The URL can be used to link to this page

R7B-Repeal Resolution No 93-20694 City�s Complimentary Ticket PolicyCOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY Ccmderused 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 ~~~~~en~~d ct~ns -~~2i~tt~~w~ne!d~~~n~u!e!BJ&~n~d~/~~~~~~~~~----------~ On April 13, 201 i, 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 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 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. The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee discussed this item on June 28, The FCWPC moved it to the full Commission for consideration. Financial Information: Source of Funds: FinanceDept L-~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~L-------------------~ Financial Impact Summary: Ci Clerk's Office T Jose Smith and Max Sklar 312 KGB AGENDA ITEM _.::....:_..:.....::..c......._ DATE ---l..:::........l!:...L......!.....:= COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City C fROM: Jose Smith, City MTU"\ITU'l>\1 DATE: October 24, 2012 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF 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 0) 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 19g2, the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its Opinion No. 92-33, holding that City of Miami Beach elected officials could legally accept complimentary tickets from the City (obtained via negotiated 'public benefit' clauses in City contracts) to performances taking place at City-owned venues, subject only to the requirement that public disclosure of such ticket receipt be made by the recipient/Officials on quarterly gift disclosure forms (see 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 313 City Commission Meeting Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy October 24, 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). 2 314 City Commission Meeting Complimentary Ticket Distribution Policy October 24, 2042 Page 3 of 3 ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 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°/o 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 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 Distribution Process (Exhibit "C"). The Administration also explained that a webpage will be created on 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 public purpose when tickets are distributed. The FCWPC moved it to the Commission consideration. CONCLUSION The Adminsitration and City Attorney recommend the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution. ATTACHMENTS (A-1) T:IAGENOA\201 2\9-12-12\Complimentary Ticket policy Memo.doc 3 315 RESOLUTION NO.----- A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 93w20694 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, 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") the City of Miami Beach's negotiations with the New World Symphony (finding no 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, 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 1 316 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 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; 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 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 issued an "Addendum" to its "Guidelines and Recommendations," outlining specific 'suggested permissible public purposes' for use of public benefits, which grounds are adopted and incorporated herein by reference. (See Exhibit "B," attached hereto.) 2 317 SECTION Ill. DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS A. General Provisions. Distribution of tickets 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 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 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 3 318 pursuant to Policy. The log detailing the distribution of tickets shall be posted by City Manager's Office, no less than once every quarter, on the City's website by no later the 1 day of the month following such quarter. Such posting shall include the following information: 1. 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. 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 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 B. City Miami Beach Resolution No. 93-20694, constituting the City's former policy governing complimentary tickets, is accordingly hereby repealed in entirety. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ___ day of ___ , 2012. ATTEST: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower City Clerk 4 319 EXHIBIT "A" ACCEPTABlE 4PUBUC PURPOSE' USES (BY CATEGORY) OF CMB TICKETS (PER CMB RESO NO. , 11.) 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; 320 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. 321 EXHIBIT "B" MIAMJ~DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST: ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING "PUBLIC BENEFIT" CLAUSES IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: E!UBL!C f!URE!QSE (PER CMB RESO NO. , II (f.n.#1 )). (see attached) 322 ADDENDUM TO GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDA.TIONS REGARDING "PUBLIC BENEFIT" CLAUSES IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: PUBLIC PURPOSE 3H is the intent of these guidelines and recommendations concerning the distribution of tickets and other public obtained by govermnental entities through or other of public to assure that these benefits, which are property, shall be used and distributed a public purpose. The behind these is to curtail the private usc of these public benefits by goverm:nent officials employees for their own personal benefit, directly or indirectly. In addition, these are established to provide guidance to such officials and their employees, as well as in order to avoid possible future misuse such public resources. It is hoped also increase public confidence the of govemment in its use such resources, as as help to remove the that elected and other govemment officials distribute these puh11c with unfettered discretion and for purposes inconsistent with the proper of public property. it is the guidelines and recommendations to make clear that public benefits be utilized under certain permissible circumstances elected and other offidals and employees where tl1ere is a genuine, legitimate and articulable public purpose involved. To that end, we have set :l:orth a list purposes government staff and to when it is appropriate to use, for themselves or others, public benefit_<; contemplated by these guidelines. The foregoing list is not exhaustive. The ,__.vuu'"""""'" Ethics is to an to an inquiring public vu'"'''"'' use or method of distribution is ethically A. PERMISSIBI,E PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR Olrli'ICIALS~ STAFF AND EMP'LOYEES to promote economic development; L Host 2. ""''"unnu•y service organizations that serve tlte disadvantaged, senior disabled, ill, children, 3. Host dignitaries from municipal, state and federal govet'U1li1Ctltal entities; 4. Host dignitaries and business leaders from 5. Host youth groups, student and 6. Host elderly Miami-Dade 7. Host disabled residents; 8. Host low-income residents; 9. Host constituents as; a designated official the Commission, or some other person delegated that or (b) upon invitation of the event""<'>""'"''.,·'''" to extend recognized by the sponsors of event in a printed program or public axmouncement 12. one ofthe following ftmctions in one's official as: a designated official by the Commissiort. Chairperson, Mayor or other person delegat.;;d that responsibility, or an individual invited by the venue 1 323 a. Introducing organizers, participants, or dignitaries; b. contributions ofthe c. d. c . .f. Ribbon cutting; g. I .eading the pledge of allegiance or national anthem; h. as a goodwill designated the Commission/ Chairperson, Mayor or other person qualifted to that 1. proposed and constituent concerns in response to a complaint specifically addressed to the attendee; j. Attending the opening day game or pedonnancc County/City- ovmod facility. B. OTHER PERJ\USSIBLI!~ USES OF PlJBLIC BENEFITS l. Distribution to residents on a first-come, first-served basis or by lottery; 2. to members of the public, with the going to fund or a specially-designated purpose; 3. Return to donor in exchange Jbr monetary value, with the approval the governing ofthe County/City~ 4. Allocations to: a. h. Schools/students or youth athletic leagues; e. Bona fide organizations that represent have no affiliation with the fue benefits or the official's immediate family; d. Co1111nunity distribution to individuals by 5. based upon their contributions to the b. who have made special to the conmmnity7 as established defined c. Unclected members who serve pay on County/City boards; County, State and/or federal or local officials fi·om other in of significant assistance to the local government; d. Businesses a:n.d institutions which have contributed to the welfare of the f. Visiting dignitaries or 2 324 EXHIBIT "C" ADMINISTATIVE GUIDELINES: TICKET DISTRIBUTION PRQCESS (PER CMB RESO NO. , 111(8)). i. The following Officials shall each be entitled to receive two (2) tickets to a single performance/event An Event shall only one performance during production engagement or nm at the City vrtnues or for the City-sponsored event or other event ,. Mayor and City Commissioners @> City Manager "' Attorney 2. The remaining tickets shall be distributed as follows: a. Deserving Members of the Community {@70% of remaining tickets} The City Manager shall create an advisory committee to establish a list of deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets. Such advisory committee shall meet no less once each year to review the list of deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets. Deserving organizations and/or groups on the list shall be eligible to receive, on a rotating basis, a maximum of four (4) tickets to a single event. list of deserving organizations and/or groups eligible to receive tickets shall include the following categories: 111 Non-profit (legally established tax-exempt) agencies who serve residents of the City of Miami Beach, for distribution to individuals served by the agency; w 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. City Employees (@15%) of remaining tickets) The City Manager is authorized to create an "Employee Recognition Program" setting forth defined criteria for the award of tickets to exemplary City employees. This Program shall entitle each selected City employee with two (2) tickets to an event City employees shall also be eligible to receive two (2) tickets to an event on a first-come, first served basis. 