HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-10-02 Minutes....... ...
.... . . . . . . . . . . ...
N-k
OF MEETING HELO ON - OCTOBER 2. 1981
(SPECIAL)
PREPAREO BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH G.. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 2, 1984
ITEM
SUBJECT
LEGISLATION
PAGE
NO.
NO.
1
DISCUSSION: LEGISLATIVE BOARD OF INQUIRY.
DISCUSSION
1-3
2
BAYSIDE PROJECT $690129000 AWARD A DISCUSSION OF
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
DISUCUSSION
3-4
3
ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR FONNERS ILLNESS.
DISCUSSION
4
4
BRICKELLBANC ZONING JUDGMENT.
DISCUSSION
4-5
5
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: MICHAEL JOHNSON COVERUP
INVESTIGATION.
DISCUSSION
5-10
3
6
STATEMENTS BY COMMISSIONER CAROLLO.
QUESTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER.
i
SUNSHINE STATE BANK.
M-34-1097
10-53
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 2rd day of October, 1984, the City Commission of
Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City
Hall, 3500 Par. American_ Drive, Miami, Florida in special
session as a Board of Inquiry with matters pertaining to the
City of Miami Police Department.
The meeting was called to
by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with
Commission found to be present:
ALSO PRESENT:
order at 11:21 O'Clock A.M.
the following members of the
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Howard V. Gary, City Manager
Lucia A. Dougherty, City Attorney
Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Ferre who then led
those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
------------------------------------------------------------
1. DISCUSSION: LEGISLATIVE BOARD OF INQUIRY.
Mayor Ferre: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen_, this is a
continuation of the Board of Inquiries dealing specifically
with the Michael Johnson. matter. Commissioner Plummer,
since you were out of town_ on Friday because Commissioner
Perez informed that you that he was unable to be here today
because he had to leave town and will not be back until the
end of the week, the Commission did meet for ter_ or fifteen_
minutes. The only thing that was covered was the
instituting of the Board of Inquiry and giving the powers to
myself as Chairperson_ so that the procedures of inquiry
could continue with or without a quorum. Fortunately, that
is not necessary because there are three of us here and so,
it was just necessary as a back-up so that there would be
continuity in the process.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, am I then to understand that as
such, we are still constituted as a total board and all
members of this Commission will have the right as normal?
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely, I would have no intentions,
whether the Charter and the majority of this Commission gave
me that right, nor could I -I dontt think legally, nor would
I try- to preclude anybody from participating. So
obviously, the answer is yes.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask one other question., please? Mr.
Mayor, it is my understanding also that three names were
proffered in the selection of an outside counsel. May I
sl
October 2, 1984
,. .;; -. '. ;, ��-•R-_yam ..�� `Y'
have a copy of the three names that were proffered? I
understand one was chosen.. May I have a copy of that,
please?
Mrs. Lucia A. Dougherty: No, Mr. Commissioner, what
occurred at that meeting is you had asked for three names.
However, the Mayor wanted it- to take place quicker, so he
proffered one law firm consisting of three names and said if
they had no conflicts and if in fact they were an
appropriate law firm ar_d I had no trouble with them, to go
ahead and engage that law firm. I have done so. At the
last meeting, they were engaged by resolution.. The name is
McMaster, Forman_ and Miller. I'd like to introduce Mr. Jim
McMaster here to my right.
Mayor Ferre: Would you please star_d, Mr. McMaster, so
that....
Mr. Plummer: The name of the firm again, please.
Mrs. Dougherty: McMaster, Forman and Miller. Mr. McMaster
was formerly with the U.S. Attorney's office and State
Attorn.ey's office.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask one other question? You are Mr.
McMaster. is your firm at this present time in any way
engaged in litigation_ for or about or arour_d the City of
Miami.
Mr. Jim McMaster: There was one case that we had involving
the City of Miami. We was one matter that my firth was
involved with. We have withdrawn from that matter. We have
no pending matters either for or against the City.
'. Mr. Plummer: When did you withdraw from that matter?
i
t
t Mr. McMaster: Last week.
Mayor Ferre: That was conditional, as I understand it.
Mr. McMaster: That's right.
Mr. Plummer: In. what case was that, sir?
Mr. McMaster: It's one of my partn.er's....
Mr. Plummer: I'm not asking for names. What type of case?
Mr. McMaster: It was a civil law suit against the City of
Miami.
Mr. Plummer: But I mean involving what kind of litigation.?
Mr. McMaster. A dispute on, I believe it was a beating
allegedly committed by off -duty, City of Miami police
officer. It was an, allegation, of a misconduct claim on an.
off -duty City of Miami police officer acting as a security
guard at one of the hospitals.
Mr. Plummer: For how long was your firm engaged in that
action?
Mr. McMaster: I don't know that. That's my partner's case.
I would expect that is in the neighborhood of one year.
Mr. Plummer: That had not gone to court?
