OIG No. 25-14 Results of Ethics Survey of City Regulatory Employees.TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Joseph M.Centorino,Inspector General
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Joseph Centorino,Inspector General
July 24,2025
Results of Ethics Survey of City Regulatory Employees
OIG No.25-14
Background
This report summarizes the results of an ethics survey conducted by staff members of the
Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (COE)of 209 regulatory employees in
the City of Miami Beach during May 20-22,2025.The survey included the following
departments:Building,Code Compliance,Finance,Fire Prevention,Parking Enforcement,
Planning,and Procurement.The survey was carried out by COE staff at the suggestion of
the Inspector General and with the cooperation of Ethics Commission Director Ignacio
Vazquez,Jr.,City Manager Eric Carpenter,Human Resources Director Marla Alpizar and her
staff.The project was a follow-up to two previous surveys conducted by the COE that included
the same questions addressed to employees of the same City departments during 2013 and
2016.
The purpose of all three of the surveys was to solicit and gauge input about corruption and
unethical conduct from City employees working in those areas of City government where
interactions between public employees and regulated private parties were considered the
most susceptible to ethical compromise.The most recent survey compares current employee
responses with those from both prior surveys to illuminate possible trends and areas of
concern.The participants in all surveys were assured that their identities would be kept
confidential to encourage candor in their responses and greater accuracy in the results.
The initial survey came about in 2013 when former City Manager Jorge Gonzalez approached
the COE to request that it design an intensive and unique ethics training program for the City's
regulatory employees in the wake of several serious corruption-related incidents in the City.
A nine-step program was designed and conducted over a period of seven months by COE
staff under a contract approved by the City Commission.The program's final segment,
consisting of the first survey,was conducted by COE staff with City employees who
participated in the program.The entire live program was video-recorded,and portions of the
sessions were later incorporated by Dr.Leslie Rosenfeld,then Organizational Development
Page 1 of 4
Coordinator for the City,into a specialized ongoing ethics training program for employees
working in regulatory departments.
The second survey using the same format was conducted during 2016 at the request of then
COE Director Joseph Centorino and with the approval of then City Manager Jimmy Morales.
The survey results showed measurable improvement across the board in the responses of
employees,indicating that the initial and ongoing ethics training,as well as the strengthened
tone of ethical conduct begun during the Gonzalez administration and continuing through
2016 under the Morales administration,had a beneficial impact.
2025 Ethics Survey
The most recent survey was conducted at City Hall locations over three days during the week
of May 19,2025,and was performed by COE staff under arrangements made by and
coordinated through the Human Resources Department.The interviews included the same
15 objective questions asked in both prior surveys (open-ended questions from the original
survey were not included)and were conducted confidentially as were the prior surveys.
Questions 1-8 consisted of general questions related to perceptions of the interviewees
concerning job satisfaction,working conditions and ethical standards in their departments
and citywide,based on a scale of 1-10,with 10 being the strongest positive response.
Questions 9-15 sought "yes"or "no"answers to inquiries focused on perceptions of
corruption,safeguards against corruption,reporting of corruption,ethics training and
protection from retaliation.
Employee answers to the questions were tabulated by Karl Ross,COE Forensic Accountant,
who compared them with the results from the 2013 and 2016 surveys.The results are
summarized in the attached Executive Summary prepared by Mr.Ross.A copy of the
questionnaire used in the survey is also attached.
Other than the staff time involved in the arrangements,the 2025 survey was conducted at no
expense to the City.
OIG Observations and Recommendation
The overall results compiled in the attached Executive Summary do not show substantial
deviations from most of the 2016 survey results,indicating that the improvement shown
between 2013 and 2016 has largely been maintained.However,substantial improvement
between 2016 and 2025 has occurred in only one area,but importantly one involving serious
corruption-bribery.The percentage of employees who responded to Question #9 as to
whether the respondent had ever received an offer of a bribe has continued to diminish:15%
in 2025,as compared with 21 %in 2016,and 27%in 2013.
The reduction in bribe offers shown in responses to Question #9 may reflect a perception by
private individuals and entities that City employees are less disposed than previously to react
favorably to such offers made by private parties subject to regulation,including approval
processes,by the City.
Page 2 of 4
This encouraging sign may support the fact that there has been no bribery or other high-level
corruption case involving an important City official for years.This is further buttressed
somewhat by the response to Question #10 in which only 9%of employees said they were
aware of bribery or corruption in their respective departments,compared to 13%in both 2013
and 2016.
Although these numbers are still too high to induce comfort or complacency,they indicate
that progress has been made by the City in deterring serious corruption.This is notable since
the motivation for City's initiating the 2013 specialized ethics training program and the annual
follow-up recorded sessions was centered on past bribery-related incidents in the City which
had led to prosecutions and incarcerations of City personnel.