8 325 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 or permission of his Department Head 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 Ill (B) 2 (a) above. c. Others (@15% of remaining tickets) d. The remaining tickets may be distributed by the City as follows: The C!ty may create a ''Special Incentive Award Program" for the purpose of distributing tickets to persons and/or entities that have made special contributions to community, or to individual civlc leaders. Including visiting dignitaries. This Program shall have defined criteria, and such criteria shall bo provided to the City Commission; ii. The may provide the tickets to organizations that assist in promoting and marketing the City through a municipal marketing agreement with the City, to the extent that such use is permitted by the entity providing the t!ckets. 9 326 EXHIBIT D MIA. I BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM FROM: Jonah Wolflon, Commi~loner,. DATE: March 141n., 2011 Plea'e p!lc& on the April13111 ,2011, Commission meeting 8glnd11 mfe~l to the Finance Commilte11!1 on the auched memorandum and proposed ordinance. lf you have any quMtklns, plaase do not hesitate to contact Leonor Hamanaz m extension 6437. JW/lh Si :S . 91 liU4 ' ' :· ·" ·: 'J • ol .:~ ~ i ~ •~~ \.,r) ,...;:., 15 327 " March 12, 2011 MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Jonah Wolfson, City of Miami Beach FROM: Frank Del Vecchio, 301 Ocean Drive, Apt 604, Miami Beach, FL33139 SUBJ: Ethics Guidelines for Acceptance of Gifts, Favors or Services by City Employees I rocommend enactment by the city commission of a standard a( conduct prohibiting the city's officers md employees from aooepting a gift. favor or service discounted below fair market value from 1m entity doing business with tM city or from a lobbyist Section 2449 of the Standards of Conduct" Acceptance of gifts, favors. services", is the appropriate sootion of the city code fo::-such an a.mendrmmt [Att!l.Chment 1.] Also attached is a reprint of the United States Department o:f Justice Ethics Offict:: Thmdbook on acceptance of gifts by federal employees. [Attachment 2.] In also atta,cht~a Outside Soun;;e,s" standard ATTACHMENTS: Recommended amendment to services, .. ] lilppHcable to "Gifts from recommended addition to by Rule. 16 328 Amend Article V:U. Standards of Conduct, of Part II, Subpart A, Chapter 2, Miami Beacb City Code, by adding a sentence to Section 2-449; the amended subsection to read as follows: [Language added underlined.] 11 329 EXHIBIT E propos~ altam£~~tiWI for tha Feltlval of the Arts. 2. Dl~ew.~lcm r11g1nUng 1 propCM~~~Id ordh11nce on d'tl~ guidlilnP tor locttpt.ance of gift~!, favoN, or sutrvit.:el by City employeea e&JION The Comm~ ~mm«ln•d thatt AdminiMntti~·.ut monitor ttl® county ethics guld4illllnu for a:u~eopwnce of ;lb, t.llvom or R~~Vicu by 11111~ 1nd City EmployMit 1nd providi!l ® liiiWWII report to the FirumC~ & Citywfd1 Proj~ comml~. Commissioner Jormh Wolfson lntroduc::ed Frank Dei Vecchio, Mimnl Beach RIOO!dent1 who pruented thet item~. Mr. 011 Vecchio pro~ that tha City Comm!•lon implement a 11imndard of conduct prohibiting the City's Offlc:em and Employ~ tom i.iCQ~ptlng a gift, favor or tleMoo dls001.1nted below 11alr ~ ~ue for , ·tm ~ d6il1g ~ with the City or from I lobbyist. Mr. Del V~o p~ el®nptE!$ from thfl U\1~ ~~~of Ju61tlce Eth~ Office H$ndbod< on~ of gmt by·~ empk}yees. O~lon oosued. City ~ J~ Smith *00 that Milmf..Oade County ia ~I'IUY mvlawtng the lasua 'TNlt Com~ rooommem:iEKI that Admi~ mtmlor thl oounty regarding thla il'l~Uetnd pmvidtl btut ~on to tM Flnanoo & C~dl Projst:mli Commll:tea. 3. Dileuulon mgan:Ung Security Ai111nca 6QIJOH Thllll Commitih m~:~om~m~~ndld that the Admlme~ ~In ttw RliquMt tor Pmpoalm (RFP) pmCUB for security ~rv&coo a:nd ineh.tc:le tim new crl'l!lrim ~m~~ntloMd In the mHt!ng a~~~& psrt of tM ~tvalul!ltlon p~. Procurem~ent Division Olmdor Gus lopm; prewmed till imm. ~inning In or around at least the late 1990's and oontmutng untii in or m'Oood Mm'd'l 2007, too d~~&fendsm, JAMES B. LOFTUS, JR., ·and Brlln W, Oueildll& OOCU~ high- l~l 1001.1rity posttions at Room$ To Go ("RTG~). Which wu llll Florida ~ with HI prinoiPf!AI pi~ of bti$iness In the Mlddlllll Ol$bid of Florida. In those po$!tlonS~, the dqfldant and Oullllllm Wll.ilre _given ISUb®l:rial discretion by RTG to handle ~urity~ related matte!'lll!ll1'1.tr!Jeted to them. Without RTG'I ktl~ge 111d IPPfOVII, howaV&r, the defendant and Ouli!lllele ~!llted, ~ other~. l,.d. 49 Ant.. end Wiley Management Corp. ("Willy Mt\Naglll$mertt"), ~ly to ~!Mil h~ to ~iy mO®IVE~ k!~ from Ean oul:lldiGD wcurity A.l!flim~ f.J..C} ~ Sawrlty Alllenoo of FIOOda, llC ("~ :a EltamJrlty gua!"d$. Unbl~ to RTG. oompany, Choice M~Brtillgllllment Solutiont, llC (~Choice Management"), to make th~M~a !dckMck ps&ymenm to I:N! ~~and OUella. To oortoeml and oov®r~up thM@ ldoid:uEks from RTG, thllll dEBfendant end Ouelln, among oU"tar things, ~ly prepsmd ahem lnvoiOOJS aadmsed to Security Alliance and Choice Ma111gement which frnudulently lought payment for ~oonsulting" M~Vioos, and which mquirl!id that such payments be ml!Kie Indirectly to the deftmdam and Ouellette 2 330 EXHIBIT F CBO 92-33 -July 17, 1992 Page 1 of4 CBO 92-33 --July 17, 1992 GIFT ACCEPTAl.~C.EJDlBCLOSl:J'.'RE CITY COM'.l.\1'ISSIONERS :RECEIVING TICKETS TO EVENTS AT CITY~OWNED AUDITORIDM To: (Name witM~Jld at the person's req:uept,) City oommis&Cll:lim l:m.ve :roomved a gift, oot a benefit of offioo1 when the city gives fue:rn a block of tic'k::em to pmo:rmJm.Ces at a munioip!illy-oWlled theater, which ticket.!! tlle city ~ivea M a cond.itio:a of its le!We a.green:um.t vvith t1:!.e p:roducw:a. Howevar; the:re is oo indication that the tickets are :in.di:tect gifts from a lobbyist or from a partner. fum. m:nployar, or principal of a lobbyist who lobbies the city con:m::tisaion, and there is no mdica:tion that the city contr:!wt ~« is a lobbyist who lobbies the city oommt.moo for purposes of Section 112.3148. Florida Stamtes. Thus. the members of tl:u:t city comm.issl.on may ru::oopt the sets of tic'k::em, but whm:e the comb:ined face value of a set of tic:lwUt ®'lt.oeeds $100, the ~it:mers muat disclose the:!:n q~ly on CB Form 9. CBO ~is referenced. QUESTION: ~e a. city, by c~ receives tl.okm: to events at the city-owned ~tel'. md whm'e the ticbts a.re divided among the members of the city oomm.issio:u fm: eithw: tMi:r personru uae m: to distribute to othm at ti:l.eir discretion, have t1:1.e m~ of t1:!.e city eo~sl.on received gifts which are subject to the gift aeceptm:toe and di!iicloliiUre provisioM of Sootion 112.3148, Florida Statutes? m your initi!llletter of inquiry and ~b. ~bsequem ~n~ md. di~ons 'Wi'th our BW!, we are ad.Md that the City ofMimm Be!lbh owns and operstes a pw:fo~ m:!:$' theat« ~e Broadway shows, ballatn1 and oo:n.oort!ii a.re offered to 'the public. You advi~ that the City hu mt«oo into wo different co:n.t:racts involving periorm.mces at the th~. For no:u~Broadwuy shows,. the City hu a oontmot with a. ma.ua.gement oompru::~.y which specifies that 'the City will be :p:ravi&ld 26 ticketE per pm~e fat C~V«Y l:W'• m.goo. at the tb.ellt«. For Bluadway the City oo~·rurootiy"ith a p~. tmd ~ co:utmot ~ the -ptodueet to give t1:!.e City 20 ti©k:& :fur the op~ • p~ md ti~ f<>r each~~~·~ of the ~s nm. ~for a ~ Bromway show~ the prod~ giv®S tl:m City a toUU o.f 110 ticlmb, and eaoh ~ ~ves 20 ticlmtll. The distribution of tickets is effected in the followini miDl'l'l«'. Prior to. any show o:r event, the City Co~t ~tor plaoos each Commisldo~s ~tmmt· of tidt«s in m ~vl'IOOpt\ md the en:velopes ue distributed to the Comm:imlioners by p~~ in 'tbeMayQt.s Ofd®, Comm:ismo:uem ue tWm. free to wse m: distn~ the tl.okets to others at 1:heii ~'tioo.. You ~the ~ty of the gift provisions ~oo in ~ Florida. $~ a well e. the Commission's rules promulpred in~ M-13, Florida Admintmirtive C~ 'to~ sitwttlon. Section 112,:312(12). Flolidt\ ~ them~~~ of 'the term" gift11 : 'Gffi.' for purposes of etbic:s in gove;mment lmd ~ diaclomre http:/ lwww .etb.ics.state.fl.tW'opi:niOll!l/06/ .. %SC92 %5CCE0o/G2092.~033 .:b.tm 6/25/2012 331 CEO 92~33-July 17, 1992 required by law, me!l:l:lS that which is accepted by a. donee or by mothewr on the donee's bal:mlf, or that 'Which is ·vcm to another for or on behalf of a. donee, directly, indirectly. or benefit or by any other mems, for which equl or gtMW consid«t!.tion is not given;. moluding: 10. Entrance feet, admission feem, or tickets to events, pmo~ces, or fi'Wilities. 14. A:ily other aimilru: service or thing having m attributable value not already provided for in this section. 'Gi:Jll does not include: I. Salary, be:n.e::fits, services, fees, commissions, or expenses associated with the recipienfs elllployment Page2of4 We are of the view th.at the tickets provided to the City as a condition oftl'le contl:iicts the City enters into with ita ml:lrul@;~ company rm.d producers would not be considered '1gi.:EI;s11 to the City. as it appem tl:w.t they are a. part of the oonsidm't!.tio:n the City receives for leuing its a:rulltorimu. Bvm if we did oo:n&det the tickets to be gifl:s to the City, Section 112.3148, Florida S'tatutes, does not prohibit the giving of gifts to govemmcmtal mtities. See CEO 92~ 12. With regm:'d to the complimentary l:icl<ets t'hat the City receives md t.he:n distributes to its Co~flion~ Rllle 34-13.210(2.), Florida~trative CoM, pro"Vldea: Where tbb donee ill being reimbur&oo or provided by his public !ii!!!MY for 'l:n!.vel or expenses mOOTToo m the pmon:nmce of public duti~ th111 do:nee hru! wt :received l!i gift when a. public purpose for the exp~ mats. SW"y. bmofits, sm:vicea,. fees, or OM expem;es roomved by a public officm or 111'lllployoo from his or hm: public agency do not oonstitme gifts. It is our view tlm.t these tickets would not be oo:nsid.m:'oo "benefits 11 uacoiatoo with ~ City Comm:ismonm' pub& .office. Twenty tickets to a Broadway Show was not the type ofbtmefit we had in miwi when we promulgated this mle. The 'lllle of the term. 11 benefits" in R'!lle 34-13.210 was mtmded to convey those benefits typically aS~~ociared with one's employmoo.t. such a.a health ~e. sick leave, or pmd ~ It wrus uot intended to include 81.1.Ch perquisites as a 'l.a:!:p nm:n.ber ofticlrets to thea:tm pd~, ThWl. W'@ m of the vie'W tb.at these ticket£! are not a bm:llifit of offioo ti:W: would :precll.l.I:W th®m :tom being oormidered a gift The focus of om ditwusrutm. then tu:ms to Sootion 112..3148, Flori& Statutes., which provides in relevant part: (2)(b) Lobbyist merm.s my n.atural person who, for compwsmon. aeeb» or IIIO'Ught during the preceding l2 mon:tl:ul, to infl;uem:e the govenm:umt& dooiaionmwg of a reporting individ'Ml or procmrm.'l'.Wllt ~!!!!!ployee or hl.i agency or sew$ or sought du.ril:l.g the precoomg 12 months~ to encourage the pusage, defeat. or modifica.tion. of my propoaal or reoommen&tion by the reportmg individual or proourei:nmt employoo or 'I.Iia agmcy. With respect to m a.gm:wy that ~ ootablishe~ by l'Ule, ordimln.ce, or law. a :re~on or ok deaignation proeeaa for per!IO:nil seeking to infl~ dooisiox:m:tllking or to enoourn.ge the paasage., defe£, or modification of any proposal or rooommenda:tion. by mch agen.cy or m ~!!!!!ployoo or official of the agency, the term "kibbyigt11 includes only a penon who is required to be registered or otherwi.lile designated u a lobbyist in acootdmce with such rule. ordimln.ce, or law or who was 332 6/25/2012 CEO 92~33 --July 17, 1992 dming t1:w preceding 12 months :req~ to be registered or otherwise dooigruJ.ted u a lobbyist in accorrumce with such rule. ordinance, or law. (4) A reporti~ individual or procu:rement employee or my other person on his behalf is prohibited ftom knowingly accept:ing, directly or indirectly, a gift :from a political oom.mittee ('Jt committee of continuous mstence, as defined in a. 106.011, or from a lobbyist who lobbies the reporting mdividual's or proct'!J.'ement m:nployee's apncy, or directly or indirectly on behalf of tbe partner, fum, employer, or principal of a lobbyist. if he knows or :re.asonably believes that the gift lwl a value in excess of $1 OD; however, moh a gift may be accepted by such per!SOn on behalf of a government& entity 01 a charitable o:rglll:lization. If the gift is accepted c::m behalf of a gov~tal e.utity or ohm:imble orglmizatt01.1, the pM"oon rooe:iving the gift shall not main:tain ct:Wtody of tl:l.e gift for my pmod of time beyond that reasonably :r:u.::oossazy to ~e for the i:rim.afer of custody a:nd ovro.erahip oft'he gift. (5) A polltioa.l oommirtoo or a committee of continuoJJ.S ~e. as ®fined ins. 106.011; a lobbyist who lobbies a :reporti:llg mdividwll!a or proourtm:tant employoo'a agency; the partner, fum, mnpmyer. o:r principal of a lobbyist; or mother em belW£ of the lobbyist or p~. ~ p:t'i.nci:pal, or aployer of the lobbyist is prohl"bited from giving. either dirootly or indirectly, a gift that hu a value m exce~~s of $100 to tl:l.e :rew.portmg iudividud or proomern.eni employee 01 my otlmr parson on his bll'llW£; however, such person may give a gift having a vru:ue in mroass of $100 to a repmt:i:ng individual or proctm:ml.W employee if the Wit is intended to be ~ to a governmental entity or a e.l:lm'itable crg~on.. (6)(a) Notw'itbsmnciing the provisions of subsection (S), m entity of i:'M legislative or judicial br~ a departn:len.t or com:m:inion of t'he exeome bnmch. a cow:rty. a m'Wlieiplility, m airport authority, or a school bosrd may give, ei~ dirootly o:~: ~. a lift ha:v~ a vti1.1e in excess of$100 to any repoJ:"tins hutividu& m pro~m.t mplo~ if a public p1.ll:J.lose can be shown for i:'M gift; •. , • (b) Notwiwtrmding the provisions of suhseotion (4), a reporting individual or procurement employee may oocept a gift hAving a vruue in excess of $100 from en entity of the legislative or judicial branc.'h. a d~ent or com.m.ilssion of the cnooutive brru:tcl:i, a county, a municipality, an airport authority, or a school board if a public purpose mm be shown for the gift; . . . . Subsection 112.3148(4) would prohibit a City Commissioner ftom aoo~ting a gift vvitb a value in excoos of .1i 1 00 :from a lobbyist who lobbies tile City, or :tl:om ~ ps.rtuer, fi:rm, employer, or principal of a lobbyist. While we recognize that public m:n.ployoos mm md do attempt to influmce the official aetions of the officm of their public ageroy, we do not believe that the definition of 11lobb::yist" was i:n:tooded to encompass sueh pm'ISOus m Wt thcir duties 'With resp~t to their own agen.cie~s constitute "1obbymg.'' Nor is there my indication t:hat the City: O:mtra.ct ~ thir. i.nstmc© ia acti:tl.a on behalf of a alobbyiit who lobbies the City. Acoordinglyt it is our view tha.t Seoti Statutes, is inappliooble to this ~o. Subsection 112.3148(5) prohibits a. tobbyist who lobbies the City of:Miami Bmwh. or the pm:'l:ner, :fi:rm;. "employer, or principal of a. lobbyist. ftom directly or indirectly giving a gift with a. valulj itt ~~ of $100 to mmnbera of the City Com:miasion. For the reasC!llB stated in the foregoing pa:rq;ruph. we do 6/2512012 333 Page4of4 not oomldm' the City Contract Manage as a lobbyist who lobbies the City Co:mm.iooion. or u thfi p!!.rl:ill!l!1 fum. en:tplCI'}'«. Ot prl:i:l.,cipal Of !11. lobbyist. 'J.'l:rus, Subsection 112.3148(5). is slao mapplioabl!:l to erur·~. With mgri to Su.b~ 1U.3148(6)t Florida Stl.l.tures, we o~ thia prt>vision u m ucep:tton to the pmhibi~ ~ed m.Su.b*~ 112.3148(4) m:l.d 112.3148(5). Florida s~. 1m govt~mmml mtm®S whom~· or ~ample. were ~City to =nploy a lob~ lcbby '!he~~ am md wl:!m'e me City gave ~ ~ of L1:!~ th~c ti•ts worth more tb.a.n $100, than Section 112.3148(6). Florida Statutes. would be a:pplicable end a public purpose would have to oxist both for the City to be able to give the ti~ to the~bm tift'l:w le~!ature. and for the le~ to be abw to aooept ti:lb ti~. W(ll do :not~tJ.etnf:tmtitm~i'U UGto bo Qn£j ofthla type. md Wei therem find Section 112.3148(6) . to be inapplioable. As neither Su.bseciions 112.3148(4). (5). :nor (6) appear to prohibit the m.em.bl.m'l. of the City Commim.don ftOI!l aooepting tl:l.a tiekats '!:be City rooeive!l pmm1mt to ita various oontracts. we m:e of the ~ t'l:lat the City Com.m.issio~ may accept the ti.clmts but must d.isclose than in accordmco with SUbsection U2.3148(8). Florida S!:atutes. Thm, where the fa.l::e value of each oot of ti~ a Commis!rlo!lm' :receives exo~ $100, the· Co~sicYWr m:wrt disclose the sets of lickets qumtedy on CB Form 9, wh:ioh we h~ve p:romulgal:OO. specifically for this purpose. Yom i:nquity is aruJw~ aooordingly. 6/25/2012 334 :IWSOLU'flON NO. A RESOLUTION 0$ ~EE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIA*! BEACH, FLOR!~A, PROVIDING THAT COMPLIMENTARY TICKETS FOR Pi!lRl'OmmNC!'.lS UP EVENT!'! liT TO'l?A lWP Tlni! COI.f\7¥.\N'J.UCl'N CENTER mt:U::l! WO'!JL!l O'J.'mlR1US!!i lli'l IUJCSIVSD :me TiU! W\'li:O:Q, CJ:W'\: CO:MJ«XI'lliliONml'llil Abro CIT'l flNl?'LO'll:l!:EII 11>:\QLL :S:!:Wl!lrt'WI!:l:l lilli! W\Dl'li AVAI:r..:Alll.B TO l':l!B:!IDVANTAill::tl YotiTXI'!l, DI!lll\'EJL!>D 'Pl!ll't!>ONS:, S!lNlOM CJ:.tTUFJNS AND oTlUlR :nn>.tV:tDUALS Wl!O l:lO NOT lnVFJ THE FXN~WCIAL AnlLI~Y TO PURCHASE TIC¥ETS ,OR CULTURAL .lilVJilNTS, i ot: Mlam:l Beach Tl:uaater· o:l' the Petforming Arts (TOPA) and the Miami Beach Convention Center, the Mayor, City Commissioners and City em!il.oyees currently receive tickets for varioulli events and performances occurring at those facilities and should be utilized for the benefit of disadvantaged youths, disabled persons, senior citJ.zemll of the City and other individuals who do not have the financial l'lbility to purchase tickets for cultural events1 and wunnw~s~ it is fitting and proper that cultural events should our fine senior eitinens and other individuals who do not have the financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural events; and WUERE~S, city sponsored programs tor the usa and benefit of the disadvantaged youths, disabled persons, senior citizens and other individuals wno do not have the financial ability to purchase tickets for cultural events are necessary and proper: and WMEThEAs, organizations, such as the Miami Meat, have created programs for this purpose. ~OW; TK~R~FORE 1 BE IT RE!liOLVED Bl THS CITY COMM!SS!O~ OF ~n~ CXTY OF HYhMY BEACH, FLORTUA, that: o£ four (4) complimentary tickets for cne'parformanca of all new productions or events at TOPA and the convention (l) Mayor and City Commissioners (2) City Manager 335 EXHIBlT G (Jl CitY Atto~nay The following City officials shall receive a maximum of two (2) complimentary tickets tor one pa~formanoe of alL n11Ms productions or e;ve.nts at TO?A and the CorfVIU1tion Center for which such tickets are available. (l i Senior hsdstant City Manager, contract Adm:l.nintretor (2) Chief Deputy City Attorney 2) Any and all rama.inlng ticketl!ll aha:tl be:; dcnat..ed to cl:Lsadventaged youths, dl:sabled parsons, senio:t oi tizens of Miami Beach and other individual& who do not have the financial ability to p~rchase tickets to:t cultural events. 3) 'l'ha city adl!tiniJ~~tratior~ 10hal1 develop guidelirMlfS and appropriate procedures with regard to the administration of thb program and ehaU aubmit add cyuidllOlines and appropriate procedures to the City Commi&sion for final approval. WMlill!IP and ADOO''l''fll:l this lith 336 ·I tL lllST!U!IllTHlN Of !lOUl"LIHENTAll.Y TD?A)GOI:IVEI!UOM C&NTJi:R EVZ!l't UOUT!L 1. OEC!lliBE!I. U, 1992, MEMO!WHliJI1 FlU.lii !iAYGR S!iYMOI!ll Gt:Um. a. A USOt:UtlON OF !!IE CITY COtmlSSlOl'l f!F TilE G1TI Of MlA!\1 !lEACH, fLOR1llA, PROVllliNO THAT GOMFLXWEM!ARY TtOK&TS FOR.P!IRYORMANCES!ANll EVENTS AT !OPA AND T!IE CONVeNtlCN Gli:Gtm YH1CR WOULD OTHBRVlSE BE RtCJi:IVBD BY tHE CITY OOHHXS!l!ONSRS, AND C!TI llli<'Ulill>!i:S, !lAAtL Hl>!t&AliTD liE HADE AT A lUSOOlll:f'! '!'0 Sll:NJ:Oll. O:t::i!Ili!ltml USlDtilO !N i>llAMt !!EACM, WI'l:fl TR'IB RSllltiiUI! W.oi-1 SUO SALBS TO llE h!ltiEI'> TO '!'!IE D!<lr: OO'L'LAR 'ClCKtt 8\IRC!\tJl.GE 51\NK AGC01JN'!: 1"011. EXPA!!llttl FUTilRE S!llUOR CXTlZ.!!N l:IH!COIJW'l:'S l>Y 1:1!£ Alll:IUWNAL PURCHASE 01? TICKE'tS F!lR GENERAL PER!i'Oru!J\..IlCES AND RESAL!> TO SBtHOR C!TIZI!NS !mS:WXWG AT HUMl illi:AO!i AI A DISCOUNT OF 50~ OR kORI!. (I!EQUI!S!RO !IY MAYOR S~OUR GI!LllSR) L OI!CEMIIER :Z9, 19\1:1., Mi!MOiWIDlllf )i"!tOI{ CllT'f AttOaNE'i. a. A ;u;sotUT!Uti Olt UIB OIT'f COII!llS!iHlN Oi' 'rllE C!TY Of MUMI §Ji:AC!!, lJUIR!!lA, PROV10!NG TU&T COKFLXMEVTARY TlGR&IS FOR PERFORMANO!!$ AND &VeNTS hT TOeA haP 'rilE OON'IItl\!'i1'l0t'l DEl'ITillt 'mUl:J<! \lO\ItJ) O'l:'!!lill.\llSli! Ill! REO!t!V!ID 1\V 'l:'!!ll: MAYOR, Cl'l11 COHHI!lll!ONE!l$, ANO GlTI EHPtm:i!:!!S, Sf!ALL MER£1\nli:R l>E !lADE AVAILM>U TO !!1SA.TIVAWTJU:l£tl YODTli!S, il!SUU!ll rDSOilS, S!tl'i!Oiil C!TU:EilS, AND OI!lU ll!illlUilUA!.S IDIO flO t!IM !lJIIJ£ TilE f!!f!\NClAL AliXUTY TO PUilCk!AS£ UCKE'tS FOR CUI.T\J'ItAL Elli!.NTS, (REQUESTED BY COHM!SSlONEil NE1S!tt'l KASDlN) l, OECEl>!B!\R 29, 1992. Mi!MO!l.AND!lK l'aOM CONTRAct An.I1II!ISTAA'I.'OR tlOruW! LXTZ, TO OOHMlS310NER SUSAN GOTTLIEB, REGA!l.OING COMMUNITY S!!N!!flT COMHlT'!'E!! (etC) PD* THE FER?ORWXNG ARra, WITH RESOLUTIONS, ?lNANClAL StATtftei!TS, nrNUtES, ETC. ~ Jed Arnold, PTG·l'loridll, lm:. oounMl ~>nd CllC Chairo>a.tl, advhed chat l'tG bclhv"d "'h"t 1:11:0"l" of f""'" tidmta IJA,; impropar 1 th"l:: l'TC ""!!a;a,.tmd ("ndor,.~d by CllC) that the City l'I&Mgu: estabU1111 the t:Ltkillt d:tnributi<.m procedrtn, with !:he uun aftm:ded ~<n OJl>pcrcunicy to dbcuu' any propoaed pruoedure be:fora implanil!tlt:atton. Cow~isaioncrs offered several euggaaticns, including: That ~:h" C<>,.,..isoinn md<h:eaw che issue of th" ll""'ber of cempUment:ny ticklll.tll Wh<~n conlll.d"l' ing ren.,val of th" FTG '""'""""t, (Comt. Gat.tlteb) !hat th«> <lowniuion.,re l:equeet: etai!f to .,dvh<> pt:ociuc"r~ th~>t it would no l<>ng"r """"Pt the ticket~. (C~r. p,.,.