Mr. McMaster: It had not. It had been filed, I believe, as
an action against the City.
sl 2 October 2, 1984
Mr. Plummer: In any way did that case, which you were
previously handling, have any involvement with the presert
Michael Johnson situation_, or the so-called disturbance of
1980?
Mr. McMaster: No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
2. BAYSIDE PROJECT $6,0129000 AWARD & DISCUSSION OF CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS.
t Mayor Ferre: Before we get on with the proceedings here, I
have two bits of happy news for you. I was just called from
Washington, D.C. an hour ago by both Senators that represent
the State of Florida, who advised me that the City of Miami
has been awarded $6,012,000 in the Bayside Project, Mr.
Manager. It was in the paper? It was in the Herald? Those
things happen_. I thought I read the Herald this morr_irg. I
didn't see it. Anyway, let me give you the other bit of
good information, which may or may not have been in the
Herald. The award, of course, is gratifying, because it
means that Bayside.. it's a strong move to push forward for
the Bayside project.
The second bit of good news is that you may have read in
the newspaper this morning the article with the Cable law.
I, personally have been to Washington at least five, maybe
six times this year or that particular issue. I have spoken
with Speaker O'Neal in his office. I have spoken with the
office of Chairman Dingle, of Sub -chairman, Congressman Tim
Worth, with Claude Pepper, who has been invaluable
assistance, without Claude Pepper again, we would have not
been able to do this. I'm going to tell you this is a major
victory for the people of Miami. We were able to get
everything that we basically thought we could get. Mr.
Manager, I wart to commend Sue Smoller. I wart to commend
you and the Administration for having seer through a very
difficult time. When we began after the League of Cities
have giver away everything, and in effect we were facing a
major loss, it was the City of Miami along with New York
with our commor attorney, which is Abe Fortes's old firm.
What's the range of the law firm? Arnold and Porter, that
really saved the day. The little City of Miami along with
the big City of New York have really turned the tide and
made national news. I think it is our endeavors and our
insistence andour fight that we got the Conference of
Mayors to reverse their position,. I might point out to
those who are always saying, "Well, we belong to the League
{ of Cities. Why do we reed to belong to the Conference of
Mayors?" Well, it was the Conference of Mayors and the big
cities and the mayors of those big cities that turned the
tide, and eventually got the League of Cities to recognize
their mistake, charge their position_, join. the Conference of
Mayors, fight for a new bill, convince Chairman. Dingle of
the inequity of the Senate Bill, and I think we are on the
verge of a major break -through for cable communications,
which will greatly affect the future of both the City of
Miami, its income, its income stream, and the people in the
services that they will receive. We have safeguarded the
grardfatherirg in of the City of Miami. We have safeguarded
the fact that we will be receiving what we negotiated to
receive, Howard. We safeguarded access and access entities
in the neighborhoods and the use of these facilities. The
only thing that we have lost in effect is the rate
regulations aspects. Technically, there was a compromise.
The Commerce Committee's version, Dirgle's version of it,
sl 3 October 2, 1984
a
0
was four years. We ended up getting two years. Beyond
that, it has de -regulated, but that's the way it goes and
there is nothing we can do about it. That's the new thing
in Washington, this total de -regulation. But it's a major
victory for the City of Miami, and Mr. Manager, to you, to
Clark Merrill, to Sue Smoller, to our very able attorneys,
Arnold and Porter, and to all of the people involved,
congratulatior_s!
3. ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR FONNERS ILLNESS
Mayor Ferre: I've been asked to make an announcement here
that Major Forr_er is out ill today. It is my understanding
that he will be contacted and will be
will not be here today, but he will
meeting. I would like not to subpoena
that we do this on a voluntary basis.
McMaster, just hold that subpoena off.
Chief on that. I'd like very much
here next time. He
be here at a future
him. I would prefer
So, if you would, Mr.
Then work with the
for him to do this
voluntarily. I'd rather do it that way.
4. BRICKELLBANC ZONING JUDGMENT.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, row that you have gore over the
good news, and that is very good news what you announced a
few minutes ago. If I may, I'd like to unfortunately put
into the record some bad news that for some strange reason
did not appear it the Miami Herald. This small article
appeared in the Miami News. If you all will recall, the
Herald must have spent well over a hundred thousand dollars
puSli izing Brickellbar_c, where they even made me an
engineer. Every time they wrote an article they said,
"secretly ergir_eered" . I was made an engineer by the
Herald, Mr. Mayor, a zoning request by Brickellbar_c. Let me
rea the heading the article in the Miami News has, so that
maybe other media in town_ that was rot aware of it car be
aware of it now
"City Faces $6 Million Payment to Bark in Zoning
Judgment. The City of Miami faces paying as much
as $6 million now that a federal appeals court has
ruled against it in a suit brought by Brickellbarc
Savings and Loan, said City Attorney Lucia Allen
Dougherty.
'Briekellbanc is asking $6 million in damages
it says resulted from delays caused by the City
revoking a building permit in 1982 for
construction of its new headquarters at 2666
Brickell Avenue.
