‘Ethical Behavior’
City considers strengthening Code of Ethics
By Bari Auerbach

At the first Sunny Isles Beach City Commission meeting held at the new Government Center in David Samson Commission Chambers, the issue of ethics took center stage. But before any agenda items were discussed, Mayor Norman Edelcup made a point of noting, “This is an historic event…I’m sure [the late Mayor] Samson would have loved to be here for this meeting…If it wasn’t for his hard work and efforts we wouldn’t be here tonight.

“I’m thankful for all the work our present and former commissioners did in moving the city to [its current] position…We now have a home and [City Hall is] no longer over the shoe store in the RK Plaza… We have our own identity and it’s a wonderful occasion to be here tonight.”

Ethical conduct
During the March 10 Commission meeting, a great deal of time was spent discussing an ordinance proposed by Commissioner Danny Iglesias intended to further strengthen the city’s Code of Ethics. Here is some background information:

In Sunny Isles Beach, it was formerly acceptable for city officials to disclose personal investments that might create a conflict when an issue came before the Commission for a vote. But last year, a section in the Code of Ethics was amended to provide for “a prohibition against interests in conflict with official duties” following approval of an ordinance passed on second reading at a City Commission meeting held on July 22, 2004. Fast forward to March 10, 2005 and the issue of ethics reappeared on the agenda when Iglesias introduced a new ordinance that could make the city’s Code of Ethics even stricter if it’s passed by the Commission.

City Attorney Lynn Dannheisser reported, “The purpose of this ordinance [sponsored by Commissioner Iglesias] is to avoid the ‘appearance’ of conflicts of interest that may exist in certain circumstances. Specifically, city officials are prohibited from having personal investments in an enterprise (business organizations) which will create an appearance of conflict between private interest and the public interest where the city officials have reason to believe that they may be directory involved in the final decision making that involves a client of the enterprise.

“Furthermore, this ordinance repeals the ordinance that precluded city officials from making any personal investments in enterprises which they have reason to believe that may be directly involved in the final decision as to a development approval until the certificate of occupancy is issued. In other words, the amendment is to make this broad and general…A minor amendment to the ordinance would allow for any interpretation that needs to be rendered on this issue should the ordinance pass [be deferred to the] jurisdiction of the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics.”

‘Strongest and strictest’ ethics
“ You may recall back in July when we passed the [original ethics] ordinance I said I believed this law would deter people from running for public office because they could not abstain from voting,” Iglesias said. “I still voted in favor of it and at the time I said I would come back with another ordinance which would make our ethics law the strongest and strictest - probably in the county.

“Speakers at the time used the words ‘ethics, appearance and perception.’ I believe this [ordinance I’m sponsoring] clearly demonstrates this in that [Sunny Isles Beach] will take good ethical conduct to its highest form and avoid the perception that any employee or public official in the city would use their position for personal gain or favoritism. Most importantly, it would ‘exceed’ the previous ordinance [passed by the Commission in July of 2004]. “

Defining ‘appearance’
Vice Mayor Lewis Thaler noted, “Appearance is the key word here and I think we need a definition of what appearance actually means.”

In response, Iglesias said, “With help [from] the State Attorney’s Office [I’m] defining what ‘appearance’ is…I don’t want to get ridiculous with this ordinance.”

Alluding to Mayor Norman Edelcup, Iglesias added, “For example, [mandating that] if someone has a checking account in your bank you can’t vote is ridiculous…that’s not what I’m saying…for the record I don’t care who has anything in your bank…it’s the perception we’re trying to deal with.”

According to published reports, Sunny Isles Beach Mayor Norman Edelcup is a member of the board of directors of Florida Savings Bankcorp, the parent company of Florida Savings Bank, which has a branch in Sunny Isles Beach and holds money for some of the developers doing business in the city.

Edelcup subsequently said, “I have an interest in a bank [in Sunny Isles Beach] and certain developers have deposits there…[The Ohio Ethics Board] handled this by saying [this] would not prohibit per say the planning commission member from participating in any manner affecting the interest of a bank customer where the bank itself would have no interest in the outcome of the matter…A lot of people in this town know my situation…and if [developer] Joe Milton was here, I’m sure he would be willing to admit that even though he has a depository relationship with my bank, he certainly hasn’t gotten any favorable treatment on any matter that he has brought before us.”

In response, Iglesias said, “This is not a ‘Danny ordinance’ pointing at me and this is not an ordinance pointing at you [Mayor Edelcup]…This [proposed] ordinance is going to govern this city for future years.”

Edelcup replied, “I don’t think there is anything wrong in increasing the moral standards of the way the Commission acts. What we have to be careful of is that we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water with some inappropriate language…I think specific examples [citing unethical behavior in the ordinance could] help the Ethics Commission later determine what was the intent of this Commission.”

A more specific amendment
Following comments by fellow Commission members expressing the sentiment that the word “appearance” was too vague and lacked legal definition, Iglesias proffered a revised amendment to his proposed ordinance deleting reference to the word “appearance” and citing more specific examples of conduct that could be deemed unethical.

Reading the revised ordinance, Iglesias explained, “No current city officer or employee shall engage in any transaction or activity which would appear to a reasonable person to be in conflict or incompatible with the proper discharge of their official duties…Furthermore, should such a conflict occur, the city official or employee shall disqualify him or herself from official actions in those instances.”

