HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-12-21 MinutesRn �1
Y �
y
i
4
.
'l
1 �
G
ifei�.
CITY OF M! Ml
COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 21, 1984
OF MEETING HELD ON
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HA
RALPH G.. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
u'
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
LL'
December 21, 1984
----------- —
------ --------- ---------------------------------------ORDINANCE
OR------------_�.
x MITEM -NO. ---------------------------
------SUBJECT_------_-_,�_RESOLUTION-NO___PAGE-NO_�_
xx
h
1
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REDUCTION IN RETAINAC>E
FROM 10% to 2-1/2% IN THE CONTRACT BE114EEN THE
CITY OF MIAMI AND BETTER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
R84-1513 1-7
2
POLICE INQUIRY
DISCUSSION 7 -22
I
a A
3;
m'
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 21st day of December, 1984, the City Commission
of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the
City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in a
special meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 9 0`Clock A.M. by
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the
Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
ALSO PRESENT:
Randolph B. Rosencrantz, City Manager
Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REDUCTION IN RETAINAGE FROM 10%
TO 2 112% IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND
BETTER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Mayor Ferre: Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is not
a regular City of Miami Commission Meeting, it is rather a
Board of Inquiry of the City of Miami Commission. In effect
it is a board of one as voted upon by the Commission at a
previous meeting. Obviously, it is always best that all
members of the Commission are present in something in these
delicate matters. It is my intention today hopefully, to go
over the McMaster, Foreman and Miller Report, dated December
19th and addressed to me and hopefully, conclude our portion
of the Michael Johnson matter. I have also requested a
former member of the Police Department to be present to
testify to other pertinent information which this Commission
may or may not get into in the future. Before we do that
since we do have a quorum and we do have three, I would like
Mr. Manager, if I may, constitute this as a Special
Commission Meeting for the purposes only of discussing the
Jose Marti Waterfront Park which we are about to inaugurate
in another three weeks or so and the Department of Public
Works has recommended the authorization and the reduction in
the retainage from ten per cent to two and a half per cent
in the contract between the City of Miami and Better
Construction, Inc. for the construction of Jose Marti Park
Phase II. Now, the gentlemen who are the owners of Better
Construction, Inc. patiently sat through the meeting
yesterday and unfortunately, it slipped me and I was unable
to bring it up for discussion. I asked them to be here and
gl
1 December 21, 1984
I asked the Public Works people to be present. Mr. Cather's
assistant is here and so, therefore, Mr. Manager through you
to him, would you explain to us what the situation is. Yes,
sir, you are in charge of this are you?
Mr. Pete Long: Right, I'm Pete Long. Assistant Director of
the Department of Public Works. We have a contractor Better
Construction who has Jose Marti Park Phase II under
construction now. They are being delayed in the total
completion of that work by some extra work that we ordered
to correct an error in design. This error was when they
started to put the pool cleaning equipment in the mechanical
room, it would not fit. We had to go back and redesign,
enlarge the room and they agreed to do that extra work and
we agreed that if they did that we would try to see what we
could do to reduce the retainage and we are retaining about
ninety thousand dollars of their money on this project. If
we reduce this retainage to two and a half per cent we will
retaining about twenty-two thousand dollars. That twenty-
two thousand dollars we will hold until they complete three
big items that they have to do. Right now we have no power
service to the playing field, because Florida Power and
Light has not gotten around to making the connection. The
pool, of course, is not cleaned up because the filters don't
work. When the filter systems are put in order they can run
the through the filters and clean up the pools. They have a
very small amount sod placement inside some turf blocks that
was a last minute item to do. We have recommended that to
reduce retainage simply because we thought it was a fair
thing to do.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. That is your recommendation
then?
Mr. Pete Long: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Plummer, you had some questions
on this.
Mr. Plummer: What's the reason to keep that retainage?
Mr. Long: I didn't understand. What is the reason?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, why do you do it?
i
Mr. Long: To protect the City's interest.
Mr. Plummer: And get the job done and completed.
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Is the job completed?
Mr. Long: The work covered by the original contract is
completed.
Mr. Plummer: The work that they were supposed to have done
under their contract is completed?
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Why are you holding any retainage at all then?
Mr. Long: We want to hold the contract open until they
complete this extra work that we are asking them to do.
Mr. Plummer: No, that's not the point. The point is if
they have done their work, they are entitled to be paid.
Now, in my estimation there is a problem at that park and
you know it and I know it.
gl
2 December 21, 1984
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Now, if this company has done the work
that they were supposed to do, I will make a motion to pay
them in their full. If they have not and it is their
responsibility, then we are going to hold the ten per cent
as far as I'm concerned, because at this particular time
there is a tremendous problem existing in that park. If
they Police Department didn't go down there almost every
night and hold their canine training you would never get it
open. Now, it's either right or it's wrong. If what you
are saying to me is that they have done their work. They
work is completed and what they agreed to do, then I don't
think you should be holding a dime of their money.
Mr. Long: They have done the work that was in the original
contract. They have not completed the work they have agreed
to do, because they have agreed to do certain items of
extra.
Mr. Plummer: That's obviously, a separate contract.
Mr. Long: No, sir it's not separate, it becomes part of the
contract when we issue a change order and we have issued
these change orders.
Mr. Dawkins: Then are you saying that you issued a change
order and this is still the original contract?
Mr. Long: No, sir, not the original contract, the modified
contract.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, then as Commissioner Plummer said
then, then the work for the original contract is finished.
Mr. Cather: If I may just add one little thing here...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, let me ask this. The work that
they bid on, that is their contract. Is that work
completed?
Mr. Cather: Mr. Plummer, I would like to explain to you
1
that, one,...
i
Mr. Plummer: My question could be answered with a simple
"Yes or no".
Mr. Cather: Well, I wish it could. The trouble is that
they have two contracts, Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. Plummer: Did they bid on Phase I and II?
Mr. Cather: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Have they finished I?
Mr. Cather: The contract for the additional fencing is part
F
of Phase I, but it's being done as an extra work order, pass
through work order through Better Construction under the
.
a
Phase II contract, because Phase I, we are under
negotiations with them now. They had a claim for extras.
We agreed to settle that for substantially less than their
amount of their claim and this also was part of the fact
that we recommended that we would reduce the retainage on
Phase II. They contractors as you will recall several years
f.`,.
ago, changed the State law to allow us after the job was
substantially completed and we had substantial completion to
not continue to retain ten per cent of their money, but to
retain what we considered an appropriate amount from ten per
}
r
7
1�LY
`
gl 3 December 21 9
1 84
x
a
cent on down to as low as two and a half per cent. We feel
that the amount of money we have at risk at this point and
time, the twenty-four thousand dollar contract for the
fence, plus a few other items justifies our holding still
retaining twenty-one thousand dollars of their money, but
releasing the balance of the money due and owing to them for
work completed to date.
Mayor Ferre: Let me give you my opinion and I will take
that page from Theodore Gibson's book. I don't know these
gentlemen or their company and I have never them personally.