'The City told Brickellbarc that zoning rules
would rot allow the construction of the savings
and loan on the property. But a city attorney
disagreed in a 1977 ruling. Dougherty said the
11th Circuit Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed
the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge C. Clyde
Atkins, who cited the 1977 opinion last year when
he ordered the city to re -issue the building
permit.
'Relying or. Atkins' ruling, Brickellbare went
ahead with construction.. Robert Parks, attorney
for Brickellbanc, said yesterday he was delighted
with the appellate ruling. Parks said he will now
sl 4 October 2, 1984
ask Atkins to set the matter for trial or
amount of damages."
We are facing, Mr. Mayor, a possible $6 million
against the City of Miami because people
administration decided to go along with the
campaign of trying to discredit me. Ir_ fact, it's
clear it this article by the statemerts the judge
Brickellbarc received zoning variance in 1977.
approximately two years before I was ever
Commission.. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
the
judgment
in this
Herald's
made very
made that
That was
it this
5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: MICHAEL JOHNSON COVERUP
INVESTIGATION.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I would like to answer to the
question_, how high did the Michael Johnson_ cover-up go?
This inquiry was called....
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, if you would excuse me for a
moment, I thought we were in the portion_ dealing with other
nor -related issues. If we're getting into Michael Johnson,
I would like the courtesy, as the Chair, to make an opening
statement, and then after that, I'll recognize you for
reading it. Is that Michael Johnson? Nor -controversial, I
just want to put on the record where I stand.
Mr. Dawkins: You see, the only problem I have with that is
when irdividuals who are partisan to you interrupt, it's
O.K.; but when individuals who are nor -partisan, you know
they have to wait. So, I'll wait.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I thirk the rules of procedures
in this City have, as long as I've been here and it's beer
now three and a half years as a Commissioner and I'm or my
eleventh year as a Mayor, the Chair has always had the
prerogative of making an opening statement. I'm not
ir.terruptir_g you other than to make sure that we begin or
the record establishing exactly what this is all about; and
I have the right, as Chair, to do that. I will take the
right that the Charter gives me and the rules of order that
we use to make that statement. I thank you for your
courtesy. Are there any other items before we get into the
Michael Johrson or police matters?
The issue before us deals with whether or not there was
or was rot a cover-up in the Michael Johnson case. If there
was, who did it involve and did it involve any individuals
other than those that have been specifically accused. If
you will rote in the review section of the summary
investigation_ which we have all been given a copy of, items
number 8 or. page 11 and items number 9 or. page 12, which
read in conclusion_ as follows:
"The allegation_ that Lt. Bradford neglected his
responsibilities as Commander of the Homicide
Detail in rot ir.surir.g completion of the Michael
Johrsor_ irvestigation and attempted to shift the
responsibility for that investigation to the
Internal Security Unit, substantiated."
Item number 9 concludes as follows:
"The allegation. that Sgt. Napoli failed to
properly supervise Detective Har,ek's investigation
of the Michael Johnson shooting, substantiated."
Now, it is therefore, as I sense it at least in these two
points, it point 8 and point 9, that there was indeed a
substantiation_ of the allegation.
sl 5 October 2, 1984
i
W
Mr. Dawkins:
What page are you reading from?
Mayor Ferre:
I'm reading from page 11 in the back portion.
It is the third
page from the last page in the back. Oh no,
this is not it. It's what you were given last time.
Mr. Dawkins:
No, I was giver_ that this morning.
Mayor Ferre:
No, sir, at the last meeting that we had here
when you and the rest of this Commission_ met, you were giver
this document
which is called summary of investigation_.
Mr. Dawkins:
I was giver. this.
Mayor Ferre:
Plummer has it. No, sir, that was given to
you today.
Mr. Dawkins:
This morr_in g, yes. I said I was giver_ this
this morning.
Mayor Ferre:
I'm talking about last week, Commissioner.
Last week you
were giver, the summary of investigation.
Mr. Dawkins:
Will somebody in my office bring me whatever
we are talking
about, the summary, please?
Mayor Ferre:
The summary of investigation.
Mr. Dawkins:
Go right ahead, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry.
Mayor Ferre:
The conclusion, therefore of the Police
Department in
both items 8 and 9 is that the allegations, as
far as they were
concluded, were substantiated. Now, please
notice... Excuse me, Mr. McMaster, you had prepared a
summary of the summary with chronological dates. I would
like to have
you pass those out to the members of the
Commission. I
don't want the original; just make copies for
all members of
the Commission.
Mr. Plummer:
We have copies in this packet, I think, giver
this morning,
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: The question, as I sense it, is was there one
cover-up or were there more than one cover-up? That's the
issue we are trying to deal with. There is no question that
there was a cover up. The cover-up occurred between. May 18,
1980 to May 22, 1980. There were no reports filed. There
was no report filed on discharge of weapon or the use of
deadly force. You will rote that at 12:15 or. May 2, 1980,
the following people met in Chief Harm's conference room:
Harms, Cosgrove, Gunn, Putman., and Bradford. At that point,
there is no question, as we will see in discussing this
whole matter that the matter of the non -report of the
discharge and nor. -report of the use of deadly force and the
nor -report on these essential things that are absolutely
Y essertial to proper police work were brought to the
attention of Chief Harms and Cosgrove, as will be
substantiated, I'm sure, by Cosgrove when he comes to
testify. So, the question of the initial cover-up, there
absolutely is no doubt, that it was known in the beginning.
