicly noticed
via "Letter to Commission" which LTC shall be posted on the City's website). 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
3
578
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.
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 ___ , 2012.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4
579
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& CUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
580