I don't know them directly or indirectly. We have
professional people here and these professional people are
paid by the City of Miami to run a department called "Public
Works". The Director of Public Works and his assistant are
here with a recommendation that they put in writing. I'm
certainly not privy to all this details or what have you,
but they are recommending that the retainage be reduced from
ten per cent to two and a half and they think that we are
adequately covered. Now, either Mr. Cather and his
Assistant know what they are doing and if they don't know
what they are doing, I think Mr. Manager, you better look
into it. But if they do know what they are doing and I
think they do, my personal opinion, then I think we ought to
support them.
Mr. Rosencrantz: Ok. Mr. Mayor, I just inquired of Mr.
Long, the value of work yet undone at that park is
approximately five thousand dollars. So, the twenty-one
thousand that we are retaining more than covers the value of
the work that's unfinished at this point.
Mayor Ferre: This is in Phase II only.
Mr. Dawkins: Question Mr. Manager. Is there retainage
being held for Phase II?
Mr. Cather: Yes, sir. We have a retainage right now on
Phase...
Mr. Dawkins: What is the retainage for Phase II?
Mr. Cather: The retainage on Phase II is eighty-six
thousand dollars.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, why don't you just give the people their
money out of Phase one and continue to retain Phase II?
What's the difference. Why would we keep two per cent of
Phase I's money when the work is completed and you got Phase
II? I mean, it's just... that doesn't make sense to me, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Long: Can I correct that? We are trying to get a
reduction of retainage in Phase II. We have not been able
to make final payment on Phase I, because we were
negotiating with the contractor concerning some requests for
payment for extra work that he did. We intend to make final
payment for Phase I, total final payment at the next
available Commission meeting.
Mayor Ferre: Let me understand this. Is Phase I and Phase
II linked?
Mr. Long: Only by the fact that we have the same
contractor.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but I mean, there are two separate
contracts. Madam City Attorney under law we could not use
the retainage of Phase I on Phase II? They are two separate
contracts.
gl 4
December 21, 1984
:A
Ms. Dougherty:
That's correct.
Mr. Dawkins: (COMMENT INAUDIBLE).
Mayor Ferre: No, they are saying we have two contracts.
Well, now if you are right. then I stand corrected. There
is one contract and Phase I and II are one in the same
thing, is that correct?
Mr. Long: No, sir, two separate contracts.
Mayor Ferre: Then that is wrong Commissioner Dawkins.
There are two contracts. Now, there is one contract. Is it
one contract or two?
Mr. Rosencrantz: There are two contracts, one contractor.
Mayor Ferre: Well, now he is saying one and you are saying
two. Now, which is it?
Mr. Long: It's two contracts, one contractor.
Mayor Ferre: I understand that. That's not the question.
Under law Madam City Attorney, I can have fifty contracts to
do fifty construction jobs. I contract with one and I can
have fifty other contracts unless in the contract they are
linked, they are separate legal instruments.
Ms. Dougherty: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Now, what we are dealing with here is one
of those contracts. It is Phase II. On Phase II the amount
of work that remains left is about five thousand dollars
worth of work. It is your opinion that if we retained
twenty thousand dollars, that is more than sufficient to
cover what's left to be done on Phase II. Is that correct?
Now, therefore, instead of holding ninety thousand dollars,
you want to take it done to twenty thousand dollars because
you think that's plenty coverage. Now, if we get into a
real donny brook and get into a real mess and we have to sue
them for Phase I, we cannot dip into Phase II's retainages
for Phase I. Is that correct? Is that correct under the
law?
Ms. Dougherty: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: And therefore, both from a Public Works point
of view, engineering wise contract and from a legal point of
view what is being requested is reasonable and that's why
you are recommending it. Now, I have not talked to any of
you up until this time and this what I sense and see. Now,
you know, do what you want, but I figured that this man was
entitled to at least a hearing before this Commission and
for this Commission to resolve what it wants to do. All
right, this will... you will have to come back January 10th.
Mr. Plummer: No, wait a minute. Phase I. What is the
retainage on Phase I? Is it ten per cent?
Mr. Long: Yes, it was reduced sometime ago. Right now we
are holding about seventy thousand dollars of their money.
Mr. Plummer: And how much work is yet to be done?
Mr. Long: None. We have held up final payment because they
were insisting on being paid for extra work and we were
talking to their attorney. That was...
gl 5 December 21, 1984
04
Mr. Plummer: All right, Phase II, you are holding ninety
thousand?
j-. Mr. Long: Yes sir.
Mr. Cather: Eighty-four thousand.
Mr. Plummer: Are we still in the ultimate going to be
holding seventy and twenty?
Mr. Long: Until we make final payment on Phase I, which is
coming up as quick as we can do it.
Mr. Plummer: And you are looking at a total amount of work
to be done of five and what?
Mr. Long: Five and zero.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Long: He refers to a change order that we
are trying to
do on Phase II for the installation of a replacement
of the
fence around the swimming pool. That has not
begun yet and
we will ultimately like that on Phase II, but
that's covers
itself. It again, is not part of the original
contract.
Mr. Plummer: You are telling me that the man
has completed
the original contract?
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
�::• !
Mr. Plummer: I will move it Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
P :;
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion as recommended by the
administration? Call the roll.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I am voting "yes" because the man
has done his
{,
contract and I think he is entitled to be paid.
The following resolution was introduced by
Commissioner
.�
, who moved its adoption:
Plummer, p
RESOLUTION NO. 84-1513
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REDUCTION
INN RETAINAGE FROM 10% TO 2�% IN THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA AND BETTER CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JOSE MARTI
RIVERFRONT PARK - PHASE II.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the
resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
gl
a"•
6 December 21, 1984
A
3.,
ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
------------w►-----------------------------------------------
2. Police Inquiry.
Mayor Ferre: We are now into the issue of the so-called
Michael Johnson matter. We have received a letter dated
December 19th entitled... from McMasters, Foreman and
Miller, P.A., signed by James D. McMaster. It is my
understanding Mr. McMaster is not here and Mr. Scott Miller
is here representing the firm. Is that right, Mr. Miller?
All right, now I would like to of the outset put some
caveats into the record so it is purely understood what we
are dealing with. In the first place these people were not
authorized in anyway to subpoena anybody. They were not
given the right to cross examine, unless it was on a
voluntary basis and basically, what they did is, they
reviewed documents that were available, including the
previous public hearings of which we have had three as I
recall on this particular matter this being the fourth.
They took no statements that were separate, unless it's
Fonner's. Do you get Fonner's statement yesterday?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yesterday morning.
Mayor Ferre: You got Fonner's statement. Other than
Fonner's there have been no statements taken. They did not
review the depositions. Many of the statements that are in
the McMaster document are based on conjecture and let the
record clearly reflect that. There is also controversy over
the facts and in some cases there is no definitive proof.