~1$on) That th" Co-hd<>n " n~olutien inditwting that it nn longer vbhed co recdv• theme quantlties of • and £Sk" committee to devalnp "plan for G<>mmillllion's conaideratinn chat Yould addresa the isauae tai$cd. (Mayor Gelber) that: the AdminiatraticujSMC survey th3 tink11t dimtrihutton polity/preetice of ether such i:llciHt:!u ""d "u\:H"!t: nportftacopcndatinn b:r Ccu!.ssicn's coMl<hra.tion. (Comr". G<>ttlieb nnd Ka$din) ln r'""~'"""'e t;G llolliml$wlmll>l: UotcHeh'll inquiry, the City Attorney advi:,..,d th&t alth<>ngh no r~>$•>l.ueton h•d be~n """'~'t"'d cr ... ,ttng eh" policy, it "'"' wrH:t"" int<> th" """'ttnet:• uhieh u .. re £uthortzmd ra~oluciun, ~h~c~by mp?toving ~be rae•ip~ c£ tlckat$ thB Go-issiormr expresSfG conearn that uml"r either ehe continue to flow to std'f who would 1;.., ""'kl.ng the <:<>ntraetw produc.,rs. (Vote; 7·0.) CGmldami<>n&~l:' ?e,.:dsor. ;~dvhed th" Admint..t:csei<m tit~t h" u<> l.""li:"l' >:l,.hed t" ;;&eoill" IIWI:f tickets, ami it any diraet th"m u it vl.shod (~"Bit"~ted th~y ba given ro t:ho. Peraonnal Di~eetor for an "mployQe incentive And ewployee•of·the·month yr<>gram vhlch he loll<$ attem?ting to "re~~<t6 '>lith tilt ne.l! ?etl'<>l:l!'lel P!.teccor). C..mmlasi<~ner Gi<>'ttU"b 11.dvia•cl ot h"r l~/2l/SZ letter t~ the GLty ~ana&"" stating that ~he wonld no l<>ng~~ ""oept tic~ata to~ any evant in TOVA~ and Gommle91onat Eisenberg advised that he had llomt • 4Lm11"• hc~er to the Xan~ger. !Jo.ill.'1rtS tha dbeu,.ml.""' Oo-illd<>!l3l: &i"anberg ""P""'"""d diAilld.!::hhod<>Ol with th• ineeouncy "nd ~>~n:on<l~:>UM W.preati!.<:>n hft t" '*'" :tu<ler by the IH4Jiil Jl¢w·dd lllrticl.as un 'hh ~tat&er. t .. tt .. r he"' !?IG-Fiodd"• ln<L, ""f".""@lng mmcenu tqp•>d!.nt t.h• puop.,nl l:icketo vta the Git:LUM ll•rtd'it C"ml.tha, sul:m•it:t:"d at om•tirq; M\d "'l. th the t·scc:.ds 337 Pm:iruut to the~ ~sicm'a em.bl.i:o& ~oo1 th~,~~ :is to~. the~ of the pub& Watby, am.m:tl ~~. app~ ~ IJ.'I:ld dhm' public~ 1111 to tMteq~::timi mrnda EXHIBIT H Com.miuion w ~mprwemd to~ Ill powm ~ ~cifioolly p~d or~~~ oftlm• •~aiM p!Wms. Aeoomi:Qly, a:ftm ~ ccmoludm of ajc:W11!uwe!Btig~ti<m COl'li'Uptiatt umt of1be Miami-De.de Stlte Att.omey•s Offioo Ethics (CO:&); we felt it~ to follow up on oowx1nUJ i&~it4dul~t thls j ami mggmt reoomm~ons and guide~ to ~sa 'those CO!l4mu.The in~ mvolvlild a gram~ betwam the City ·ofMimd Bew:ih (Cllim),~ Symphony (NWS). The imt.i&a1 ow:nplrum wu :made by a pr·omi~; lood Miami Beach ;W~ty<>r who was dsothe C!minmm ofthe :Boatd of~~~il!. o;fthe N' all®ptiO!l W'U!·tlmt the CMB ~ :refilsing to pay the NWS momoo ~nmc®r ~(GIAA) wtloos the NWS provided the Mayor. COtmm•~" Adminim~ve Q.ifwitb oomplim~ticbts to NWS p«Jroa•Oil!S. memo is a:t.U.ched h«®to u Exhibit 1. Al:tOOugh the joint im.remption did mrt.1m.eovu wy viol~~n IXpO&I:I :f:t!lw.ed· policies tb.e.t ht.ve N!lllbd in unwammted and and appointed official!!. Eb~~ and appointed oo.Ii.eials can e~q»J 1hem with thousands of do!W:s worth of'tklbt.s to oo,reted i!olfmt:sliJIQmwt~~ thm have a cmin.lCilu81 relatwl'U!Ihip with the localgov·mm:nmta V~lhi~tl. theae mJ. M~ver, ~ invefiigmionluui !OhoWii tlat sevu:a! other mwtti~J~tiM 338 1 t.iablt dimbutioo. pl!mll. Th~ di!lttibutioo plm.s som®times am disguised fcnn of political &voritism u111ed by elected offioials to to build political support. The Comntissioo oo Ethics md Public tro:ubl~ome ru:td 1.JX1®S aU local govmmtmts to eonmd« the .. r~~p.dm;i:O~ report 1'he mve!ltip.tioo fmmd ib1l1 the prm.rtioe by the City of~:ti~tlg 4::~ ! l to Ctty--o\'ll:mld vem.t~ '\1ftS officlany endiomd with :the passagE~ ofP~B J~~ :~~~ 20694~:~:= o;t::;~ommtssion ofthe CityofMiamf...,..,. ..... ; .providing that oompUmentmy .tJohsts few JifJ"fft?rmcmt:XJs and and c:i(v Commbaion.-,, tmd C£Cv ~_,, mttll I dUee&titm>Q'e'dJ?o•r, 6abWpenou, .Nnior t who do NJt hw.e thefwmcial tdJllt(v ttl purdam Now, thsrej'ore, be ft ruomd by the Ctty Commission of the I Beauh, Florida, that; 1 1 1) 111e fiilwwing City officials shall recetw a maximum complim~ary tickets for one ptJrfo~fJ6 of all new 10PA and the Co?M3nt1on Center: I I (1) Ma:yor and member& of the City Commtssicm (2) City Manager (3) City Attorney The following City officials shall reo~ a mttldmum of two tJcbtB for one per[orma:t:ee of aU new p'f'Oduotiom or BV~ilints Convention Cmmr for which such tickets are available: (1) S<Jnior Assistant CityManagllilr, Ct:mtractAdif.nmf~cnen (2) Chief"Dfsputy City .Attvrney 2) An.v and all remmntng tickets shall be t:ionated to diaable.d persom, umtor not haw the flnantlkd ability S) The City adminictration ahaU Q(Wi!Wp guitkllllnu and pT"'O«iurea 'With regard to the adPJ~tirdmc.rtiOJ'l oj'thiit pn: smd·gutdelin<Ju and appropriate proc•u:Juros to the City 339 ; i I ! I ( l 1 I l I ' I l I I ! \ 'Wb.il£1 CMB Resohttion 9 3 ~2 0694 iillows for the receipf events at~ the TOPA and the Convention Cmtt«, both City~@ · has bee11 u~d by CMB Commlilsicmers md employMs to justify · reodpt of ticket!! to mm1y evoo:ts at CMB venu.es including 'tb~ NWS. :m 1993, the then City :M!tMger esi!d:lliahed a ••Promotional mirrored the resolwon· s eligibility requiremoots,.~g ~:the: ~ givm:t to the Mayor. the Commission. the Cit;y Aitm':l:W]r, tlJLe A~i!!t ~City Aitomey. !Ul.d the Cont.root ~. md f:bttt to Udv~oo yomhs,. disabled pmcms, md smior ci:tizem, following guidelliu.11fl: 1) A cammiffB;6 ajypotnt«i by the City Mtmager a}uitl meet orgt.mizatiom aruJ!or gr(.}'Upl &lig{bh:J to r«~eive~m~m(~O~ be updated ti!Wry quarter. 2) A aurmnt list ofkx;tal organizations or ai~c groups which a rotaiibn ofrtJeiptemtolhtdl e:tilit. 3) DomPd promotional tickets m'W biB used by O?J•amfmtqns fo:ndredsera ... 4) No more than ten (1 0) promotionalticbits shall be i organization for om ahowleve.nt. 5) Whm a representatiVe from an organization N(Uffves a receipt Organizations will be gtvm a[Cir'm ro l)e comj City Manager's offl@(J within two web afthe sho'IW'evmt.. not return the comple18d form, them the City Manager will tlakt.tts to that organization ... It should be n~d t.b.a:t virmlilly none ofthe CMB for one AssisttmtCity M~er) ~ew~ ~the OW!'l "'Promoti~ Ti@ket Policy!' Not evet t1lb waem City :~u.iw, 1 ' poliey, is roopoosibJJ, for ~~ t1:m '"Promotioxml Tic.k.et l':mp~~ 1 ~ce, ~mly. the only pm:t oftbe policy impl001~ i \ compl~ ticlzem to the Mayor, Commissiooent. Uld CMB 1 appoi.nt:m.Mt of a ticket distribution committee, ncr the creation of m.rihoriuld to receive tickets. was fou:rui 340 '!'he investigatioo found~ the CM.B City MUm.ger acts as oomp~ti~ reooived by the City. Once tickets con::te to· hts l dimlruted amoqt.l:w Ma.ytX m1d City Commiiision.ers. A dimi!bm~ j I 'the tickets get mt:o the~ of the clactOO o:ff.wials) bOWI:lVt'rt they discretion to 00 with 'them what they plcmre. The investiga;lion. NV Commissioners bpt ~ ti~ for their per!ic.mal use. Often, ho)111revrer,Cotnm~ their rulatted ti~ away to ftien.ds, family. stUf or oth« ~mm evidence ~ dmmg tbe OOWll® ofthe mv®litiptron. mggests 1 m<:~ wg~ gro1!ps of senior omens who are made we.n aware of1~i\}h C~m:limo: ben.i!rlioe.m.ce is respoti.Sible fiX 1he free tiakem. The political good'Wi~ t.opa.y« wbsidizt!Xi gen.erosity oan. itself be perooi'VOO &6 a ••gi:ft'' to 1 by ele~ oftioiala, tbis pm«ioo u likely to lead to political ~·de:~ I mY« 'Wid1 blodtli or,~ votm udlo:r otb• mfl:u4mtill mivki~ab~ wi:ithin., the d I • It is olea:ttha:t the C:MB is not~ at !ill to the epmt ( 20694) in that few' of the intended recipients i.e. dimtd,wpd I ~rw. s·ewo:r ~of Miami Bmwh ami oth• mdividuls wlw l abill;yto pmrol.wle 1i~ for~~ end up ben~ "Public &Mfits"' aho'llld,. in our view. benefit the Mtl.W public at Mereov«,'tbis type oftickli!t dimributioo system appe~mi to be the Florida sme Ethics Comm.Umon (FSEC) opm~ results in ''gi.tt!;~• cdficlals. ~Qfistttso~tJI'wa~cbt*• ~~Ul We moommer1d 'tb.a.¢ cl111oted o:fficlsl be ~ly remo,vea :ttol~ dimbrtion of ~tid<:ms. Alllocalsov~ U:iti mla:tionmipa wherein tboir mw:rlclpa.lli:y eO®iv~ •'publie beoofhs ... i4td~cUnj~ b11Xt n.m event tidtetm. should adopt a policy or proc~e that inwla.tt.m ei~Q~l md aJ>pl>i~d from involvemoot w the distribution process of the bencdits, md oompllm«WW.ey tidcets to o<:casion.s when there is a public pmpose 341 4 We tuu::m:soore that, when public pow« is exem:rtOO. thr e~ a. benefit, web u o1.nnplimeutary tickets, from a pri:vat.e purpose for mchs. benefit oth« than a public one. Such publicly ~ained olw:aote:t :from my oth« public property such u ta.xnvoo.ue or MSfD for .!:l.nything IJth«'fhM publiC purposes ill ethi~y md In light oftbtl City of Miami Beach invemption. the "'public oo:nmt .. prru::tioos in ieV«al otb.er :m.unioipalities. We~~ tickets are rmttinely provided to elwted ofl'ioitis and the Crty oili« locales. the J~ L. Knigbt Center, :&yftont Park md the Toummn~ (SE'IT). through a mmi1at distrib.moo pro~ An A.u~ City Mm:'w.g« advised the COE that in 2011, ~--o~~ 1 . md the City :Mcmq• eaoh received two. (2) ticklitsl*" session fort, rota! clftl~ty• es&iiY.ID plus a parki.tig spaoe for the SEIT. A City offimru --l.m(~ tidctts ~tiD p~d .u pw:t of m a~ bmv~ the City's D•-m• Mawip:mmt mld Minmi~Dade County fur use of the Marine S.d. offimu in tb.® City advi~ 1lm:t he Jives thj:} ticbts away to ""i:imxt4. poop!e."' ~we sN moth« eomple of el~ o:ffici~J.s ill a mam:~« tb.at irmres to their~ or polliiclll boo.ofit Itt little, if my. booefrt, from sud:!. a self -im~ m~ of tlwibutiPL Inquiry itl:to ~ pn.ol:ices by tbl:l City of Hom~ 1eue agreemm for the Homestead S~ Comple-x md the Bm~I Agr~··). For each event l:l.eld at the complex (pumwmt to the i La Ley Sports at the City ofHomestead, ~c.), COH receives:~ l I forty (40) llkyboxtil.'lkets,. am twemy (20) paxting passes. ~mult!to \ H~ Motorsp<.:lfts Joint V~e IWd Rllph Sanchez. COH I l ! moto.t'ap<ns events held :at the spetdwa:y. ~ eligible ~loyoo two (2) ~~ ti~. 342 of One COH official advised the COE that such tickets a:r~ r®1~¢ily tM.t he thm dimibutes thoe tickets to City officials. '1bis mdmotm,l fomliil gui~ ftom the Ethics Commislilion on this issoo. AI moth« example ofthe oftal. tim.e~t in!\ppropriate use <1f.t!~~ 2008, a. COH Cotmoilpmon was advised by the COE that it wool Cm:moilpersoo to otter a c~mdiihW:l rwmi.ng for Stl:1.te office th~ ¢PI~Wty the dsi~d City skyoox a:ttd owy be charged the disootmt©d Cft3rim1!ti An inquiry into~ polici®s ofMW:mwDa.dei CoWJ.ty's ~~lplj Acoording to a r~sm:ll'itive of the Adrimne Arsht C4mtu ( is no :reql.liru tb.® Performing Arts Crow to provide a~ number of to Co'l.'mi:Y officials.. However. if thE~ Arts Cam«/ AAC hM. what they do ~ Cotmty Commissionm• offices to obWn the DM!les jofn.on··profit a~ Qhuitytype l)f~OM they C1W. donate tM excess mvcmtoeyt(~bto. 1lw thMmJelvu do not pus tbrtmgh thelw.nds of Cowtty offioirus. Oru~!a:-l~ h€:.wfl1«. the pnd;ioe of n:Wdng the tickata a:vaila.ble to a pri"imte. non .. profit, desigwation by a !Mgle eleomd offici~ n.th« t1:w.n a n~ Xlml~"Ptilitioral similarly quemou.ble md problematic, COB intervi~OO. ~ Cow:rt:y's I>imotor of Caltm:ti Aff&n 1'lonlpulowdy a.voida'" bavi.ng my type of "public beneih .. c~ my of the ' t between the Co'l.'mty and my of the rulruml w gtrops that perform· various &.ciliti~ He~ advised tlmt mmy w groups thmmelves Wld«privilepd groups oo their own but hiJ offioo does not eD.