Another positive sign in the latest survey was shown in the responses to Question #12,which
reflected a stronger perception by employees that there are effective ways to report
suspected corruption in the City:83%in 2025,as compared with 78%in 2016 and 60%in
2013.
The disappointing aspect of the survey results indicates that other improvements between
2013 and 2016 shown in the prior surveys about employee perceptions of the quality of ethics
in the City Government may not have continued through the ensuing years,and in some
cases may have stalled or slightly receded since 2016.This is not necessarily a cause for
alarm but should create a concern that the progress made in prior years in promoting stronger
ethics in the City has stagnated and may be diminishing in some respects.
The substantial across-the-board improvements between 2013 and 2016 were attributed,at
least in part,to the extensive ethics training for regulatory personnel begun during the in-
person 2013 program and the continued in-house recorded program through 2016 and
beyond.However,the program was suspended in 2020 during COVID and has not been
revived since that time.
The habits that contribute to improvements in ethical conduct and good governance do not
occur spontaneously.The results of this survey support and the OIG recommends the
reintroduction of enhanced ethics training for the City's regulatory employees.
The OIG is grateful to COE Director Vazquez for his support for this project,to City Manager
Carpenter for agreeing to permit the survey to be conducted,and to Human Resources
Director Alpizar and her department for coordinating the interviews with the participating City
departments.
Those who diligently conducted the interviews from the COE included Advocate Radia Turay,
Staff Attorney Nardia Haye,Lead Investigator Rodney Vega,Investigator Sandrene Dukes,
Investigator Stephanie Vega,and Forensic Accountant/Investigator Karl Ross,who also
provided the useful compilation of responses for all three surveys.
The task of coordinating the numerous interviews from City employees was performed
through Human Resources Department staff members Lissette Franco,Kenneth Ingersoll,
Koren Illa,and Bill Tallman.Valuable tech support for the project was provided by Information
Page 3 of 4
Technology Director Frank Quintana.Credit should also be given to the 209 City of Miami
Beach employees who cooperated in providing candid answers to the survey questions.
Inspector General
cc:Eric Carpenter,City Manager
Mark Taxis,Assistant City Manager
Marla Alpizar,Human Resources Director
Digna Abello,Fire Chief
Kristi Bada,Procurement Director
Hernan Cardeno,Code Compliance Director
Jason Greene,Finance Director
William MacDonald,Parking Director
Thomas Mooney,Planning Director
Vince Seijas,Building Director
Ignacio Vazquez,Jr.,COE Director
Karl Ross,COE Forensic Accountant/Investigator
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,City of Miami Beach
1130 Washington Avenue,6"Floor,Miami Beach,FL 33139
Tel:305.673.7020 •Fax:305.587.2401 •Hotline:786.897.1111
Email:CityofMiamiBeachOIG@miamibeachfl.gov
Website:www.mbinspectorgeneral.com
Page 4 of 4
Executive Summary for 2025 Ethics Questionnaire
From May 20 to 22, 2025, Miami-Dade Ethics Commission staff interviewed 209 City of Miami
Beach regulatory employees and administered a two-part questionnaire regarding their views on
how effectively CMB management fosters and facilitates ethical conduct in their respective
departments. The employees belonged to the following departments: Building (38), Code
Compliance (38), Finance (63), Fire Prevention (9), Parking Enforcement (37), Planning (14),
and Procurement (10). The same questionnaire was administered in 2013 and 2016, and a
comparison of the results suggests the following trends with respect to ethics in the workplace.
Part I results for 2025 and comparison to past results, rated on a scale of 1 to 10:
Table of citywide results for Part I of the Questionnaire, compared by year
Analysis and discussion
• In response to Question #1, overall job satisfaction rated slightly lower in 2025 at 8 out of
10 compared to 8.2 in 2016, though it was unchanged compared to 2013.
• In response to Question #2, employees rated their satisfaction with working conditions at
7.9, slightly lower than 8.1 in 2016 but up from 7.4 in 2013.
• In response to Question #3, employees rated the quality of their supervision at 7.9, down
from 8.3 in 2016 but slightly higher than the rating of 7.7 in 2013.
• In response to Question #4, employees rated the quality of their training at 7.6 out of 10,
a slight uptick from 2016 when it was 7.5 and higher still than 7 in 2013.
• In response to Question #5, employees rated the morale of their fellow co-workers as 6.7,
which is down from 7.1 in 2016 but higher than the 6.1 reported in 2013.
• In response to Question #6, employees rated the ethical standards of their supervisors at
8.1 compared to 8.6 in 2016 and unchanged from the 8.1 rating in 2013.