There are two issues involved here. One is what actually
happened to Michael Johnson. At this stage of the game that
has not been established. It has not been clearly
established any where, whether or not a police officer did
or did not shoot Michael Johnson. There has been no
admission of it. There has been no testimony to that
extent. It has not been documented in anyway. This Board
of Inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with substituting
for police work in determining what did or did not occur to
Michael Johnson. Michael Johnson has attorneys. They are
here. They are proceeding in a... in court and that is
something that they before a court of law have to determine
and a jury will eventually decide. We are not here as a
court of law. We are not here as a jury and we are
certainly not here as judges on this particular matter which
is going before and through the court. Nor in anyway do any
statements here in anyway talk about conclusive proof of
anything. The second portion of this which is what we are
here for, is in what occurred after the so-called Michael
Johnson shooting and how it was handled within the Police
Department and that is the main issue before us. Now, there
are basically, four areas that I see that come out of all of
this. First of all comes the question, was there or was
there not a cover up at the lower echelons of the Police
Department. People that were directly involved in that
confrontation. The second question that comes up is was
there negligences or was there a cover up in the middle
management of the Police Department at the level of Putnam
and Bradford. These are individuals that were respectively
responsible for departments that were involved in the
investigation. The third question that comes up is was
gl
7 December 21, 1984
there either negligence or a cover up in the upper echelons
of the Police Department. That means the Police Chief and
his Assistants. The top brass of the Police Department.
And lastly, the question deals with how the matter was
handled internally in the department and was there really
equal justice. Were people treated fairly in the whole
process of the punishments, so to speak, of those that were
either involved or accused of being involved. Now, we have
read and I'm sure you have had the opportunity to read the
sixteen page report of Mr. McMasters and I'm going to ask
Mr. Miller to briefly paraphrase it in his own words and
give us the conclusions as they see them. Now, the reason
we went to an outside firm, was that we wanted to get a law
firm that had no previous attachment or involvement with any
member of this Commission, any member of the administration
or the Police Department themselves. These are people that
are respected in criminal law in this community, who are
knowledgeable and known and we thought it would be good to
get somebody totally foreign to anything that's been
happening here just to take a look and review documents, ask
questions and come back with a statement of conclusion. At
this time I will recognize Mr. Miller for his statement.
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do you wish me to go
over all the stages and the facts as we prepared it or do
you wish just to go to the inclusions?
Mayor Ferre: No, I think if you would briefly go through
the stages and then come to the conclusion, you can... I
think your... you know, your report speaks for itself, but I
think it would be good for you to paraphrase it. Excuse me,
Mr. Miller. Lucia, did I cover everything you wanted me to
cover. Is there anything that I have not said that you want
to say into the record?
r .
Ms. Dougherty: No, sir.
Mr. Miller: First of all let me point out Mr. Mayor, that
this is a proposed report. It's a report compiled based
-7
upon our review of the materials provided to us. You are
correct in saying that we did not have subpoena power and
that we did not... Let me point out first that this report
was prepared by us based upon the materials that are
provided to us by the City and the City Attorney's Office.
We again, did not have subpoena power and we did not
participate in all the events that we set forth in our
report, but we did painstakingly go over all the materials
provide to us and we came forth with this report, which is
our sixteen page report which basically, goes over each
�;._.
stage of this... of the Michael Johnson matter. We labeled
it in stages. The first stage we would state was the actual
stage when the shooting occurred which was May 18th. At
this time the three officers, Kemp, Diaz and Rofchel were
t
involved in an accident at the time and at one time a shoot
gun was fired from their vehicle and as s result of that
Michael Johnson was subsequently taken to the hospital by
people in the neighborhood after he was involved driving his
car in an accident that contained the three officers. We
g,
call this the first stage, because this is the stage at the
shopping center where there was a shooting. After Michael
Johnson was shot the three officers, Kemp,Diaz and Rofchel
remained at the shopping center where they advised their
immediate supervisor, Sergeant Lowe of the accident that
tT
}•
they were involved in with another vehicle but they did not
q
report a shooting incident. The officers continued to
remain at the shopping center during this time. The
following day, May 19, 1980, officers Kemp, Diaz and Lowe
k`
returned to the shopping center parking lot and they
examined the vehicle driven by Michael Johnson. Despite the
bullet holes and blood stains which were plainly visible in
gl 8 December 21, 1984
the vehicle, officer Kemp, Diaz, apparently still refused to
officially report or acknowledge the shooting. Further,
their Sergeant, Sergeant Lowe, despite the same observations
coupled with his knowledge of the accident, because he was
told of the accident the previous day, failed in violation
of Police Department standard procedures to report his
observations to the proper investigatory unit at the Police
Department. We concluded after this second day, May 19th,
that the police supervisor, Sergeant Lowe, had to be aware
that at a minimum a vehicle which had been involved in an
accident with a police car was riddled with bullet holes and
contained blood stains and possible human tissue. These
observations alone, if no police officers had been involved
in a shooting, should have prompted a full investigation at
that time, because that vehicle was involved in an accident
with a police vehicle. However, at this time on May 19th no
one was notified to conduct an investigation, no report was
made either by the three officers involved in the report or
Sergeant Lowe, of the observations and the accident reports
which should have been turned over to the superiors had not
been prepared. The second stage as we call it in our report
of these events began the very next day on May 20, 1980, the
second full day after the shooting. On that day other
officers observed the bullet holes and blood stains and
notified the homicide unit responsible for investigation
involving shootings. Homicide detectives immediately
responded and the first criminal investigation into the
shooting of Michael Johnson began. This initial
investigation began with a flurry of activities and the
vehicle was towed and impounded. Records were searched to
determine its ownership and it's driver and it was
determined that Michael Johnson was in fact the driver and
it was also determined that he was in a hospital bed at that
time. On this second day of this investigation,
investigators interviewed Michael Johnson and they first
learned at this time of his claims that he was shot by a
police officer, Despite standard procedures which assign
this type of investigation to homicide, the investigators
attempted to turn the investigation over to the internal
security unit. The next day May 22, 1980, the fourth day
following the shooting, internal security investigators
interviewed Michael Johnson and again, he claim to have been
shot by police officers, specifically, the officers in the
car that he collided with. At this time the investigators
who had interviewed Michael Johnson on this date, the 22nd,
were from internal security and they attempted to turn the
investigation back over to homicide as standard procedure.
However, homicide refused to accept responsibility of the
investigation. This dispute between internal security and
homicide led to a meeting that afternoon with the Chief of
Police Kenneth Harms, Assistant Chief Cosgrove, Major Gunn
and the supervisors of homicide and internal security,
Lieutenants Bradford and Putnam, respectively. This meeting
is especially significant for several reasons. First it
resulted in part at least from a dispute over which unit
would be responsible for the investigation, despite the fact
that Miami Police Department, departmental regulations
clearly require that homicide must conduct this
investigation. Second, by this time four days after the
shooting, it was obviously, clear to homicide, internal
security and presumably, everyone else at that meeting that
if the shooting was done by a police officer or officers, it
was being covered up as no reports had been filed reporting
either discharge of a fire arm or the use of force in
connection with the shooting of Michael Johnson. It is
especially significant that each of these reports is
considered so important that it is required to be submitted
through channels to the Chief of Police if such event occur.