Other “unethical” forms of behavior covered by Iglesias’ proposed ordinance would prohibit city officers or employees from having a financial or other private business interest linked directly or indirectly through a family member regarding any matter upon which the officer or employee is required to act in the discharge of official duties. The proposed ordinance would also prohibit city officers or employees from engaging in any transaction or activity which involves the city or any person who at any time within the preceding 12 month period had been a private client in their firm or partnership. If the above-mentioned conflicts should occur, any city official or employee would have to disqualify themselves from official action.

Iglesias also noted, “The Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics shall be empowered to enforce, review, interpret and render and advise their opinions regarding this [proposed] ordinance.”

Too high a standard?
To support the contention that Iglesias’ ordinance could prevent qualified individuals from running for office in the future, Mayor Edelcup said, “I would like to get into the record Connecticut Supreme Court comments made in July of 1970: ‘Local governments would be seriously handicapped if any conceivable interest, no matter how remote and speculative, would require the disqualification of a zoning official. If this were so it would not only discourage - but might even prevent capable men and women from serving as members of the various zoning authorities.

‘Of course courts should scrutinize the circumstances with great care and should condemn anything which indicates the likelihood of favoritism or corruption. They must however be mindful that to [nullify] a municipal action on the basis that some remote or nebulous action may be present and would deprive unjustifiably a municipality in many important instances of the services of its duly elected appointed officials.’”

In response, Iglesias said, “The bottom line is we decided in Sunny Isles Beach to come up with an ordinance that raises the bar [on ethics]. Now that we opened ‘the can of worms’ I want to make sure it covers everybody and it’s not just pointed – restricting [city officials] from buying properties [in Sunny Isles Beach before a certificate of occupancy is issued]. It has to be both ways around.”

Stating her opinion, Commissioner Roslyn Brezin observed, “I think what [Commissioner Iglesias] is doing with this [proposed ordinance] is extending yourself over, above and beyond what our original intent was in stopping you from purchasing apartments [at the] pre- site plan approval [stage]. And I don’t think that something like this is a justifiable action [although] I can understand what your feelings are and where you’re coming from.”

Reiterating his position, Iglesias said, “Everybody [previously] used the words appearance, perception and ethics [when discussing the original ordinance passed in July 2004]. Now when I want to bring it up, everybody has a problem with it.”

Going to workshop
Commissioner Gerry Goodman made a motion to defer Iglesias’ proposed ordinance and shared his feelings stating, “The original ordinance we passed, if you read the first sentence, says almost the same thing [Commissioner Iglesias is] bringing up…’An official officer, including an elected official or employee of the city, shall not make any personal investments in enterprises which he or she has reason to believe that he or she may be directly involved in the final decision making as to development approval to be made by him or her or which will otherwise create conflict between his or her public duty.’”

Iglesias replied, “ I don’t agree…[the proposed ordinance] makes it more clear that ‘interest and enterprise’ are covered by more than just real estate [transactions].”

“ I think what [Commissioner Iglesias] has proposed has some merit,” Mayor Edelcup said. “It needs some work and I remind everyone what the Supreme Court stated…You don’t want to disqualify good people from running for office…We need to be extremely careful in our wordings of any ordinance that increases the responsibility of our ethics.”

Expressing a similar viewpoint, Vice Mayor Thaler said, “I personally say that I feel it’s possible that I would vote for [the proposed ordinance] if I had time to digest it on the basis of sitting down and going through it word for word. So I ask you to defer it for a month and bring it back so we could do some more homework on it.”

Concurring, Commissioner Brezin noted, “I’m not opposed to many of the things [Commissioner Iglesias] has proposed here…I am recommending we have a deferral because I would like to read this through very carefully. I don’t like to make judgments on something that I haven’t really had an opportunity to digest…There may be some minor changes that we would all agree to but I certainly think we should have a workshop on it…This would be open to the public; possibly have more people participating in it and we would certainly get the viewpoint of many others.”

Edelcup added, “I think we need a workshop mainly because we’re dealing with moral issues and ethical terms that don’t have clear definitions…Based on the Sunshine Law, we all need to get our input in [during] some pubic forum - otherwise we’re going to be in the same place we’re at today a month from now where each of us has targeted in on something but we’re unable to discuss it with our co-commissioners…Then, we’ll come to another meeting and find we have impasses.

“I don’t know how our attorney could even be able to put together an ordinance where each one of us has different thoughts on not factual - but ethical and intangible terms…I think the only way we can move forward and accomplish what [Commissioner Iglesias] really wants, which is better ethics laws, is to sit here and do a proper job in a public forum where everyone can hash out the issues as we’re doing now.”

Iglesias retorted, “I have no problem with a workshop…I find it peculiar that on the original [ordinance passed] we didn’t have one.”

City Attorney Lynn Dannheisser subsequently advised, “Since [the Commission] is looking for professional input, I’m going to suggest we invite the Commission on Ethics staff to address each issue so you understand fully what the impact of each issue would be.”

Ultimately, with the exception of Iglesias, the Commission voted in favor of holding a public workshop to further discuss the proposed ethics ordinance on a date that was yet to be determined as of March 10.

TOP