@~ge: ipmy <Wriw<~ to el~ed offici!!.ls nor requires that a.ny m:imb« of tickets be pm·vid1)({ 'l'l:t.e City of Com!. Gables (00) WM asked about its policy ~Cell~~ the u:m~~e of ' ~ um:ler simllitr a.gremuems. The COE found that the Actors P1h\yhrnllM(Minollti co m.IWliii~M to avoid ~«"en~ :from elooWd officials m their dfm:(imm<J>n Ucka. "'':'U Exemmve Diromor of the Mitw:lle Th~ a.~~ 1 maw.g~ qremmmt with 00. In 1be sgre=nmt, the Playh01Ue ~* 1:o the cmm:mmity. ~gtothel Buootive Direot:or, the Playhoru~M:fgi1remaw:ttyihml tickm c.way year to nat~for$profit ~em.oies, schools,. and oth« 343 who ~t afford to buy tickets. She. advi&OO that the Playhouse r toN orthwelltern High School ~ms (value of more tlw:1 $l,v1.11.;.yv '!.'be decim<m.u to whloh tick®b> to give awa.y and to ~m!WtittBl~y Ex~v~ Diretto:r. The Executive Dinctot claimed t.Mt CO ooes Playhotm~'s distribution ofth~ tickets. 'I1w City ooes not mom:tor oompl~tioka. She advised that oo ticbts go to the City. When such bmcdits at® provided wholly throop 1:h® l.iSt:JN1im.t entity that is not perf'm:ming a gove:rmn,em :l'imctioJ:4 there is no le;!d ptol:libiiion punwwt to the Miami-Dade Cmmty Confiid: of Interest AUld C01da .i'B(DO$ that th~e i.e :tm cowecl:ion between the a~oe ofthe ,ro~ff~~df tak,m by the recipients in his or her public role. The acoopta~ ofl!li.Uih offioi!d does. of COIU:r~, mbje« the official ro the gift reparti.ng tl.'lq~~-· wllmt thed:icka ex~dil $100.00. ~-JW;tgf!)ffW!lplty/~b~ :W:V~ion !dsl') d~ed. that, in addition to the ~J'l'»q pw:wantto ';1ublio b~fir clauses. ele~ md a.ppoim:6d ~~ ~00$ wem usa~ of"offici!d city rumm-... A.ttendmoe at "'official aity busiueu>t events ~ally lq as the elootedlappoimed official is, in fad,. performing SOOH the evem (see ge:nertilly, FSEC opinion01..019). Bowev«, itmc~dtbe ~ce at an evm:li by an ®Jeered offiQial does not magicallyttru~mn city busit:wss. •tQffiow functions" em i.twl.ude,. but are not limited cutting, givirlg a speeob.. or leading the pledge of allegiuce. 'l'here ma.y !1110 be ocouiou wh~ due to the pregnoe of~~~ dianii:uiA~ ~· otb« specltl.l invited JU~ it will be appr~ fbr afficlal.s to attoo.d event to 1~ild~ pm'IO.Dil M reprm;en:tatives ofthe loolll government Su!iu~04WC~ bOW('tii'M. to spectal ocoo.siOl'.UI ratb« tbm ~ly scheduled evem. m~l ~tbt ·to desigootion by the county/city governmwt to those offioi.IWJ in a~~~. 344 ·\ 7 It is willkely tlun ttur~re~ pauive wndmce by an el~ed without eitb« som£~ official role! in the event, or, at a minimum, rK~'lit.i~m <U part program of the evmt, em b!i! cot:Wdered ~ru:lru:tce u an {'official ~~<.?n. .. ~ons upd« ~rules; Imspe©tive of '~he mlrthod of dUtribution employed by a go,~mmtJflt. officials ll'lUI'!t be co~ of Stae and local gift mles when ace-ibg 1tick:ets ·ro pnwviwsly dioousstd,. if Ul eleot.ed official ia attending a ftm.d:ion u {:aicbtl city/\• the value of the tidret or functioo is not oomiidered a gift and thm~~~ ~qtlired to dis!.'llose it lUI sud:t It is :im~ to fi~. however, 'tl:!S in CE0~92~::t3. the Commis&ionm bve rna;ived a gift. not a booefit of offi.oe_ 'Whts tia~ t:idtets to perfomwtoes at It mumcipiJ!ljHYWD.OO ~-«, whioh oonditi<:lfi of iU 1~ ~Mit with the prod.ucm. Where a City. 1 to evcmts a the Citymow:ned tbeaer, m:td ~"!he tickei!l ~ divided ' I ! City Commiuien for eithw thm prm!onal uae or to dilri:ri~ to ~~lit 'their mcmmn of the City Com.miuioo mcfli'VI g;iil.s wmoh are subjeci to d.Wclosum poovisicms. Also, a ticket received directly from a non~gov~Mit oouide of my~~~- ~emoot betwccm the entity Uld the local govcrmrumt, is subject to disdmum ~~~it& set om m Section 2w11.l(e) of the MiamiwDwJ.e Cow:t:Y Coo.tlim l>fu~l®t 1 Ordimuloo (~~below in its entirety). Latty, p~to Se©tion 112.314~4). Florid&S~a: "A repo~ individut.l 3 ., .hi prohibited from knowingly direlitly a: im:iirootly, a gift ... from a lobbyist who lobb mdi~·s ... ~ .. Jfb®oraheknowsor~ly th® lifthua vduemex-oou of$100 .. :• ('!.) Everyp~ who ill e~ to offiCii in tomlav~&rm~dt«m 345 ~ it is impa:tul.t tMt elected officials exercise emmne m from m Wtiividull.l registered to lobby in their pru:tioubi:r gcr.rtllnlm!ll~ prohibits thlllacc~e of mob. i.fthe VW€1 ia m e~a of $100. B!Jtwgt Onlhlu~: Miami~Da.de County Conflict of Interest and Code of Coonty Code S~on 2-11.1 mates m putm.tmt part: "(e) Gifts. , (l) Dfljimtion. The te1m:1 "'gUt' dW1 refer to the of eoonnmio valtre, whether m the form of eutmaimnent, hospitlllity~ item or promise or W'ithom adequate and law:tW consider!Woa at a rungl.e sitting or !Mal. man btl oouidered of the food md bwerage provided at that~ or wltre ofthe sift (2)Ext:qtit:.ms. The provisiom ofSubs~on(e) (l Political oom.ributioos speoi!cdly auihorized by relatives ormmnbenl ofone'shoooabold~ (c) IU.iUwement; (d) Ma.tm.al mob u books. whl~m:w~~u~nMD<>~orofm.~ by Coumy employees or d~n.ml pm<mMl ~Qe of their officlti durin for l.lfi! 110l0ly its official bulri.Mas; (t) Oiib Caw:xty in perl'ommnce of their conducting its offioial business; (g) Gifts solicited b their staff :I':Nmlbem., on be!Wf of my nonprofit by t'Mt orgwizmon where Mitb«tbeCmM receivN I'Wf oOOt~on .U a result of the subsooti~ a .. nonprofit orgw:dution'• shan !ie®tioo SOl( c) (3) ofthe InterM.l :bV£~We eJ~«Wpt under Motion SOl(a.) of the Cooe. ••oomp~on .. ml:llim.ll my money, gift,. :favor. of value or other finlmci!d bm:wfrt. (3) Prohibitions. A person do~ in Subseclioo. mitl:wr solicit nor dem.l'md any gift. It is mo m offer. give. or ii.Q.l'OO to give to my person Subsection (b) (l)tl:!roup(6) or Subsection (b) ( 1) tb.roop (6) to a.ooept or entity, my gift for or becmse of: (a) An ~or which could be taken; (b) Alepl Or 'Whioh could be performed; or (o) A whioh oould·b® violaed by ~my pemon includnd m (b) (1). 346 (4)Di~sur~~ At1y penooimindN m '!he~ ~(6) JM11 {ti~o,q u:pre>ViOOd h.m my one p~ or emity, lmvmg a value in exoeas of one Sl!id dillcloamre !Will be n:wle by f~ a c:opy of~ Chapter 112. Florida ~for "local officm C<mmy Co~sion.ers simultu!.HUsly with the Se~ ofat.ate.•• City ofM'.iami Code~ Se€.tion 2-613 awes in partmmt put: Cad!gkm; .. Every officer. officla.l or employee of the city. muu, .·• 'Boll:rd, commission or ~ of the city, is e•©S d,ir-ectly or mdireu::tty, from any penon. . MY pu.rollase order or oontmm is or mi anything ofvalua what.!ro~er. exoept ~Me givenfl oey.'"' It u ~to naw tb.1ilt the problem we peroei:ve,. i.e .• the ~U'~th·~~pt'l:>vi<W ele~ offtoiS!ll l!tiwg these ticbts M an e~.J®!Wcm of their seH~>motiolw ' a,oti~. is. nm an uS® the Ethics Commission w ever El.ddtessed th!il.t ~ ill> limply no good '1'fl:Uon wby event ti~ rooeived by a fmamo:~litytm ~~ .. public benefits" olmsea or through my ~er w:d~ata~lg md a priva.te mlity. should pass through the Nm.da of eli:~~ offi.~:s. It w ~MW · ~tickets b!'J dislril:ruted to~ public by s.n objective, non~pcliti.<~ J:nec:hrulisnl. S · ~ ~ wruld remove s.ny mggestion ofpolitiw or~ oo~ ... pxltJJlio f officmbi. 'I'h.iJs reocmmmd!W.oo is nm intended to mgpst that mRrii'W:tt. ' tiJ:kets by public officids is 1m ~o or per ae violation of the ' · appllos.bl.e .ethi.os ru1e:a. It is oonC~ei:vabtc i:lmt \\lOme public officials ~lribtmt ; mm:mer thai is non~poi±tioru ;md atherwise appropria.te. However. ! ~Y libly to 12!lse ethiw problGS in any dimbmioo· ofpnb;tio 1,mc~w ', by a polioy that allows for di~~ distrlbution of mwh bemm : ovnght or a.ooo~bllity. The dlffi.cu!ty m fubi~ m atmos.lly --ibhl111 · thett oir~oos hu led to the rec.:omm~ions o(m;ta.in.ed in 347 0nt3 oft:l:w ways we mggest tha:t tiwu be ~ available poet 1m armO'IlU.Cmntmt on the city/county's website or otMr publicly ~~.S«imedimn,. the public of \\!hEm. tidrets 1m1 ~bl_, amd allowing individua.ls htb~·~in <>'hllhm~tl~ them from a n.cm~political aouroo, for eumple. the City/County be eitb.« given a. way or sold at a disco'l.m.'ted n.te. Anotb« tul:b()(l!mi,ght Promotiorutl Tiobt Policy thlt th6ll City of M:i.ami Beaoh adopted *M"l~lllr blaplem method woold seem to mm.re tlW. youth or~ om. seniors or the majority of the public benefit. coo.sietent with the 1n.te ifmlllti<~ It would deny ele«ed officials tb1l tmdmerved opportunity to p~ibd giveaway of tickets to furth.er their penorutl. or politioo.l. agendas. is to follow oo•s example and remove the govenmem emity Apfu. we r~ that "public bimi:lllil., lboo!d not itmr® of el~ and appointed officlal:s. These "public benefit"' clauma mother oppom.m.ity for &looted ru:ad appointed officials to~ them for political or other self~ aggrmdizing purposes. Public b~~ publw«-hvg"' not just c«taht influential or w&ll..com:woted iw:l~dtu. We ~d that the SEC hu opined thai officim mm.y ~~w "public benmlt" ola.uams. u Ions u they repmt them purwsm to We wam to underscore, by this policy stat~ that we believe officials should lmve no nood to report bomemts received und« •*pu~io they mould not be the reoipi~ of these benefits m the first p~ them in their official roles. M previolJ.I'!!y described. Public b®Mfmi should bme:fit the: public; they mould not in~ ~lvea Vllith m.tpportcn. h is ul:lbthioal. in our view~ bomeftm meut for the :public«*lwge in a matmer tb.a serves the aQJioiah': ~ tlw1 th!.l public'$ m~llt. We hope tb.&t local govmw.eW: will ta:bthese reo•::um:ttMdtmiOM expeditiously implm:nea:rt oh!mgem in w::oord.mloe with this report Tt+e :ft1111q1.1~!Y \!~ isme of distribution of"'publlc beuetm" w wen in the put and ~~11M: i:uquire!ll to tlW! agency. hu led to tl:Wi a:ltem.pt to clmify tmd exp 348 u To that m1d. we hereby resolve to adopt u a set of •"best pmctices" ~r©t~lill~~~<:ilU set forth m this report. MWllOVf/lf, W© will continue to exm:nine the ticket diiitributro~ goverm:nM'U to ewmre that 1bey are m coof~~W.Ce with ~pptim~· policies need not be idootiool, we believe tb..a:t Mh.erenoo to the gui1fplinu herem would i.mw:'e mwh oollform.an~. ~. we will mv~.pte}m:ey us. wb«e it a:ppMn~iMi .. public beo.eiits" are~ ®:~tploited for 1!\lebm:te ' appointed officl!Wt for possible violatioo.s ofthe: Miami~Dade .Uld Code of Ethics ordi.wmae. In sum. we recommend as fo11ows; L Mtmicipalities md local govermn~ ~:~:my have in ~ bm:w~en ~ entif:iM and the cities. The "'¥i!!~:;;;n.., bendit!i!'' however, mhoold baefit the pub~1~tp. 2. Ti~ or oth« '"public boo~ .. mould be·din~rd in a non .. pq~~~ neutml mmtl« with no im«f«ence itom local 3. If local officials are the recipient ofti~ or the bene.fits exceed $100.00, tho offici& must ~iblv 4. 1ooll officials may m& ~ tickete 'With a vahllt}im any penoo regi~d to lobby the govm:rm.mn w prohibited purm.umt to Section 112.3148( 4). Ma- A report.ing individual4 ••• is prohibited from know' direotly or indirdy, a gift ... fu:tm a lobbyist mdividtW's ... agency ... ifhe or she knows or the gift hu a value m e:x:ooss of $100 ... ,. S. If m official is appearing at 1m event in his or hiiJ: ~m~L'Iial purpose, the o:ffioial need not report th0 ·attJ!mdimclei Howwm-. m«0 pa.ui~ sp~or dmdl.mc::~ It ~mi,I.'I'W111i ';rill :nm, ~ ~mhm.ce in o:ne•s officW. oapac::iey for A public *ro1111e mm-ruyto "be 000n" by yO"W: ~itu~moy is not. 349 12 purpose ... A:tteruknoe ut "official city business" require gift disol~ure u lq as the e~:aQl!