While it is true at that time and on that day there were
numerous shootings in the community, it is not apparent that
gl
9 December 21, 1984
there were any other police shootings wherein someone was
shot and the officers involved were denying or failing to
h.
report the incident. So, this incident alone makes the
Michael Johnson shooting unique as to the other shootings
kit
that were alleged at that time period. At the conclusion of
the Chief's office it was made explicitly clear that
homicide was responsible for the criminal investigation of
the shooting of Michael Johnson. Despite homicide's
responsibility for this matter assistance was still soughtF
from internal security at this time. Over the next week
period homicide's investigation would consist of very few
halfhearted interviews conducted primarily by one
investigator and another attempt to return the investigation
.`
over to internal security. When that failed a trip was made
by a homicide investigator and a uniformed officer to
Michael Johnson's hospital bed where Michael Johnson was
cited for various traffic infractions as a result of the
accident and finally a trip to the State Attorney's Officer
where a felony warrant was sworn nut for Johnson's arrest
for leaving the scene of the accident. So, nine days after
the initiation of the first investigation, Michael Johnson
was charged at the direction of the homicide investigator
with traffic charges. Over the next one month period
nothing much happens during this first investigation. It's
consisted primarily of two or more attempts by homicide to
get internal security to take over the investigation.
Again, there was a dispute at this time between which unit
would continue to take this investigation. Homicide
interviewed two of the three officers allegedly involved in
the shooting, Officers Diaz and Kemp. Each one denied
involvement in or with knowledge of the shooting and each
officer resigned from the department the day following his
interview. Over the next four months Mr. Mayor, little if
anything happened as a result of this investigation. The
charges against Michael Johnson were dismissed due to the
officers failure to appear and the lack of evidence. Five
days after the felony charge was dismissed against the
victim the homicide investigator once again attempted to
turn the investigation over to internal security. However,
two days later on December 19, 1980 as a result of a meeting
between the homicide and internal security supervisors,
Bradford and Putnam, the matter was once again returned to
homicide for additional investigation. Almost seven months
to today has passed since the shooting of Michael Johnson.
Despite this 19th of December meeting fifteen months
additional passed without anything being done on this case.
Not one report. Not one memorandum. Not one letter was
filed by any investigator, either homicide or internal
security during this time. Despite this inactivity
investigators from both homicide and internal security claim
to have continually advise their supervisors, Bradford and
Putnam that nothing was being done and that it was going to
cause trouble someday. Despite these fears not one
investigator or supervisor requested any action in writing
during this time period or officially notified anyone of the
problem. That brings us to, we consider in our report the
third stage of this matter. In March of 1982 an attorney
representing Michael Johnson wrote a letter to the Police
Department inquiring about the status of this investigation.
This caused a chain of events to occur, resulting eventually
in homicide receiving orders to complete their
investigation. In June of 1982 a cold case squad. A unit
specializing in old incomplete investigations headed by
Sergeant Vivian and Detective Ilhardt began the
investigation new. From June 1982 until October 1982 the
cold case squad conducted a thorough investigation into the
shooting incident, locating and interviewing numerous
civilian witnesses and many police officers. While many
witnesses claimed to be aware of the fact that one of the
officers was responsible for shooting Johnson, few had any
gl 10 December 21, 1984
04 A
direct knowledge of the incident. Officers Rofchel and
former officers Kemp and Diaz were reinterviewed by the cold
case squad officers, but still refused to acknowledge the
shooting incident. In early October 1982, the cold case
squad presented the results of their investigation to the
Office of the State Attorney. For the next six months the
State Attorney's Office reviewed the materials and took
additional sworn statements of several officers. In April
1983 the State Attorney's Office closed the case without
filing any charges, citing insufficient evidence is the
reason and directed the Police Department to pursue the
matter administratively. On May 11, 1983, the cold case
squad officially ended its investigation citing the results
of the interview by the State Attorney's Office and the fact
that the statute of limitations had expired for any criminal
acts which might have been committed as a result of the
shooting incident. This initial stage or the third stage
came to an end exactly three years from the day of the
shooting, with the original three officers still denying the
shooting and no criminal charges having been filed against
anyone but the victim and of course, those charges were
dismissed as I said forth earlier. The fourth stage of our
report begins on August 18, 1983 when Michael Johnson's
attorney filed a civil lawsuit against the City of Miami.
The next day a meeting was held in the Chief of Police's
office, now Herbert Breslow, with representatives of
homicide and internal security. As a result of that meeting
the criminal investigation was again reopened. Now, the
third criminal investigation had begun. The initial
investigation was the first. The cold case squad was the
second and now this on August 18th was the third criminal
investigation. In the next month former Officer Kemp was
granted immunity by the State Attorney's Office and gave a
sworn statement. Shortly, after former officers Diaz and
Rofchel were arrested and charged with perjury for lying to
the various investigators about the original shooting
incident. Their cases are still awaiting trial in the
criminal courts. The fifth stage of our report of this
investigation began on December 15, 1983. Homicide closed
out its investigation for the final time and turned the
matter over to internal security to review the matter to
determine whether; (A) Any departmental regulation had been
violated by Officers Kemp, Diaz & Rofchel failure to report
the shooting incident on May 18th and (B) Whether any
departmental regulation had been violated by any other
officers in the course of the three and one half year
investigation. The internal security investigation
eventually culminated in the preparation of the summary of
investigation report and a thirteen page finding report.
The internal security report found that officers Kemp, Diaz
and Rofchel had violated departmental regulations in failing
to report the shooting and lying about it to the
investigators. The internal security review also found that
Sergeants Lowe, Napoli and Lieutenants Bradford and Putnam
has violated department regulations in failing to properly
supervise the investigation and in failing to properly
report information to the appropriate authorities.
Disciplinary proceedings against these various officers have
yet to be finalized. And in our conclusion Mr. Mayor and
members of the Commission, we can state basically, that,
number one, it can be easily concluded that officers Kemp,
Diaz and Rofchel, knowingly agreed to and participated in a
cover up. Regarding the shooting of Michael Johnson, this
is established by Kemp's statement after granted immunity by
the State Attorney, the statments of Michael Johnson, the
corroborating, although, somewhat indirect statements of
other officers and the official, but untruthful statements
of Kemp, Diaz and Rofchel, to the various investigators.
Also, from the fact that not one written report was made by
them of any incident involving a discharge of a fire arm,
gl
11 December 21, 1984
use of force or being involved in an accident at this time.
Second conclusion by us. It can be concluded that Sergeant
"
Lowe at worst knew of the officers attempt to cover up the
shooting and participated in it by not reporting it or at
best, he was grossly negligent in failing to notify the
proper authorities of his observations of the bullet holes
and blood stains in Johnson's vehicle on the second day
F`
after the shooting. Especially, in view of the fact that he
was aware that the vehicle was involved in an accident
involving three officers. Finally, his failure require the
preparation of the accident report until after the vehicle
was discovered by other officers and his failure to come
forward and give information to the initial homicide
investigator reflects poorly on his role as a supervisor and
put into question his motives in the extent of his knowledge
of the original cover up of the shooting and the accident.