In my opinion, it is not a question of investigating whether
there are two cover-ups. The question is are there three
cover-ups? Let me explain specifically what I mean by that.
The second level is were Putman_ and Bradford involved in the
cover-up? I'm not talking about the cover-up in the
beginning that they were privy to, since they were at that
meeting. Were they privy to the cover-up beyond that, as it
j continued? Then the third level, and the question is was
there anybody in the upper echelons of the Police
Department, specifically Chief Harms and the other members
sl
r,,
October 2, 1984
All, 4W
of the upper echelons, were they aware of this cover-up? I
would now like to turr, in this opening statement, to pages
95, 94 of the main document, which is called "The Summary",
this is the main_ summary. I would like to read for the
record, into the record, the pertinent paragraphs of Col.
Putman's statement, and they read, and I'm quoting directly
now. Col Putman said that during his tenure in internal
security, he reported directly to they Chief Harms. He said
he met with Chief Harms on the average of once every couple
of weeks to up -date him on or -going investigations. Col.
Putman said he documented what was discussed in. a hand-
written memo, and gave a copy to Chief Harms. Col. Putman
said he had reviewed all of these memorandums and could find
ro mention of discussing the Johnson case with Chief Harms
after the initial meeting of May 22, 1980. Col. Putman_ said
he had also reviewed his daily notebooks wher he complied
with chronology memorandum, citing his involvement with the
Johnson_ case and found no rotations of discussing the case
with Chief Harms. Col. Putman said he rever updated, never
updated Chief Harms on the Johnson case because it was his
belief that homicide was carrying the primary responsibility
for conducting the investigation and the information coming
forth would be coming through the chain of command. He said
the only time he said the only time he was really aware of a
problem with this particular investigations were the times
he contacted Lt. Bradford. Col. Putman_ was asked why he
didn't feel this case wasn't significant enough to keep the
Chief appraised of, especially in light of the fact it was
an un-reported shooting. Col. Putman said it was fairly
well out and dry from the outset that three policemen, had
fired a shot and hit Michael Johnson and he, Harms, was
aware of that from the beginning. Col. Putman said the only
thing he could have advised Chief Harms of, which he didr't
rote, was the Homicide wasn't following through actively.
He said he doesn't have any rotes of advising Chief Harms of
this. Col. Putman said he probably kept Chief Harms
appraised of other police shootings that occurred during the
riots, ever_ though they were being handled by Homicide
because they were fatal shootings. Col. Putman_ said, "You
have to bear in mind that the back of that date in time,
this was a case of a mar_ shot in the arm." Col. Putman said
this case really wasn't important in anybody's mind back
then. It wasn't important in the context of the riot and
the context of all the other things that were going on. Col
Putman said that each time Homicide would give them
anything, he would go back to Lt. Bradford and talk to him
about it, telling him he has to finish up the case because
it is a police shooting. Col. Putman reiterated that he has
r.o notes to ind is ate , he advised Chief Harms in this case,
but it seems reasonable that he should have. Col. Putman
said that in hind -sight, he probably should have advised
Chief Harms or Chief Breslow that Homicide was dragging
their feet, but he felt that one lieutenant talking to
another and the other lieutenant giving his word that he was
going to follow through vigorously, was enough.
I skip now the next two paragraphs, or paragraph and a
half. I row go to the bottom portion.. It starts as
follows, of that same paragraph in page 95. Col. Putman
said that now, in hind sight, he should have told Chief
Harms or Chief Breslow that Homicide was screwing up. Col.
Putman_ said it would have been, great if or December 19, 1980
he had sent a memo through charnels to Major Fonr_er telling
him Homicide isn't doing their job. He said he didn't do
that because Lt. Bradford was going to follow through and do
his job as they had agreed, lieuter_ant to lieutenant. Col.
Putman said he probably should have spent more time keeping
Harms advised on the case but back ther the case wasn't a
very important case.
Now, what we have
testimony, just talking
here is just, without getting into
about the evidence that has beer
sl 7 October 2, 1984
g presented before this Commission, without getting into any
other testimony, here we have a case in which a shooting
occurs, a Black person.'s arm is shot, there are no reports
that are made. Three days go by without any reports. There
is ro deadly force report. There is no discharge report,
ever though there were two discharges that occurred that
i evening from that fire arm. The matter was obviously
brought to Chief Harms, Cosgrove, Gunn, Putman. and Bradford
were in the meeting at 12:15 or the 22n_d of May, 1980 knew
that this had occurred. It was discussed. Now you see
Bradford later or saying that he should have kept the Chief
appraised, but he didn't, saying that he kept minute
3 details, which we'll get to eventually, or everything that
occurs because everything is in writing, and yet he finds no
{ place where he made reference to this. There are no notes
that have been kept, no memorandums evidently or this issue.