• In response to Question #7, employees rated the ethics of their co-workers at 8.4, down
from 8.6 in 2016, though slightly higher than 2013 when this rated 8.2.
• In response to Question #8, employees rated the City’s overall ethical standards at 7.6,
lower than the rating of 8 in 2016 but higher than the 7.1 in 2013.
Quest. #1 Quest. #2 Quest. #3 Quest. #4 Quest. #5 Quest. #6 Quest. #7 Quest. #8
Overall job
satisfaction
Working
conditions
Quality of
supervison
Quality of
training
Co-worker
morale
Supervisor
ethics
Co-worker
ethics
Overall
ethics
2025 =8 7.9 7.9 7.6 6.7 8.1 8.4 7.6
2016 =8.2 8.1 8.3 7.5 7.1 8.6 8.6 8
2013 =8 7.4 7.7 7 6.1 8.1 8.2 7.1
In general, the 2025 results suggested a slight downward trend from 2016 across all questions,
with the exception of Question #4 regarding the quality of training received. Even so, the results
found in 2025 are the same or superior to those in the original survey conducted in 2013.
Broken down by department, the following results were observed:
As expected, there was variation among departments as shown in the table above. The findings
suggest Fire Prevention and Procurement have the highest level of job satisfaction at 9.6 and 9.3
out of 10, respectively, while Code Compliance was lowest in this regard at 7.1, followed by
Finance and Parking, both at 7.9. Co-worker morale was rated highest in Procurement at 9.3 and
lowest for Code Compliance and Finance, with a rating of 6.5 for both departments.
Part II results for 2025 and comparison to past results, expressed as a percentage:
Response to Part I of Ethics Questionnaire for CMB Employees
Note: Based on interviews with 209 regulatory employees in May 2025 (rated on a scale of 1 to 10)
Quest. #1 Quest. #2 Quest. #3 Quest. #4 Quest. #5 Quest. #6 Quest. #7 Quest. #8
Miami Beach
Department
Overall job
satisfaction
Working
conditions
Quality of
supervison
Quality of
training
Co-worker
morale
Supervisor
ethics
Co-worker
ethics
CMB ethical
standards No.
Building 8.4 8.1 8 7.4 7.5 8 8.3 7.8 38
Code
Compliance 7.1 6.8 6.9 7.6 6.5 7.1 7.5 6.1 38
Finance 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.5 6.5 8.3 8.6 8 63
Fire
Prevention 9.6 9.3 9.6 9.7 9 9.6 9.9 8.8 9
Parking 7.9 8 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.9 8.5 7.7 37
Planning 8.7 8.6 8.6 7.6 7.5 8.5 8.7 7.9 14
Procurement 9.3 9.6 9.4 8.6 9.3 9.9 9.7 8.4 10
Overall Avg =8.0 7.9 7.9 7.6 6.7 8.1 8.4 7.6 209
Table 1 Comparison by Department
Response to Part II of Ethics Questionnaire for CMB Employees
Note: Based on interviews with 209 regulatory employees in May 2025 (rated on a scale of 1 to 10)
Quest. #9 Quest. #10 Quest. #11 Quest. #12 Quest. #13 Quest. #14 Quest. #15
Have you ever
been offered
a bribe?
Are you aware
of bribery or
corruption?
Do you feel you
have you received
adequate training?
Are there sufficient
safeguards against
corruption?
Is there an effective
way to report
corruption?
Do you believe
city government
is ethical?
Is there adequate
protection against
retailiation?
Yes =31 18 183 173 172 170 131
No =178 189 25 34 33 35 66
unk =0 2 1 4 4 4 11
T =209 209 209 209 209 209 209
Yes, as % =15%9%88%83%82%81%63%
No, as % =85%90%12%16%16%17%32%
Unk 0%0%0%0%1%1%5%
Table 2 Overall Results for Part II
The following is a comparison of the 2025 results for Part II to previous results:
Analysis and discussion
• In response to Question #9, it is significant that just 15 percent of employees reported
having been offered a bribe in 2025, down from 21 percent in 2016 and 27 percent in
2013 – a reduction of 12 percentage points or 44 percent since the initial survey.
• In response to Question #10, just 9 percent of employees stated they were aware of
bribery or corruption in their departments, a drop of 4 percentage points or 31 percent
from both 2016 and 2013 when it was reported at 13 percent for both surveys.
• In response to Question #11, it was found that 88 percent of employees felt they had
received adequate training to avoid ethical pitfalls in 2025, a slight reduction from the 90
percent in 2016 and 92 percent in 2013.
• In response to Question #12, a total of 83 percent of employees said they felt adequate
safeguards were in place to thwart corruption, seemingly a notable improvement when
compared to the 78 percent reported in 2016 and the 60 percent reported in 2013.