~.pjpz+:Dd performing some bona fide official funetiou at Dade CO'Ut:lty Ethics Commission ms.y nat hAve ~~~iQI]Ily i·~ m a. fm:mal way~ we agr~ with tb.e mtiemde opinions inFSEC opin.ioos 9146 mdOl-019. public or loo& officer who ol&!:wl that [a] trip is a gift is not n!!!pwsibilliy of do~g that h~ is in~ 3i quid pro the value of his time ru:ad services are equal to or thtm tb.e trip. I I 350 13 Prom; Sent: To: Ramos, Miriam S. (COE) [MSRAMOS@miamiclade.gov] Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:46 PM Abbett, Daniel; AguUa, Raul; Alfonsin. Lourdes: Amuchastegui, Fernando: Armstrong Bart; Barnes, Bleier, Alison; Bierman, Mitch; B!lzln Sumbarg (Christine Bower); Bittner. Boksner, Aleksandr; Bonlske, Nina; Boutsls, Brlslbe, Emomot!mi; Britton Tiffany; Robert; B!u, Caballero, Sylvie; Ca!lejo, Karan; Chiaro, Maria J. ;'Citrin, Charles; Cypen, Stephan; Dannhelsser, Lynn; Dickens, SonJa Knighton; Dumas, Carmen; Entin, Monica; Esplno, Daniel; Everett, Cynthia: Forte, liiana; Friedman, Chad; Ga!dos, Roland; Garcia-Toledo, Vicky; Geller, Joseph; Greco, John; Green, Chris; Greenberg, Murray; GroonioK, W!tliam; Hearn, John; Held, Gary; Helfman, Steve ; Herin, John; Hemandez, Elizabecth; Herrera, Jose Pepe: Hialeah Attorneys; Hl!l, Marlon; lrlzarr!, Ramon; Jacobow!lz, Jaramil!oNelcz, Elsa; Jimenez, Jose; Kennedy, Harlene; Kuper, Richard; Leen, Craig; Bruce; Lenard, Howard; Lloyd-StilL Robart; Maer, Miriam; Marks, Lloyd; Mariinez- Esteve, Jorge (GAO); Mehaffey, Kathy: Mendez. VIctoria; Meyews, Rot;Jert: Min, Barnaby; , Moas, Joanna; Monestlme, Rsglne: Morales, Jimmy; Negron. Melissa; Norris-Weeks, Burnadette; Olin, Jean; O':tlnot, Hans: Alexander; Papy, Don; Pepe, Thomas; P!zzl, Reyes, N\noshka; Riesberg, Barbara; Rosawald, Rob; Rothstein, Steven; Santiago, Amy; Samfliln, Richard; Selden, Jan; Sherman, Greig S!bila, Siegel, Oarcea; Smith, Suarez~Rlves, Rafael; Swltkes, Robort ; Trevarthen, Susan · Turner, Debora; Venture., VIllalobos, Jose: Vizcaino, Diana; Weiss, Richard Wenoe!i, Laure K.; Met; DavJd; Xtques, Veronica Ethlcs Comm\sslon summary For Immediate Release: March 2012 Contact Joseph Executive Director 350-0613 or centorl@!mfamlgage.gov As a foi!ow up to guidelines it Issued earlier thls month for the officl<d use of complimentary tickets by public offida!s, the Mlam!-Oade Commissh:m on and Publk Trust (COE} today adopted internal guidelines that darlfy when a politician appears at a fw>ctionln an "official '' The list of recommended public purposes for attending ticketed events includes hosting dignitaries, visltors and certain residents or groups and performing actions related to the official's pos!t1cm 1 such as presentations, ribbon cuttings and speech making. The addendum to guidelines* also suggests how public officials should dLstributetickets that are received through a contractual agreement with a private entity 1n order to avoid possible misuse of public resources and bolster confidence in the Integrity of government. D!strlbut!on may be first-come, first~se:nve or by a lottery. The tickets could be sold, with the designated to a could be allocated to non-profit agencies, schools, children's · ·gro tJps ·or ·eollimunlt.y ·e rgan lzatl@fls~rhe-tlckets.a lso .cou I d .be.used .aue.wards .f.or _cltlzru:u; _QJ:J"1JlPJ!:LV.~.e.s_tna\5too ····~ . substantia: contributions to the community or local government. The COS w!\1 continue to provide opinions to offlc1a!s whether other uses are 351 t'n a re!ai:ed matter, Ethics Commissioners found No Probable Cause to a complaint (C 12-07) that officlais in the of · vlolated County and Ethics Ordinances failing to report tickets they had received to events at the Knight Center, Bavfront Park <md the but also approved the drafting of a general Letter of Instruction foduture reference. That letter wl!\ dte the clarification of purpose" and emphasize that officials are not entitled to the use of pllblic benefit tickets as a matter of right. officials will be reminded they have an obligation to report gifts (which Include tickets to and that when an officia\ receives two tickets for use wlth a spouse or partner, they must be disdosed 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 on outside employment" of the Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance. An Investigation by the Inspector General's Office had found that NlranJan Seepersaud also worked for American Coach Lines from March 2007 through June of but failed to obtain authorization for outside """"""'""' and did not flle flmmcia! disclosure forms each year as requlred the Code. After the case was turned over to the Ethics Seepersaud was told that if he with the fH!ng requirement by the end of 2011, no action would be takerL He has failed to do so, and the complaint {C 12."08) wll! proceed. Two complaints (C 12·09 and C 12·13) Homestead Mayor Steven Bateman of misspending campaign funds at a store were found "not legally suffldent.'' The are based on state law, which is outside the Ethics Commission's The same citizen accused Homestead 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.!uded from copyright protection, are considered In the publlc domain and can be used by anyone. t=or that reason, the complaint (C 12~:1.5) wa;s deemed "not legally sufflclent.'' Seven complaints were filed against Homestead Councilwoman Judy Waldman relating to her re-election campaign last fall. Four of them (C 12·17, c 12·18, c 12·19 ancl c 12-23) were deemed "not iega!ly sufficient" because they don't violate any laws. Two complaints {C 12-20 and C 12·21) were found "Mt legally suffident" because they allege violations ofstate election laws, which Is outside ofthe jurisdiction ofthe COE. The final one (C l:Z-U) does not allege an action that violates the Ethics Code. No Probable Cause was found to a complaint (C 12·06) accusing a Mlaml Lakes Co1.mcl! member of exploitation of official A resident ofthe clty alleged that Rlchard PuHdo demanded that, as a part of a municipal beautification trees be planted In front of his home first, and that he pressured the Town's park staff t:o provide free use of hmd to a flag football league. The Investigation found no substance to the charges, and the complaint was dismissed, A complaint (C 1Z"03) flied aga!nst a lobbyist, John Morse, who registered on behalf of Ascent Healthcare Solutions in September of :2010 but faHed to flie the required Lobbyist Expenditure Statement by the July 1, :2011, deadline, was dismissed after he completed the form. Investigators learned he had moved out oftown and never received the notices, but once they called him and explained his obligations, he responded, In light of cases Hke that, which consume resources, the Ethics Commission dfscussed changing the rule requiring iobby!sts to file armua! expenditure if they spent no funds during the reporting period. A proposed amendment to the Code of Ethics will be forwarded to the County Commisslon for its consideration. A Hab!llty dalms adjuster with Miami-Dade County's Risk Management division may provide consulting and inspection services for private dients, Including some governmental entities, if he has permission from hls supervisors. The COE C§.~RQ..fl~e JQ...I5§:g~st ~C?.t.2!2Lni.r,:tn_l:Z -QI_~!~I?~-th~! l<t£f:!.t1..!:!!tl_ M cc~:ry.'§Jlri~ di~!}:t~a n r:!._Q_~J!.av_e. i nt~rest~il ~~e rs~. to t~ e ... County or control or maintain property associated with the County. The RQO also recommends that, if granted provlde the names of his private clients to his 2 352 /''he Ethtcr; Commission was cter:rt:ed in 1996 os em independent agency with and powers. tt is i:omposed of five members, staggered terms of four years each. ThrCJugh a program of education, mJtreoch and enforcement, the Commission seeks to empower the community and bolster public trust. "'The addendum ls posted on M!amiDadeEth!cs.com Rhonda VIctor Sibilla, Community Outreach Coordinator !llllamlwOade Gommlss!c.n1 on Ethics & Public Trust iS Wesl Flagler, Suite 820 Mlaml, P!oricta 33 i 30 305·350·0631 '-"""'J.J<·'"' 119 of t/H:l Fforlda Statutes conCJ$mlng public records. E·maii tc; dlscfosuro. 353 EXHIBIT I I J, I \. '. I ' ~ i OFFICE Or THE CiTY ATTORNEY JOSE CITY A TIORNEV MEMORANDUM TO; Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust; and Joseph C'.-ento:rino Esq., Executive Ethics Col'f!missi FROM: Smith, Esq., City Attorney, City DATE: February 28, 2.012 Mi~mhDu~ Cotmtl:-.... ~~*s Propog ~~ ~d ~~~ :re.~:J?®Uc Ee~fits." C~ m C~ Guvmnm.mt Con:tr~. ·· As City Attorney for the City of Miami Beach, the following represents my legal analysis of the above-referenced draft Guidelines and Recom.m.endatioru 1 proposed by Joe Centorino, Executive Director of the Miru:ni-Dade County Comm.i.Bsian on Ethics and Public Trust. In essence, Executive Director Ce:ntorino has coru::luded th.at: • Tickets to events received by City officials pi.liSU!'Wt to "Public Benefits" clauses City contracts should not be distribnted by individual officials; and • City officials' acceptance of tickets/attendance at such ticketed events is appropriate only when a public purpose is evidenced active, official action rather than by •<passive spectator attendance'', While it is undisputed that City resources (such as event tickets) may be used only where a purpose" a municipality's policy detem:rination the manner of acoomplishlng such purpose should be left to the discretion of gov~ body, Absant legislation sr>eoifically authorizing the County Ethics to wa.J.uate said policy, such detem:rinatio:n is not subject to review the Ethics C~on. Although :Mr. Ce:ntorlno • s Proposed Guidelines address legitimate public concerns, the County Com:mi.ssion has not vested the COB with oversight authority govtm:rlng a Commission's determination hpublic purpose", For that reason, the Proposed Guidelines are not appropriate for adoption by the COB. 1 This (undated) draft proposal is entitled: "Guidelines and recommendations regarding 'public benefit' clauses in certain government contracts". 