I asked Chief Harms the other day if a shooting of a person.,
Black or White, is a common thing in. the Miami Police
Department. Chief Harms said ro. I asked him how many
times in his terure, a:; Chief. He said maybe twenty. I
cannot think of a more important issue that a Police Chief
must keep in mind than the shootirg of a human being by a
police officer, especially when he knew three days after
that the people involved ir the shooting had violated the
rules and rPRi)1 ati.ors of the Police Department by not filir_g
proper report. Then we get into this whole question of
jurisdictional disputes. Is it Homicide's responsibility?
Is it Internal Security? There's no question whose
responsibility it was. If you read through this, that's
abundantly clear in police proceedirgs; it is Homicide's
resporsibility. How car something like this fall through
the cracks? That's ghat we heard. It fell through the
cracks. Pell through the cracks? How can something of this
magnitude fall through the cracks?
Now, what bothers me the most is after the Chief, I'm
sorry, after the department or members of the department or
section. commanders , .. I don't know who concludes this
investigation_, what is the result of it? What is the result
of it? What is the result, what is the answer to a man who
admits that he probably should have kept the Chief
appraised, he should have told. He obviously, by his own_
i admission, and in, the files knew that there was a cover up.
That wasn't any question or May 22nd. Isn't it incredible
that there were no detailed rotes made of this, even though
here is a mar_ who makes detailed rotes or everything he
does. How come there was no follow up? How come there was
no cor.tir.uity? Why wasn't anybody upset every time Mr.
Johnson's attorney called? The report was floundering
around. How could there be permitted that the report remain_
locked up in a police office during a period of time which
is crucial, which is absolutely crucial from November until
March of 1982, this files of Homicide are locked up. Nobody
saw them from November to April. They only come out in
April 182, wher all of a sudden., there is a potential of a
law suit by Mr. Johnson's attorney. Now, having said all of
this, it seems to me that the people that are obviously at
fault from this are the three individuals who, it the first
place, covered this whole matter up and didn't make proper
reports. And, of course, I think we get to the point of
dealing with Bradford and Putman. What is their penalty for
having beer involved in writing publicly and making
statements of this? Are they fired? Glover was fired. Why
was Glover fired? Glover is fired or recommended for firing
because he said he hadn't seer_ the record. When he gets his
testimony back and reads it two months later, that same day
that he gets the record, he and his attorney called the
State Attorney's office, and said, "Hey, there's a mistake
sl 8 October 2, 1984
Alk
here. I did see the record, ar_d there is the record." He
goes down, and makes, that same afterroon, an aclaratory
statement to cover the mistake that was made, which is
admissible under charges of perjury and criminal evidence in
legal procedures. Yet, that is the basis where the mar is
fired, or is recommended for firing; because it testimonies,
as I hadn't seen the record. Now, look at what Glover's
condition is. Here he is lambasted in the press. Nobody
makes any distinction. He's one of the guys that covered
up. There is no testimony. There is no evidence. There is
no accusation anywhere that Glover had anything to do with
the cover-up, r_or.e. Yet, it is the impression_, as giver by
the reports that have been coming out of these things that
have come out in these fir_dirgs in these past two hearings,
that Glover was part of a cover-up when there was never any
accusation_ of that.
Now, in the meantime, the people that were involved in
the cover-up admittedly, have not been recommended for
firing. And Putman., who makes this kind of a statement on
the record, and I haven't ever gotten_ into Bradford yet,
which we will eventually, are slapped in the wrist. His car
was taker_ away and he gets a 5% drop for a couple of months
until the 6% increase comes back into effect, or whatever.
It is my opinion_ that there will be some important
things coming out of these proceedings that will deal, both
at the level of Bradford and Putman, that in my opinion, are
a lot more damaging that I think has come up urtil row.
That's something that we reed to specifically deal with.
But beyond that, it seems to me incongruous and
inconceivable that the upper echelons of the Police
Department, and I'm talking specifically of former Chief
Harms, and I'm talking about the people that are still in
the Police Department in the upper echelons of that Police
Department, that during this whole four year tenure that
there was never any action on anybody's part to retrieve
this lost case from in between the cracks. I think that is
something that we reed to deal with as to who knew, who
didn't kr.cw, where culpability and where responsibility;
because, you know, we are hearing a lot of debates or a
r_atior.al level about Harry Truman_ ar_d the buck stops here,
and the buck stops nowhere. The point is that it is
something of this serious of nature is the responsibility of
the Police Chief. The people that are involved in the
guiding and helping the Police Chief run_ the department are
as much responsible and are as much involved in such a
serious matter as are the people that were the perpetrators
of this cover-up at a lower echelon_. That is what this is
all about. Maybe this cannot be established. Maybe it can.