Third, it can be concluded that the ensuing investigation
into the shooting, at least until the cold case squad was
assigned this matter, amounted to no investigation at all.
It appears that the cold case squad did a very fine job in
investigating this matter, but the initial investigation by
the homicide and/or internal security was not thorough and
turned up no evidence whatsoever. That the first criminal
investigation prior to the cold case squad receiving this
for investigation was poorly conducted need hardly be said.
The failure to search for or locate and interview civilian
witnesses. The refusal to interview police officers who
were present at the scene. The many attempts to turn the
investigation over to internal security despite clear
responsibility of the homicide unit and the cessation of
work on the case after the resignations of officer Kemp and
Diaz, all point to the conclusion that this was a matter
that someone did not want investigated. It appeared to us
that there was a decision made some where to let this matter
die a slow quiet death. This is additionally supported by
the failure of every investigator and supervisor prior to
the cold case squad receiving this case to initiate anything
in writing despite their vocal concerns for fifteen month
period. Finally, it cannot be concluded from the materials
submitted to the Commission whether any officials higher
than Lieutenant Bradford or Putnam were specifically aware
of or acquiesced in the decision to not properly investigate
the Michael Johnson shooting. However, it can be concluded
that other officials should have known about the status of
the investigation and if they were not aware of its status,
that they were at best negligent in failing to follow up on
it. First as the foregoing review points out, four days
after the shooting incident this matter was directly brought
to the attention of the Chief of Police Harm and his aides
at which time several key facts were known. (1) A person
had been shot and was claiming that a police officer had
shot him. (2) Several reports so important that they are
required to be sent through channel to the Chief of Police
had not been prepared, indicating that the officer were
attempting to cover the incident up and (3) The matter was a
problem investigation, as after only one day of
investigation a dispute arosed between which unit, homicide
or internal security would be responsible for this
investigation and this was resolved only after the meeting
at the Chief of Police's office. Despite all these key
points and despite meticulous notes and memos in all other
police shootings in sensitive investigations, there was not
one written reference any where in this matter that was
brought to the attention of the highest levels of the
department until after the victim's request for information
several years later. Likewise there is no indication that
any request was made from the highest level of the
department for a follow up information about an obviously,
sensitive, important investigation which was required by
departmental procedures to be reported to the Chief of
gl
12 December 21, 1984
W
.:
Police. In this regard it can finally be concluded that the
Chief and his top aides wo�,r=e ultimately negligent in failing
h;..
to follow up to insure 1-hat this matter was properly handled
and investigated. 1 might point out Mr. Mayor, that this
report of our is not our final report. It's our preliminary
report. We have sent you a letter dated December 19th,
i`
which we state to you. This is the final draft of our
proposed report. Other information is still forthcoming to
us. A statement by Mr. Fonner yesterday in our office and
some other additional materials, but I hope this report
makes clear to you, this proposed report, where our report
and our conclusions are going.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much. Howard Gary, had more
than ample and justifiable reason for the firing of Kenneth
Harms. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Gary for whatever reasons
he chose and I hope someday he will explain, took another
route in the dismissal of Ken Harms. It is my opinion and
this is one of the basic reasons why we have pursued this
matter, that the conclusion at the bottom of page 16 of this
report that states " It can be concluded the Chief and his
top aides were ultimately negligent in failing to follow up
to insure that this matter was properly handled and
investigated " is the bottom line. That is the bottom line.
Now, I make no argument one way or the other for what
happened or did not happen in the Johnson Shooting. It is
inconceivable to a layman that a case where a police officer
is alleged to have shot a civilian, remain unsolved for a
four year period. It is inconceivable that people would try
to say that it fell through the cracks. It didn't fall
through the cracks, the issue was ignored, conscientiously,
h,
with full knowledge and with full information that it was
`.
being ignored. All of this rigamarole as to who had
jurisdiction, homicide or internal security. The bickering
going back and forth, because I understand police officers
and they are not unique in life. Doctors and lawyers and
,=
everybody else are the same, did not want to be involved in
investigation of their own, did not want to be involved in
pointing somebody out and creating a problem that might end
=_
up in dismissal or even criminal action against police
officers. I understand that, that's human nature and the
fact is that both Putnam and Bradford should have pursued
this more vigorously. They are as sworn officers sworn to
tell the upper echelons in the upper levels of the Police
Department that things were not being done, that things were
not being concluded and there is no question that they were
*<" !
negligent in not doing it. They had a choice. They could
have resigned their Commission. They could have put it in
i
writing. They could have stressed that things were not
being done that needed to be done. But my concern mainly is
not with them, nor is it with Lowe or the other people in
the lower echelons of the department. My concern was has
been and is today with the lack of action at the very top
because as Harry Truman said "The buck stops here". And it
was the lack of involvement and persual and interest on the
part of Kenneth Harms and his associates up at the top of
1
the department that in my opinion finally comes down to the
�=
unavoidable conclusion that this Police Department in this
particular instance was run negligently at the top. This is
a case of negligence. I don't know if it's a case of cover
up. There certain has been no conclusive proof to that, but
even if there was no cover up, the Police Chief and his
'
assistance at the top cannot say that this matter fell
through the crack, because they do not have under their
sworn duty the ability to claim that as an excuse. The
written procedures very clearly say that these reports must
go directly to the Chief. It is the Chief who is ultimately
responsible. I went to Manager Gary with a written document
r
which as I understand had be lost in the files.
Fortunately, a copy of it had been turned to me in August of
R_
r-
gl 13 December 21, 1984
last year, of 1983, and I gave that report to the Manager in
September of 1983. There was more than enough evidence in
the information that was coming out of the department that
the Manager had more than enough and sufficient reason to.
dismiss the Police Chief based on this case. What now
concerns me is the question of the administration of justice
internally in the Police Department. We have the case of s_
Bradford and Putnam who are very lightly slapped on the
wrists, since they were promoted from Major to Colonel and
then demoted, but after their demotion they were better off
than they were before anyway. So, that hardly seems to be r,
much of a punishment. And on the other hand we have theµ
case of Captain Larry Glover who is here with his attorney.
and I am not his attorney, nor have I ever met Glover before':
this investigation, nor do I make a case for him, but here
is an individual who was given... who was asked if he had 14
seen a file, said he had not seen the file and subsequently
called back to say that he had seen the file. Now, I'm not
saying whether or not Captain Glover lied or didn't lie.