354 I. IN;TRQDUC!lQN,: THE CITY OF MlAMJ BEACH HAS BEEN A PROVEN LEADER IN GOVER.N'iMJ!NT ETHICS. Subsequent to the conclusion of the 20i 1 State Attorney's investigation of the City of Miami Beach's negotiations with New World Symphony (finding no criminal conduct), the Proposed Guidelines were written to address 11flawed policies that have resulted in unwarranted and inappropriate benefits for elected and appointed officials"2• Although the City recognizes that the Proposal is intended as guidance for all governmental entities subject to the jurisdiction of the CoUlliy Ethics Commission, the stated genesis said report unfairly depicts the City of Miami Beach as a tra:nsgressor of ethics laws, failing to recognize the great contn'bution the City has made towards ethics and good government For well over the past decade, the City has enacted strict ethics laws supplemental to Federal, State and Cou:nt:y legislation to strengthen ethics rules and avoid the skirting of said laws, otherwise achievable due to loopholes or the simple failure of other legislative bodies to so legislate. Included among these :novel City-enacted ethics laws have been increased lobbyist restrictions, campaign :finance reform, post-service restrictions for elected officials and governmental employees, prohibitions on direct and indirect lobbying activities by appointed md elected government officials, increased prohibited contractual relationships of govemmmt employees and officials, increased prohibitions on direct and indi.rect prohibited business relationships, and enlarging scope of voting conflict proscriptions. Additionally, and most evident of the City's commitment to ethics legislation is the City Charter provision (self-initiated by the City Commission) requiring voter approval before the enactment of my law weakening City ethics laws. All of the aforeatsted measures demonstrate an abeo1ute and unwavering .~ommitment by the City to enact effective ethics laws. Any suggestion. that City has exploited its policies ignores the City's demonstrated resolve towards enacting and enforcing meaningful ethics legislation. 11 FACTUAL BACKGROUND. THE CITY OF M:fk\U BEACH'S TICKET POLICY HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SlNCE ITS APPROVAL BY THE STATE ETHlCS COMM:ISSION IN 1993, WITHOUT COivnviENT OR CRITICISM FROM COUNTY ETHICS COJ\1MISSION. The City ofMiruni Beach ticket policy as embodied in City Resolution No. 93-2.0694, (signed by then Mayor Seytnou:r Gelber) had as its foundation an opinion from the Florida Commission on Eihics condoning public officials' acceptance of complimenta.ry tickets, conditioned only upon disclosure of tickets received. In State COE 92.-33, the tickets were held to constitute permissible gifts to the City cornmiss1oners 3 , which had to be disclosed quarterly if their value 2 355 exceeded The basis for the request the opinion was a concern for strict compliance with applicable ethics regulations and a to ensure legality of the City's contractual process, whereby (in that it negotiated with a theater management company to operate the City's theaters and the City would as partial consideration, tickets per performance for every event staged at the theater. As reflected State Miami Beach made disclosure to the State Ethics Com:mission of facts the manner in which the City negotiated for and received the tickets, and the City's process :for distribution and usage of the tickets. Aware of all relevant facts, the State COB determined the ticket policy to be consistent with ethics laws so long as the appropriate disclosure were filed reflecting the names of ticket recipients and the value of tickets received4• Since the Opinion's issuance in 1992, the City of Miami has rolled in faith upon its holding, and has adbered to its dictate of timely gift disclosure. Despite the transparency ofthe City's ticket policy\ it has never been que~tioned the Miami~ Dade County Ethics Commission or anyone else. LEGAL ANALYSIS. Municipalities in the State of Florida enjoy home rule power, granting them " ... governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise my power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law." Fla Const. Art VID, sec, 2 (b). Home ru.\e municipalities axe subject to the additional Constitutional requirement that expenditures of City funds for a "public purpose". Fla. Const, Art. VII, sec. 10. Accordingly, although a City may enact a policy with regard to its use of public ·resources, such policy must serve a purpose", As will be seen below, the ''public purpose" determ:i.nation by a City carries the constitutional validjty, 2X1d is only to review, 3 Note: At the May 26, 2011 Ethics Commission hearing on COB Commissioner Seymour Gelber (after recognizing the of Miami Beach's wen-established ticket policy) stated his bolieftbat the complimentary tickets received by City personnel were not "gifts" and therefore did not require disclosure, Commissioner Gelber further went on to state that the ticket issue was "much ado about nothing". 4 m subsequent the State COB has condoned identical ticket distribution/use policies of the City of Daytona Beach (State COE 05 re: tickets to International Speedway), City of St. Petersburg (State COE Ol-19 re: Tropicana Stadium). and the of Orlando and Orange County (State COE 95~36 re: tickets to Stadium). 5 See f.n. #8 herein. 3 356 A THECITY TICKET IS PRESUMED VALID, 1. POLICY DETERMINATION IS FOB CITY_COMMISSIQN ALONE TOM~, NOTTH~ What constitutes a public purpose in the first instance, a question for the legislature City Commission) to detennine, and its opinion should given great weight Jag~on Lumber Co,__y,_W&~1ton County, 116 So. 771 (1928); SJ;&e v. Housing Finance Authority of Polk ="'"""'""'' 376 So.2d 1158, 1 (Fla. 1979), holding that the detern1ination. of what constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of ·· funds is a detem1ination for the legislative and governing body involved. The question of "public purpose" involves the exercise of judgrrumt and is a matter that the Miami Beach City Commission, as the and governing body of the City of Miami Beach, must determine by City Resolution forth the requisite legislative findings and intent. A legislative declaration of public purpose is presumed to be valid. and should be deemed correct unless so clearly erroneous as to be beyond the power of the legislature. Wald v. Sarasota County Health Facilities Authority, 360 So.2d 763 (Fla.l978); Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Facilities Authority, 247 So.2d 304 (Ela.l971); Price v. Citv of St. Petersburg, 29 So.2d 753. lliffi; S.:tate v, Momoe CoJmtt. 3 So.2d 754 (r:li.1941}. Unless expressly or impliedly restrained by statute, a rnlll:licipal corporation has discretion in the choice of means and methods for exercising powers given it for governmental or public purposes, and the usual limitations upon the actions of municipalities their 1egal powers are good faith and reasonablenessj not wisdom or perfection. All as to the propriety of means used i:n the exercise of an undoubted municipal power will resolved in favor of the municipality_ State v. Tarnj;!a Waterworks Co., 47 So. 358 (Fla. 1908). 2. ~TS. AND NQI THE ETHICS CQMlvUSJON, Uh VE POWER TO REVIEW CIIT CQMMISSION'S POLICY. 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 purpose" constitutional and statutory See, l}.skew v. Schuster, 331 So.2d 297 (Fla.1976); Art.ll, § 3, Fla. Const; and LigUQJ Store v. Continental_ Distilling Com., 40 So.2d 371, 374 (Fla. 1949). Unlike the courts, which possess to review public policy determinations, agencies such as the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission may engage in such :review only if the authority to do so is granted the corresponding enabling legislation. As an administrative body, the powers the are limited to statutory authorization as set forth in the County Code, and the COB may only act those grants of power specifically afforded it "Administrative are creatures of statute and have only such powers as the statute confers on them."' AGO 75-120 citing 42 Am. Jru:., Public Administrative Law, sec. and State ex re1. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of De~ 297 So.2d 628. at 638 (l D.C.A. Fla., 1958). Both the State Attorney and Florida Commission on Ethics have recognized their lack of jurisdiction to review a City's legislative findings governing "public purpose"; 4 357 , .. we view this question [expending City funds towards Sister City program] as being pril:narily a question of whether there is a iegitimate public purpose ... rather than as being an ethical As there ts no issue under the Ethics presented in this situation, we have no authority to decide in an advisory opinion whether the use of City resources in this manner (Emphasis added) .State COB 85-13; and see, Fla. AGO 83-5 noann_g that a "public purpose" detern:tination cannot be delegated to the Attorney General'? Office. Accordingly, the issue of•<public purpose" is not within the purview ofthe Miami-Dade County Ethics Comxr:rlssion. Neither the Miami-Dade (County Code section 2-ltl) or tho related Code pro-v'isions enabling the Ethics Commission (County Code Cha?ter 2, Article LXXVTII) give the COB the legal authority to issue guidelines establishing what is and what is not acceptable justification fur a City's public policy regarding its use government resources, A thorough review of the County Code fails 10 reyeal any authority, either express or implied6, granting unto the Cmrwrission the power _to second-guess a City's public ?Olley determination. See ~Ply& Condominium v. DiYiso; ofl!l~ I&nd Sales ;;md Con®minium!!-Daartm.w of Business :Regulati®s, 371 So.2d 152 (Fla. lst DCA :979). only sections of the County Ethics Code relev:ant to the City's use its resources (such as to events it has received arms-length negotiations) are: • Code section 2-11.1 (e) govt;'lming "Solicitation of Gifts"; and. 111 County Code section 2-1 L 1 (g) of Official Position". Neither of the above ethics regulations however establish a for ''public pmpose?', '"""''"'"' .... both of these Code sections recognize that so long as the actions taken were pursuant to City (i.e., City of 11iami Beach Resolution No. 93~20694), those Code sections ar.e complied with. (See, County section 2-11.1 (e)(2), and (g):" .. No person included in the terms defined in. subsection (b)(l) through (6) and (b)(13) sluill use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for b.irrlself or herself or others except as may ba specifically permitted by other ordinances and resolutions previOWJly ordained or adopted or hereafter to ordained or by the Board of CoUYJ.ty Commissioners". (Bmpl:lasis added.) Id. Although the COB may desire to review issues of a City's public policy detetmination7 , absent County Code authorization, the COB lacks such reviewing power, See, 6 Although County Code section 2-1066 that the COB " ... mu:y exercise s.;J those powers either epcoifica11y g:ra:nted herein or necessary in exercise of those powers herein enumerated", such i:rn:plied ""'I"'""'~'" may not warrant the exercise of a substantive power uot conferred. Mol win Inv. Co. v. Ttpn.~. 