We have not concluded. There are no conclusions. We have
not come to any conclusions on this matter. I think this is
a serious enough matter. I've taker_ these 25 minutes to
read this into the record ar_d make this statement because I
don't want anybody at any time to conclude that there are no
serious matters that are involved in this or that the
implications are not grave indeed.
The other issue has to do, unfortunately, with the
truth. I think that is also something we will be dealing
with in a little while. With that, I conclude my opening
remarks. I recognize Commissioner Dawkins to make his.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I'm glad that we are back on the
Johnson incident because we originally started out to find
out how high up the cover-up went and who was involved.
Then warning this inquiry to clear away any suspicions of
wrorg-doing of anyone, I voted to expand the inquiry. But
doing this or any other inquiry, decency and fair play must
prevail. Given that fact, after we have expanded this
inquiry, before we continue the inquiry into the other
areas, the public has a right to know clearly and ur.derstar_d
fully what is the status of the Michael Johnson cover-up.
sl
9 October 2, 1984
Has this inquiry determined how high up and who
participated? All of us should wart to clear up the Michael
Johnson motorgate before we cloud the issue with other items
of inquiry. Are we really concerned about the cover-up or
was the Michael Johnson cover-up an excuse to go on a witch
hurt? As to the inquiry dealing with other police matters,
we should spell out clearly what it is we are looking for.
Mr. Mayor, you said you were not going to muzzle anyone at
this inquiry. When you failed to provide me with the
information as to where this inquiry is going, then., sir, in
my opinion, you muzzle me; because then_ I am unable to
determine what we are looking for or why. In a City
concerned about its image, the last thing we reed to do is
throw a cloud of suspicion, over our Police Department. Yet
when you say we are going to investigate police matters, and
not spell out what we are investigating, you leave me in a
blank. Really and truly, I need to know what are your
concerns, what Commissioner Carollo's concerns are as far as
the inquiry is concerned. We reed to know these things so
that we can stop wasting taxpayers' dollars. I have one
more incident to report. I too received an anonymous
letter, which means that we of the Commission., are equal.
I'm going to read just excerpts from my anonymous letter.
It says:
"I am a concerned persor in this community and I'm
getting tired of the change and backing up of the
promises and beginning purpose of the thing about
Michael Johnson. All the questions and talk and
more talk and we end up with things that were not
the real thing at all. The real purpose looks to
me was to throw mud by hiding the hard and trying
to make people not believe some of the City
Commissioners. The whole thing I'm concerned with
is turning the people's attention away from the
real problems of Joe Carollo. He talks about
everything but Michael Johnson_."
I will skip the second one, because I don't think it's
appropriate. Now here is something else.
"I am concerned about the use of my tax money to
pay for personal witch hunts and personal attacks.
Why is Mr. Carollo afraid to go up before the
Grand Jury? Does he have other things we ought to
be looking at? He's always going to the Grand
Jury on other people. Why is Joe Carollo and Mr.
Miami Commissioner hiding, huh? I know you get my
drift. A concerned citizen.."
6. STATEMENTS BY COMMISSIONER CAROLLO.
QUESTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER.
SUNSHINE STATE BANK.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Carollo.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I think we have reached that point
in time that some light reeds to shire upon. this Commission,
and some facts have to be made public for the people of this
City and this County to know and be aware of just what is
happer_ing in our City government. Why the Commissioner
reads statements to him that were typed precisely for him so
that he could read them like this and then_ say he received
them anonymously. Why people have been shaking in their
boots for some time now afraid of what this Commissioner is
up to, what facts I might have or I might rot have. The
Commissioner asked that he warted to know any other areas
that any one of us wanted to get into. Well, I'm going to
sl 10 October 2, 1984
Alk
answer the Commissioner right now. Yes, I, like I hope
everyone here is very concerned and warts to get to the
bottom of just what happened in this Johnson case. But I
think there are other areas of grave concern that I carrot
ignore. I'll wait for the Mayor to come back for a second
before I proceed any further. Durirg the September 21st
meeting that we had, and I have the minutes here before me,
I was told by Chief Breslow and it was confirmed by
Assistant Chief Warshaw. Let me wait so that the planned
! pickets can sit down and the security director of the
Sunshine State Bark and personal body guards of Mr. Ray
Corona can organize it a little better. It's right back
there. That's Ray Corona of the Sunshine State Bark, by the
way. Mr. Breslow confirmed and Assistant Chief Warshaw
confirmed that from 1981 to the present, the Special
Investigative Unit of the Miami Police Department reported
f directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw and Assistant Chief
Warshaw then reported or did rot report, whatever the case
might be, to Police Chief Harms. During the scope of my
questioning of September 21st and the minutes are here, I
asked Assistant Chief Warshaw if during the Tick -Talk
j investigation_, he had received any information what so ever
that aryour_e in this City Administration_ had close
associations with individuals that had come up during the
course of that investigation that were irvolved in drug
dealir_g. He says, "Let me answer it this way, that doesn't
ring a bell. It just doesn't." It doesn't ring a bell.