That's up to he and his attorney and those that are
reviewing this matter to conclude on. I am saying that it
seems something that is out of balance when for having done
that assuming that he did lie that he had seen a report when
he had not ... I mean that he has seen a report and lied and
said he had not, that he is dismissed and the others are
reprimanded in such a light way. Somehow that doesn't
square and I think... It is my personal opinion out of all
of this, it is my personal conclusion out of all of this,
that the reason why that occurred is because the higher
echelons of the Police Department realized that something
had to be done to show that there was vigorous justice being
~r enforced within the ranks of the Police Department, but I
question very much the wisdom of how that was handled or the
ultimate conclusion. Now, it is not up to me nor this
E Commission to make a decision as to how Putnam and Bradford
and Glover are finally handled, but I do feel that there is
a thread of continuity in the rather confused thinking of
a the upper echelons of the department when they deal with a
very complicated and sensitive issue such as the Michael
a
Johnson investigation and come to the conclusions that they
came to. I asked Michael Cosgrove yesterday ---and he has
not seen this, I told him about the McMaster Report and I s
asked him what he was doing in that July meeting early on
May 19... I'm sorry. The meeting was held in the Chiefs:
office on May 20th. Is that the date? Mr. Miller, will you
j help me on the date? r
Mr. Miller: 22nd.
Mayor Ferre: May 22, 1980. He told me that he was not
involved in the case, but he was present at the meeting and
at that time ---and he will put it in writing--- his
statement to the Chief was that this matter was clearly a
NI: matter that had to be dealt with by homicide and that
�- rocedure should be strictly followed. Well, obviously,
P
that was not done. Subsequently when the decision as to how
to pass out the punishment was finally arrived at and Barad
and Bradford, who were the Commanders in those divisions met
Vja in the Chief office to come to a conclusion, present also
x� were Peter Herkin and Dean Mielke and it is my understanding
that they both stated on the record at that meeting that the
firing of Captain Glover would not stand under the Civil
Service rules of the City of Miami and under the law. If
that was the case, if those statements were made, then it
s, r seems to me that it is a continuation of the same kind of
p logic that ignored Michael Cosgrove's recommendation that
this matter be handled by homicide. Here we have people
making conclusions based on things and reasons that they
know will not be ---that will not stand up as they are
brought to the final point of light. Now, Captain Glover
gl 14 December 219 1984
has been interested in coming here and making his on
4' statement. I... there is lawsuit that is presently pending
between Captain Glover and the City of Miami. If Captain
Glover wishes to make a statement, I have no objections if
you think that in anyway it sheds any light. I will leave
that purely up to he and to his lawyer.
Mr. Dennis Dean: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is
Dennis Dean, 2212 Biscayne Boulevard, attorney for Captain
Glover. I am a little in the dark as to what your feelings
are concerning Captain Glover. He is available to make a
statement. There is no lawsuit pending. We have no
action...
Mayor Ferre: You have withdrawn that, have you?
Mr. Dean: Well, there never was one pending. We had
indicated to the special counsel that we had no intention of
filing a lawsuit, at least at the present time.
Mayor Ferre: I have no interest personally in having Mr.
Glover testify, unless he wants to say something that in his
opinion will shed light. I certainly have no objections to
him testifying and saying anything he wants to, but I don't
think that at this particular point of this matter that I
see any need to ask him any questions. I mean, I have
talked to him. I'm satisfied and the matter is the Manager
and the Chief's hands and in the Manager's hands, but it's
his decision. I have no objection to his making a statement
if he so wishes.
Mr. Dean: All right, I will talk to him about that in just
}
one moment and let me just point out one matter that has
s:
been of great concern to me in the matter that this whole
i
situation first came to light before the Commission and
r _
before the news media by the Chief and it's a source of
`r
great concern to me and I know it is to Captain Glover,
because when I first heard about this and saw it on t.v., I
was seeing Captain Glover's name linked with two other
individuals names as part of a cover up in this whole
matter. At that time I wasn't even involved in the case,
but I remember that very strongly that these three
individuals were involved in a cover up. After getting
involved in the case and after getting a copy of the entire
report that was prepared in this matter by Major Ross of
internal security consisting of over a hundred pages, I was
r `
almost astonished to find the statement made on page 77 and
I quote "Aside from Captain Glover's untruthfulness to
Mr.Yass concerning him having read the file, my conclusion
'
is that Captain Glover is guilty of no other wrong doing".
j
As I said that's of great concern to me because it's
portrayed Captain Glover as being allegedly involved in some
cover up, that's the way it was portrayed by the Chief. Yet
the report that was p prepared in this matter, which I assume
went to the Chief, not only contradicts that, but indicates
that that is not the case. The matter, the allegation,
whatever they may be against Captain Glover have nothing to
do
a
Vr
really with the alleged cover up with the way this matter
was handled and involved a collateral matter, which we feel
has been explained by Captain Glover and testimony has been
n
given in this matter. I just wanted to bring that to the
attention of the Mayor and the Commissioners, because it
has
been of some concern to us and a pparently the Chief wants to
few
Y,*
make a comments, while he is doing that I will confer
with Captain Glover. Thank you.
;
1
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. Chief.
pho
z x;
Chief Breslow: Mr. Mayor, I never made a statement that
Captain Glover was involved in a cover u p . If you recall I
gl 15 December 21, 1984
said the cover up was at the lowest level. The three people
r;.. that I mentioned before and I don't know where the
misconception that counsel got came from. I do not wish to
diseuss the int9ivieit2a1 t+asta and mat%ite of tha n2aa heanauee
it has not reached me yet. However, I think I need to
clarify that.
Mayor Ferre: Anything else that anybody wants to say at
this time on this matter? All right, Captain Glover, do you
have any interest in making any kind of a statement?
Captain Glover: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I would like to
say...
Mayor Ferre: Well, If we are going to do so, we are going
to put you under oath. All right, would you voluntarily, of
course.
Ms. Hirai: Do you solemnly swear now that the evidence you
are about to give in this matter is the truth so help you
God?
Captain Glover: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would just
like everyone to know that I have been on the Police
Department for twenty years and I started in 1964. I have
worked my way up the ladder and I have worked very hard and
very diligently and I have done a good job. I had a
spotless record until this and I feel that this was totally
wrong and I was wronged completely. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, Captain. Any questions.
All right, I have no further comments or questions on the
McMaster Report on the Michael Johnson matter. I would like
for Mr. Orlando Martinez to step forward if he would. Mr.
"?
Martinez, you are here with your attorney. It is my
Y
intention to ask you about three or four questions that in
my opinion are pertinent to the Police Department.
� R
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make the
Commission aware of the fact that there is a lawsuit pending
and that I might have to object if there is something that I
feel would be detrimental to the lawsuit, if not, Officer
Martinez is free.
Mayor Ferre: And by the way the Commission has had a policy
r
in all of these things that your attorneys, the attorneys of
}`
{f
the individuals that have testified will be paid. So, I
n
don't see any reason why it should not be for both of you
_
attorneys that are here with your respective clients on this
issue. This was an invitation, you came here voluntarily.
So, whatever times you have spent today or in preparation of
this meeting will be paid for by the City of Miami. Ok.
t ;
All right, now. Mr. Martinez, are you here voluntarily and
'^ •9yt `4'�'
will you go under oath voluntarily? Ok, would you put him
under oath.
Ms. Hirai: Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are
about give in this matter is the truth so help you God?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Martinez, you by profession are a police
officer?
Mr. Martinez: I was, sir.
Mayor Ferre: How long were you in the City of Miami Police
Department?