167 So. 33 (Fla. 1936); Fla. AGO 73-374. Any implied power must be necessarily implied from a duty which is specifically or expressly imposed statute. Fla. AGO ESU v. Jenkins, 323 So.2d 597 (Fla. lDCA 1975). power to be implied must also be essential in order to carry out the expressly granted power or duty imposed, e.g., Fla. AGO 73-374 and 67 C.J.S. Officers e. 102, 1 However laudabte or com.m.endable the actions of the as stated in .St. Regis Pam Qom:gmy v. State, 237 So.2d 797, 799 1st DCA is well settled that a statutory agency does not 5 358 Conte'lt Development Co, v. Dru1e Qo~ 374 So.2d 1143 3DCA 1979), in which the Third District Court of Appeal found that :v.riami-Dade County's DERM did not have the legal autb.ority to issue a particular order as the Director lacked any legislative authority under the Dade Code to require any environmental impact statement from appellant: , .. io our contrary to appellees' contentions, none of appellant's ll(;tivities as reflected by this record show a violation of the Dade Code provisions relied upon in the cease and desist brder. Appellees argue that agricultma1 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. Sees 24-3(14)(b). Dade Code. However, ... the important question us is not whether these activities complained of should or could be forbidden, but :ra.tb.cr only whether they have been. Id. at 1149 Just as in mn.m. the issue before the COE is whether the City policy violates County Ethics Code, not whether the City's policy should be subject to review by the Ethics Regardless of its good intentions, the COE may not invoke jurisdiction over a matter the County Commission has not granted it such power. 3. CQNSTJ,UJ~TS JjA VB lJLTIMATE SAY CONCERNING PROP:RIETY OF CITY'S TI.Q!CET POLICY. A.fter all legal arguments have rested, thB ultimate decider of whether the City's ticket policy is valid and serves: the public interest is, of course, the electorate. If indeed City residents object to the present ticket policy, they are free to voice their objections to the govemi:ng body, and if. the policy is not a:r:nended to reflect the public's concerns, the recourse will undoubtedly be at the ballot box; Courts will not determine whether or not the action of public officers is wise, economical 0!: advantageous, such questions belonging exclusively to the public officers and boards. If they exercise their powers foolishly or 1.1J1Wisely, the recourse ofthetr constituents is to go to the ballot box and not to courts. (Emphasis added.) Browa:rd County Rubbish Contractors Ass'n v. Broward County, 112 So.2d 898. 903 (Fla. 2DCA 1959). 53 So.2d 828, 831 (Fla. 1951) citing McQuillin on Municipal COl:POJ:atil:>tlS poasess any inherent powers; such agency is limited to the powers granted, either expressly or by necessary implication, the statutes (here the Dade Code) creating them." See e.g; .• Aslr.ew v, Cr!;l!~S Ke;: Y:l§.tm::':Wm. 372 So.2d (Fla.l978); !&will y, Bank of ff!.§® County, 346 So.2.d 53 (F1a.1976}; Swsota Countl v. Bar_g, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla. and ~araoota ~lY. v, Bekm:_:F:h~bate CQ:r:th 322 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), 6 359 It is significmt to note, however, that the City's residents have not objected to the City's ticket policy. In a pro~active, government~involved residents with: • over 41 citizen-volunteer (the of such com:n:rittoos meeting at least 11 or more time per year). • 4-6 public meetings per weelc, • 1 regularly-scheduled City Commission public meeting per month8 (including at least 1 monthly Commission committee meeting), o approxim:ate~y 46 public records requests handled on a monthly basis in 2011, and e 1292 phone requests in 2011 directed to the City's main public information telephone line there have not been any complaints regardmg the City's use of its negotbrted tickets. If the citizens had objected to this ticket policy, surely the. City Comn:riasion would have addressed those concerns prior to the COB's instant review of the matter. fn light of the absence of COB jurisdiction over such policy determination it. is inappropriate for the COB to insert itself into what is essentially a 1oca1 issue, especially the absence of citizen outcry. B. THE CITY'S TICKET POLICY IS SUPPORTED BY ITS COtJRSE QF CONDUCT. While it is clear that the COE lacks jurisdiction to assert only active participation by City personnel constitutes 11public purpose .. for purposes of assessing the City of Miru::ri Beach's ticket policy 1 following analysis bears upon the policy for ticket usagl?. Although the City abtmdoned certain terms of Resolution 93~20694,11)the policy's objective of ensl.4""in.g highAevel personnel presence at such events has been the custom of the since 1993, and been unassailed. The that this policy has been in effect for a.lroost two decades 11 , and has not been the subject of prior citizen outcry, is relevant support of the City's legislative policy detem1ination: In deciding whether such purpose is public or private, courts must be largely inftmmced the course and usage of the government, the object for which taxes s As an unciiEq:>uta:ble fact, numerous "Public Benefits" clauses have been included 'Nithln contracts City O::nnmisaion in public hearings. 9 See Executive Director Centori:no' s proposal at page para. 5. w No suggestion has been made that the City's nonOO:mJ:!Hance with imp1ementing terms (such as establishing a City board for non-profit ticket distribution) was due to a:nyili:ing other than inadvertent oversight 1 See, In re l:l::lirriage ofLauy L~?,ppe md Lynn La11ge, No. 81605. May 1, 1997: "Further, the legislation challenged here has been in existence in this state for over 20 years. In detem::U.ning whether a statute serves a purpose, a court "may take bto consideration a course oflegis1ation and usage of the government." 7 360 and appropriations have been customarily and by long course of legislation levied and made, and what objects have been considered necessary to the support and for the proper use the government. Whatever la:wfolly pertains to this purpose and is sancticmed by time and the acquiescence of the people11 may well be said to be a public purpose and proper the maintenance good government. (Emphasis added,) Hagler v. Small, 138 N.E. 849 (1923). Furthermore, what is a "public pl.l.l'pose" m not a static concept, but is flexible and capable of expansion to meet the changing conditions of a complex The Florida Supreme Court has recognized concept and has found that " ... [e] ach generation may determine its concept of these things.' ~J;s: y, ~hington Co1.l.l1ttJ.)~-Y~9pmeni~Ii.t:t. 178 So.2d 573, 579 {Fla. 1965); tate . Ci of Tall a.ssee 195 o. 402 (1940). See also State v. City of JackBQnville1 50 So.2d 532 {Fla-1951). Indeed, the consensus of modem legislative and judicial thinking (particularly after the State grant of municipal home rn1e power) is to broaae:n the scope of activities that may be classified as involving a public purpose. For over 25 years, the City Miami Beach has devoted its resources toward econ,omic developmentu with regard to planning and zoning issues, infrastructure improvement, including the ongoing ma±nten:mce and promotion of faciHties providing visual . performing arts productions and cultural events. The City has deemed it a public need for high-ranking City officials' attendance at functions. of City-owned venues in order to provide them with the opportunity to learn more about the citizens' concerns and interests as well as the host organizations and their unique issues and needs. The exchange of information fooilitated by attending functions helps City officials be more responsive to these :needs. It is consistent with the City's goal to aUow these high-ranking City officials to attend, at City expense, cultural productions and events taking place in the City's resulting in increased.communication :regarding City affairs with the public outside of City Hall, as weU as publicizing the productions; and events and thus encouraging public attendance. The General's Office has found that so long as the governing body bas approved the use of public resources, public funds may be expended for entertainment expenditures that are 12 The City's ticket policy b.a!; not been objected to by the public, despite decades'-iong existence. (See, above argw:mmt at m (A) ll Economic Development has been statutorily recogt'li?..ed as an appropriate purpose of municipalities. See Florida Stat 166.02l(S)(b). (b) The governing body of a murucipality may expend public funds to attract and retain business enterprises, and the use of public funds toward the achievement of such economic development goals constitutes a public purpose. The of this chapter which confer powers and duties on the governing body of a municipality, including any powers not specifically prohibited by law that canoe exercised by the governing body of a municipality, shall be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purposes of this subsection." (Emphasis added.) 8 361 determined by the body to serve a purpose. In an opinion from 1968, the.Artomey General addressed the legality a special district spending public funds entertainment acknowledged the requirement that the Legislature authorize the use of public funds for purposes of hospitality a:ud entertainrnent. Absent such specific legislative authorization, the Attomey General's office found that the creation of special districts would not in and ofltself indicate a need to carry on extensive programs of hospitality and entertai:nment. See, Fla. AGO 68-t2. 2. :rH;s QITY'S IIQKET PQLfiCY PROVIDES A fREDQMINANT PUBLIC BE1\TEFIT, At'\JD At"\lY_BENI.U~ITTO CITY PERSQ_NNEL IS INCIDENTAL AND 1WJS PROP~ Finally, the that City officials may be incidentally benefitted by use of these tickets does not destroy the pubhc nature of the poUcy. 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 the enactment is public in nature, it is irrelevant that there will be an incidental benefit to private interests. See, B1ackb1t~St~ .Commission on Ethics, 589 2d 431 (Fla. DCA 1991); and Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, (Fla. (defending against recall lawsuit created incidental benefit to elected official providing primary henefit to public). 'N. CQNCLUSION. The authorities above support the legal proposition that the City of Miami Beach may, subject to judicial · establish policy governing the distribution and usage tts tickets to City-owned venues, which policy carries the presumption of validity. The COE lacks jurisdiction to issue a policy statement stating what is and what is not a lawful "public pmpose" with regard to the City's distribution and use of these tickets. It is the City Commission that is the final arbiter ticket policy, and pot the Ethics Commission. With regard to the distribution of City tickets to high-ranking persollllel, it is not unreasonable to presume that part their official duties may be to attend certain high-pr:ofile special events (such aE Art Basel or the South Beach Wine & Festival) that focus national and attention on the City ofMiami Beach thus promote commerce and tourism. As to those "ordiuaxy" performances or events which do not necessarily gamer national attention. there is a public purpose the presence City officials at events as well, and this too is a matter of good faith discretionary decision-making by the City's governing body. 9 362 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 363