Well, I think some bells are going to start ringing now.
Assistant Chief Warshaw states that if indeed any
information such as that would have come up that the
appropriate thing for the department to have done was to
have forwarded to the appropriate agencies outside of our
own department to investigate and if that had not been done,
that would have been very unusual. He states that if indeed
there was any information that a member of this City
Administration had a relationship with an individual, with
an institution that our department felt had received some
information or that was involved it drug laurderirg, that
would have been a legitimate concern_ to law enforcement. I
quote, he said, "Absolutely," referring to beirg a
legitimate concern to law enforcement. Mr. Manager, do you
have any objection., sir, in going under oath?
Mr. Gary: No, I have no objections.
Mr. Carollo: Madam Clerk, if you could place the Manager
under oath.
Mrs. Matty Hirai: Would you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to
give in this case will be the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Gary: Yes, I do.
Mr . Carollo: Mr. Manager, do you know an
individual. ..before I go into that question if you could so
state for the record, from what month and year to what morth
and year were you a member of the Board of Directors of the
Sunshire State Bank?
Mr. Gary: Commissioner Carollo, I don't have that
irformation before me and I personally dor_'t think this has
ary relevance with what this City Commission has established
as an intent.
Mr. Carollo: O.K., Mr. Manager, fine, you do rot wart to
answer. I can understand. To the best of the information
that I have, I believe you served in the Board of Directors
of the Sunshine State Bark from May 1978 supposedly to
September 183, right after your incident of using Mr. Ray
sl
11
October 2, 1984
I
Corora's, the President of that irstitutior, credit card
where you spent several thousand dollars in charges to his
credit card, became public. Also, some time during that
period of time, you were also a member of the loan committee —
which approved major loans for the institution. The
question that is really the ore that I waa going to ask and
the ore I wart to get an arswer for: do you know Jose
Antonio Fernandez, alias Tony Mentirita?
Mr. Gary: I don't recall knowing that ger_tlemar.,
Commissioner Carollo.
Mr. Carollo: You do rot know Jose Antonio Fernandez, alias
Tony Mer_tirita?
Mr. Gary: No.
Mr. Carollo: O.K., Mr. Manager, thank you, sir. No further
questions of the Manager.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, ever since we've been here, it's
beer_ innuendoes and what have you. Do you. you are under
oath, Mr. Gary.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir .
+ Mr. Dawkins: Do you use drugs?
Mr. Gary: No, I do not.
Mr. Dawkins: Ir_ any form?
Mr. Gary: No, I do not, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Have you ever used cocaine at all?
Mr. Gary: No, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Have you ever smoked marijuana?
Mr. Gary: No, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Have you ever laundered any money?
Mr. Gary: No, sir. Commissioner, I've heard those same
vicious rumors that have been spread by irresponsible
people. I think it is important for this City Commission_,
the citizens of Miami and my family that I offer and I
assist to dispel those rumors that this City Commissioner
recess a call an objective doctor and right before this City
Commission_, I wart to take a test to demonstrate that those
rumors that were spread by irresponsible people are nothing
but lies. I offer that and I insist or it.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, can I proceed now? Mr. Dawkins and
Mr. Gary can say and do whatever they please. It's up to
them.
Mr. Dawkins: You said you were finished.
Mr. Carollo: No, I was not finished.
Mr. Dawkins: You said you were finished.
Mr. Carollo: I was finished with questioning Mr. Gary, Mr.
Dawkins. Now if I can be finished with what I have, sir,
you car ther have the opportunity to get into whatever you
like to.
sl 12 October 2, 1984
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, in view of the innuendoes, starting
out with the laurderirg of money and in view of the
innuendoes, rumors, false allegations that have been
proffered, I urge this City Commission that we deal with
matters as we approach them, and that I will not answer any
more questions until we resolve the issue of those malicious
allegations with regard to my drug usage.
Mr. Carollo: The questions that were asked came from
Commissioner Dawkins, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me for a moment. As far as I am
concerned, Mr. Manager, as I said in the very begirr_irg, I
would rot muzzle anybody. I do rot intend to. At this
point, Commissioner Dawkins has asked a question_ of you
under oath, you have made a statement under oath. As far as
I am concerned, the record speaks for itself. I don't think
that's ar, issue at this point. Now, let's proceed.
Mr. Carollo: If I may, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to read a
statement.
"I intend to ask the Attorney General of the
United States to er_par.el a special Federal Grand
Jury for the purpose of investigating the
influence of drug traffickers may be having upon_
the City of Miami government. I refer
specifically to the bizarre relationship between_
City Manager Howard Gary and the Sunshine State
Bark and the Sunshine State Bark and drug dealers.