• In response to Question #13, a reported 82 percent of employees said they felt there were
effective ways to report suspected corruption, up slightly from the 80 percent result in
2016 and up significantly from the 64 percent reported in 2013.
• In response to Question #14, the survey found 81 percent of city employees stated they
viewed Miami Beach government to be ethical, a similar finding to the 82 percent of
respondents in in 2016 and significantly higher than the 65 percent in 2013.
• In response to Question #15, only 63 percent of employees stated they felt they were safe
from retaliation, down from 67 percent in 2016 but still well above the 33 percent of
employees who responded affirmatively in 2013.
2025 % =Yes 15%9%88%83%82%81%63%
No 85%90%12%16%16%17%32%
Unk NA 1%NA 1%2%2%5%
2016 % =Yes 21%13%90%78%80%82%67%
No 79%87%10%22%19%17%29%
Unk 0%0%0%0%1%1%3%
2013 % =Yes 27%13%92%60%64%65%33%
No 71%86%6%32%28%20%50%
Unk 1%0%2%8%8%15%16%
Other Part II findings and highlights among departments:
With respect to Question #9, Code Compliance employees reported the highest incidence of
perceived bribery at 29 percent or nearly twice the citywide average of 15 percent. Parking was
second highest in this regard at 22 percent, following by Planning at 21 percent.
Code Compliance was also highest for Question #10, with 21 percent of employees stating they
were aware of bribery or corruption within their department, followed by the Building
Department with 13 percent and Fire Prevention with 11 percent.
Code Compliance was lowest in response to Question #12, with only 66 percent of respondents
saying they felt there were adequate safeguards against corruption –well below the overall
average of 83 percent of citywide employees stating there were sufficient safeguards.
With respect to Question #14, it should be noted that only 51 percent of Parking Enforcement
employees felt city government was ethical, the lowest among departments.
And while only 63 percent of city employees surveyed stated they felt safe from retaliation in
response to Question #15, this percentage was especially low for Code Compliance at 45 percent,
followed by the Planning Department, which was second lowest at 57 percent.
For more detailed results and a department-level analysis, see below:
Conclusions:
The 2025 findings appear to show backsliding compared with 2016 with respect to employee
morale and perceptions of ethical standards among supervisors and co-workers. The findings still
suggest that employees feel more satisfied and more secure than in 2013. Perhaps of greatest
significance is that reported incidence of bribery has been markedly reduced since the original
survey, down from 27 percent in 2013 to 15 percent in 2025. In 2025, CMB employees also
reported feeling that more safeguards against corruption were in place at 83 percent, which
represents a vast improvement over the 60 percent reported in 2013. A remaining trouble spot
would seem to be that only 63 percent of employees feel they are safe from retaliation. Even so,
the 2025 results suggested that, for the first time across all years, fewer than 1 in 10 employees
responded that they were aware of bribery or corruption within their departments.
###
MIAMI BEACH REGULATORY EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE (2025)
INSTRUCTIONS:This survey is designed as a follow-up to the ethical governance
survey conducted in 2013 and 2016 by the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics,for
City of Miami Beach Regulatory Employees.Participating departments included
Building,Code Compliance,Fire Rescue/Inspection,Planning,Parking
Enforcement,Procurement and Finance.This survey should be completed by all
current employees in those departments,regardless of whether they participated in
the previous surveys.Please do not put your name on this form.Participation in this
survey is completely anonymous.Thank you for your cooperation.
DEPARTMENT------------
SUPERVISOR NON-SUPERVISOR
PARTICIPATED IN PREVIOUS SURVEY:2013 2016 NA
I.On a scale of 1 to 10,where 10 is the strongest positive response and 1 is
the least positive,please rate the following:
1.Your overall job satisfaction
2.Your satisfaction with your working conditions
3.The quality of the on-the-job supervision you receive
4.The quality of the job training you have received
5.The morale of your fellow employees
6.The ethical standards of your supervisors
7.The ethical standards of your fellow employees
8.The overall ethical standards of the City government
II.The following questions may be answered with a yes or no response.
9.Have you ever been offered a bribe?Yes No
10.Other than hearing or reading about cases through the media or
from fellow employees,have you ever become aware of any bribery
or other corruption in your department?Yes No
11.Do you feel that you have received adequate trammg and
preparation to enable you to avoid any ethical pitfalls that may arise
on your job?Yes No
12.Do you believe that there are sufficient safeguards presently in
place to effectively prevent corruption where you work?
Yes No
13.Is there currently an effective way for City employees to report
suspected corruption?Yes No
14.Do you consider the government of the City of Miami Beach to
be ethical?Yes No
15.Do you feel that there is adequate protection against retaliation
for City employees to feel safe to report wrongdoing by their
supervisors or fellow employees?Yes No