Mr. Martinez: More than thirteen years.
gl 16 December 21, 1984
Mayor Perre: Thirteen years. You left the Police
Department for a short period of time, that was what, a
year, two years?
Mr. Martinez: About eighteen months.
Mayor Ferre: Eighteen months. And then you returned to the
Police Department how long ago?
Mr. Martinez: I returned in March I think of 1982 and I
resigned in 1984, May 1984.
Mayor Ferre: You came in March of 82 and you resigned in...
Mr. Martinez: In May of 1984 the second time.
Mayor Ferre: In May of 84. Now, you are a key individual
in the whole process of the firing of Howard Gary and in the
firing of Kenneth Harms and this is why I have asked you to
come here and to testify. I would like to to begin with
like to ask you the question, since it is reported that you
were investigating members of the Commission and Mr. Gary
and that in fact you had them under surveilance and I would
like to ask you under oath, if at any time you were assigned
or you on your own voluntarily or were you indirectly
involved through third parties or other individuals in
investigating any member of the Commission or the
administration of the City of Miami?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, I never did.
Mayor Ferre: Directly or indirectly?
Mr. Martinez: Indirectly, undirectly, no, there was no
reason and I never did.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Martinez, did you at any time follow any
member of this Commission or Mr. Gary in particular, Mr.
Eads or any member of the so-called group that were working
as a team, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Eads, any member of this
Commission, Mr. Gary or any members of Mr. Gary's personal
staff?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, I never did.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. You are aware that you are accused of
having followed Mr. Gary and Mr. Eads in testimony that was
taken in internal security?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Have you read the testimony?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, not yet.
Mayor Ferre: Has your attorney ready it?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I haven't had a chance to read the
whole testimony.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Well, I would appreciate your reading it
and coming back next time so that we can go over it very
specifically. Let me just for the moment say that you were
accused on the night of the firing of Kenneth Harms at 2:47
in the morning by Manager Howard Gary, of following Mr. Eads
and following Mr. Gary and having specifically been seen in
the neighborhood parked in your corvette and you were
positively identified by individuals that were in the car.
Furthermore, there is a statement that when Harms, after he
was fired went to the Manager's house in his car that you
gl 17 December 21, 1984
were in the car with Harms. Were you in the car with Harms
at the time?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Could y you shed any light as to hew it is
t; possible that Mr. Eads or Mr. Harms or Mr. Gary could have
seen you on that day?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, I don't want my client to
conjecture on how somebody could have come up with a
conclusion. Obviously, he is saying it didn't happen.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Martinez, on the day before the firing you
T were requested to take inventory of the file in the Police
Chief's Office that had both a combination and a lock. It
is my understanding and we will get to that later on, that
the Chief had requested Bob Worshaw to take the inventory.
Were you present at the time that the Chief asked Mr.
Warshaw to take the inventory?
Mr. Martinez: I walked in after Maria Pedrajo called me,
because Assistant Chief Worshaw did not want to say and do
the inventory.
Mayor Ferre: Would you relate the incident as to how
exactly that occurred?
r Mr. Martinez: It was a -- pproximately 11 in the morning I
a., would say, a little after, a little before, Sarah ---I forgot
her last name ---the secretary for Assistant Chief Warshaw
called me in the office and Maria Pedrajo wanted me to go to
the office immediately. When I entered the office, Chief
: Harms was there, Chief Warshaw was in the area and Maria was
telling me that she got a direct order from Chief Harms to
do inventory of the safe with Assistant Chief Warshaw and
that Assistant Chief Worshaw did not want to stay in the
office and perform the inventory and she needed somebody
else to be a witness to the papers and files in the safe.
r Mayor Ferre: Did you with Mrs. Pedrajo go into the safe?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
x
4. t Mayor Ferre: Did you inventory it?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
4 Mayor Ferre: Did you go page by page and identify each file
y and each page?
9F/ 4i( •• ;� '''', Mr. Martinez: We identified each file by name. I made a
list of it. And the papers that were in the combination
part, there were four draws, one of them had a combination,
I counted each page that was in the file with a total page.
Mayor Ferre: Were there titles to those documents?
t,,•:n j Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: So, in the inventory list that you
subsequently made, did you place the title and the number of
pages?
Mr. Martinez: On that particular file.
Mayor Ferre: Was that inventory typed?
Mr. Martinez:
It was typed by Maria Pedrajo.
gl 18 December 21, 1984
w
e
2:
+�
Mayor Ferre:
Did you sign it?
Mr. Martinez:
Yes, sir, that day about 6 P.M., 7 P.M.,'
something like
that.
Mayor Ferre:
Who did you give the document to. In other
words the...
who did you give the document that had the
inventory too?
Mr. Martinez:
Maria Pedrajo typed it. She had it. I signed
it and she kept
it that day, that, Thursday.
g
Mayor Ferre:
Was there one copy or more copies?
cY
Mr. Martinez:
Only one original that I saw.
_
c
Mayor Ferre:
That's what you signed, one original.
Mr. Martinez:
Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre:
Was the lock on the safe changed?
Mr. Martinez:
Yes, it was, a small lock on top.
t `
Mayor Ferre:
A small lock was changed. Did you change the
lock?
;
Mr. Martinez:
No, sir.
Mayor Ferre:
Who changed the lock?
F.
I`r
Mr. Martinez:
A Lieutenant that was in charge of police
s
maintenance in
the City of Miami. I forgot his name.
t
`r.
Mayor Ferre:
The old lock was taken out, a new lock was put
`
in. Did you have
the key?
f
Mr. Martinez:
Yes, sir, there were two small keys.
Mayor Ferre:
And with that you opened the safe?
<w
;x
Mr. Martinez:
Well, the safe was open when I went in there.
Mayor Ferre: When you walked in, the safe was open and
there was a new lock there with the key?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, afterwards when we were doing
inventory it was changed.
Mayor Ferre: After you finished and you put the papers back
into the safe, you in the combination... the combination was
not changed?
Mr. Martinez: That's right, the combination stayed the
same.
Mayor Ferre: And the new lock was placed and locked. What
did you do with the keys?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir. The combination and the two keys
were taped under Chief Harms desk approximately a foot away
from the safe.
Mayor Ferre: Was that standard operating procedure?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir. Since the Chief never came back
that day and I didn't want to have possession of the keys or
combination. That's why I left it there to tell him the
next morning which never occurred.
gl 19 December 21, 1984
t,
2
�L
5:-
Mayor Ferre: My question is that that was not standard
operating procedure to take the key and the safe combination
and tape it to the desk. That was the first time that you
had ever done that. Now, what time did you leave the office
after you had done all of this?
Mr. Martinez: Some time after 7 P.M. that Thursday.
Mayor Ferre: Did you ever go back into the safe?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did you ever see the list again?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, subsequent to that, were you involved in
any meetings that evening or are you aware of any meetings
that occurred either in the department, in Mr. Gary's home,
Eads's home or any other home or private meeting place on
this matter?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir. I want to say something on the
1,
record at this time. Still at this date I don't know where
Mr. Howard Gary lives or Jack Eads lives or anybody else.
Mayor Ferre: On the following day or any subsequent day,
were you asked at any time to review the contents of the
files in the safe? Were you asked by any lawyer that was
inventorying the information in the safe? Were you asked by
any member of the Police Department or anybody for a
recollection of what you have surveyed in the safe?
.�x
Mr. Martinez: I was asked on Friday, if I removed,
destroyed, or made copies of any papers in the safe,
basically, that was it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I have no... you say that you were
<<, l
asked?
x
Friday, Mr. Martinez: I was asked that
Y+ morning, sir, yes.
=
Internal security.
�5 3
r
Mayor Ferre: Who asked, internal security. Who
specifically in internal security?
Mr. Martinez: Captain Ross and Lieutenant Walton.
Mayor Ferre: Did they ask you to reconstruct from memory
what you saw in the safe?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, they asked me basically, if I
destroyed, made copies, took home files or added files,
something to that extent.
Mayor Ferre: Did you destroy, make copies or take home any
thing in that safe?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, everything stayed the same.
Mayor Ferre: In the afternoon after you did this and while
you were in your office was there someone else present there
with you at all times?
Mr. Martinez: There was a secretary named "Vickie" and
Maria Pedrajo and myself.
Mayor Ferre: Were there any officers that were present in
the...
gl 20 December 21, 1984
}' Mr. Martinez: Lieutenant Diggs was coming in the office and
leaving the office at the time. He was in the area.
A;
Mayor Ferre: Was Lieutenant Riggs there under orders?
Mr. Martinez: No, sir, as far as I know from Chief Harms,
no.
Mayor Ferre: Why was Lieutenant Riggs there?
Mr. Martinez: That is a question to ask Chief Harms, I have
no idea, but as far as I know for Chief Harm's orders was to
me that he wasn't supposed to be there.
Mayor Ferre: He was not supposed to be there?
Mr. Martinez: That's right, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, are there... I have no further
questions. Counselor do you have anything else you want to
add? All right, take your seats please. I asked Martinez
to come here today and to place on the record what he had
just told me because to this day, I as Mayor of the City of
Miami and I think this Commission in this City do not know
F
exactly and precisely why Kenneth Harms was fired. It is my
ep_ opinion that there was ample room, evidence and reason for
*;'' Harms to have been fired. I do not understand the reasons
that have been given. One is there was insubordination.
The issue of insubordination has not been specified. Where
was there insubordination? Based on what? The question of
the changing of individuals in the upper echelons of the
department by then Police Chief Harms were not that
r significant, with all due respects to those affected or not
that important. They were four or five personnel changes
that were not of major consequence one way or the other. It
1 is my understanding and we will be clarifying that in the
x ' future, that there was a meeting in the Police Department
and that Major Kelly called a meeting that was held at, as I
� understand it and we will get into that later on, at 1
o'clock in the morning in the Police Department. I
understand that the lock was broken somewhere along the
line. Evidently, what was in that file seemed to be
important and that subsequently at 2:47 when the decision
was made and Harms was called to be fired, it was subsequent
j to Chief Beslow having been appointed Police Chief before in
Leffect Harms was dismissed as Police Chief at 2:47 and after
a meeting and a full discussion of the proceedings. Mr.
; Gary stated that he had to move so quickly because there
would be bloodshed and things were moving very quickly to a
and the impression, of course that we
point where there ... p , ,
�r all got was that this was a show down at the Ok Corral and
that the next morning at sun up there would be police
officers fully armed at the Police Station confronting each
other and that there was going to be a shoot out or
g r j something of that nature. That was never clarified. That
" whole scenario seems absurd and it seems beyond logic and
reason to me and I don't quite understand the basis of it.
The fact is that this all remains a mystery. The matter of
�=1 those files remain a mystery. Some of those files were
released. Some were not released. I will be asking Mr.
Manager, that an independent legal board be impaneled to
Nam, survey all of those files and it will be my request that all
of these files be released to the public. I see no reason,
unless there are serious investigations going on for those
files to remain in custody and that if there are criminal
investigations going on, I think eventually those files need
{ to be made public as these matters come to conclusion. It
is my opinion from what I have understood from those who
'x have seen the files, that there were nothing more than the
gl 21 December 21, 1984
ongoing ramblings of a paranoid Police Chief of all kinds of
gossip and accusations that were not backed by any material
proof of anything. Some of those ramblings that affected
some of us were strangely made public and the ramblings that
affected others have not been made public and I think what's
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And I think
the public is entitled to know the ramblings paranoid or not
of the former Police Chief and it is my intention to open
all this up. Now, the reason why I have chosen to do this
so that it is clearly understood, is that in my personal
opinion what had occurred in the City of Miami is that we
were dealing with a City Manager and a Police Chief that
were increasingly hostile and increasingly paranoid. In my
opinion there is no substance to any of their machinations
of intrigue and high intrigue and I think that it got to a
point that it was unfortunate, it was detrimental to the
morale of this City and frankly, there was no other choice,
but to have both of them leave the City of Miami. In the
final six weeks of Howard Gary being here, Mr. Howard Gary
walked around with three police officers till the very last
day, all of them personally chosen by him. He had police
protection around the clock at his home with automobiles ---
and Mr. Manager, I want to have a full accounting now that
Mr. Gary is gone. I have absolutely no question that all of
this paranoia and personal guards alone has cost the
taxpayers of Miami in excess of a hundred thousand dollars.
And it seems to me that hopefully, we will now get back to a
semblance of professional procedure that in my opinion Chief
Breslow and the other members of the Police Department are
capable of, have the ability to do, if we can get away from
this political intrigue and paranoia, that unfortunately,
has been rampant and has made this City the victim of
peoples imagined paranoia. I don't think there were any
master plans or plots to eliminate one group or another in
this ongoing war and I think it's time for us to put all of
this behind us and to get on with doing a job in the Police
Department for the people of Miami. It is my opinion that
this had to come out and it needs to be fully documented so
that those who are passing judgment on this, mainly, the
people of Miami, will understand the full extent of the
machinations and paranoia in my opinion and it is purely
conjecture on my part, totally unjustified on the part of
these warring warlords that thought of themselves as some
kind of chief of fifedoms who had supernatural powers over
the people that they supposedly ruled over. These people
were either elected, appointed or selected to serve their
constituencies. They were not anointed and I think that
Lord Acton's premise that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely is once again seen and practiced by the
vivid imagination of people who somehow lose balance along
the way. We will have another police hearing. The time and
the subject will depend on developments in the next thirty
to forty-five days. I have no further questions or
statements, if anybody else does I will recognize them,
otherwise, this hearing is concluded. We stand adjourned.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:33 O'CLOCK A.M.
ATTEST:
Ralph G. Ongie
CITY CLERK
Matty Hirai
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Maurice A. Ferre
M A Y 0 R
gl
22
December 21, 1984
cl""WY OF ml ml
DOCUME"'�
INDEX
rilu
F
MEETING BATE
DECEMBER 21, 1984