We krow that Mr. Gary served as a member of the
Board of Directors and Loan Committee of the
Sunshine State Bark. We know he bought thousands
of dollars worth of clothing using the credit card
of Ray Corona, President of the Sunshine State
Bank. It is also a fact that Howard Gary, as City
Manager, is in charge of the Police Department of
the City of Miami. The notorious Tick -Talk drug
ir_vestigatior was conducted by the City of Miami
Police Department. I have here a sworn statement
right here by the Chief of Miami investigators in
the Tick -Talk investigations. Ir_ this sworn_
statement, Diosdado Diaz swears under oath, and I
quote," that the Sunshine State Bark was engaged
in the business of laundering money". When
questioned, a City of Miami investigator agreed,
ar_d I again_ I quote Diosdado Diaz, that the
Sunshine State Bark was a bark that was readily
used as a depository or conduit for funds that
were generated by narcotic transactions."
End of quote, what an incredible situation.! What a
disgrace! The citizens of our community know that our
biggest menace is illegal drugs. Here we have a strong
irdicatior that the Miami City Manager served or. the Board
of Directors for five years in a loan_ committee of a bark
that his own, Police Department has said is engaged of
laurderirg of drug money. The citizens of Miami deserve
better. I hope the City Commission will join, me in my
request for a Federal Grand Jury investigation of this
situation.. I will add, since I am the one that is
requesting this, that I would only expect that they begin by
investigating any allegations against me. Here is the
transcript, under oath, that was given by the chief
ir_vestigator in the Tick -Talk drug case. This statement
that I read that he gave under oath was giver. or Tuesday,
March 23, 1982. Furthermore, these are copies of different
dates by different police officers that were assigned to the
respective phone wire -taps, which indicate the dates, the
times, the scope of who will speak to whom of drug dealers
they were investigating that were having communications and
meetings with Mr. Ray Corona at the Sur.shir.e State Bark.
sl
13 October 2, 1984
The question that I would liket to ask out loud now is, here
I've been told by ar Assistart Police Chief that he had no
knowledge -by that I would imagine that I am beirg told that
our department had no knowledge as to what was going on with
the Surshine State Bark about allegations and statements
that our leading investigators it Tick -Talks made under oath
and row we have this information that has come out. My
question is was there never a cover-up it this matter? Was
there another cover-up in this matter?
I'd like to go into ar_other area, and after I'm done
reading this, I will explain further the connections. If I
may quote President Reagan, the statement that he made in
May 6, 1983, he stated, "I am rot one who often feels or too
often vents anger, but I want the American_ people to know
ii that they are faced with the most sinister and despicable
actions. We have strong evidence that high-level Cuban
governtr.crt officials have been involved it smuggling drugs
into the United States." Let me go to ar article that
appeared on Readers' Digest in July 1982. The author was
Nathan. Adams. He states, "More proof in Miami D.E.A. and
j State and local enforcement agencies continue to unravel the
ties Hdvdra and major drug rings. In addition. to
Guillo Lara and Krump, they have documented two other key
ir_terratior.al traffickers, Jose Medaro Alvero Cruz, a 42-
year-old marijuana and cocaine smuggler, Or Veracruz ships
an estimated 200,000 pounds of drugs into the United States
each year via Cuban waters. His relatior_ship with Havana
dates back at least to November 1976, when he traveled to
Spain and obtained a Cuban passport, number 247 from the
Cuban_ embassy in Madrid. He has been seer meeting with Raul
Castro at least four times it the past three years. Ir 1978
he was instrumental in arranging the shipment of 51000
weapors to the Sar.dirista's guerrillas in. Nicaragua. That
passport that Mr. Cruz had was issued January 14, 1976; the
place of issuance that was listed in the passport was
Havana, Cuba.
Jose Antonio Fernandez, known as Tory Mentirita, Tory
Fernandez, this individual was part of the Alvero Cruz
organization. He was indicted in operation grouper; the
last it was reported of him, he had escaped the United
1 States and was in Brazil, where the U.S. government was
trying to extradite him to this country. Mr. Cruz, for the
i last several months, has beer under the custody of the U.S.
government. Mr. Cruz has been under the custody, Alvero
Cruz, of the U.S. governmert. Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Mayor, is
under the custody of the U.S. government right now, that's
for the U.S. government to know.
The last it was reported he was in. Brazil waiting to be
extradited by the U.S. government. Well, you might ask why
am I brirging these names of these drug dealers that have
direct ties to communist Cuba, that have worked hard in hand
with the communist goverrmer.t of Fidel Castro in bringing
drugs into our country and in helping transferring thousands
of weapons to the Sardirista's guerrillas in Central
_
America. The reaso►^ I have brought these names with this
information is that it is a fact that federal agencies of
the U.S. government have been, ar.d are presently looking
into the connections between these two individuals that I
mertion.ed and others with the Sunshine State Bark. If ar_y
of these statements that I said are untrue, then I challenge
anyone here to get the appropriate agencies of the federal
government to say that they are untrue and that they have
rot been investigating the correction of these individuals
with the Sur -shire State Bark. If I may, Mr. Mayor, when May
- A
sl 14 October 2, 1984
- -
E
20th of last year, after I had left the Dade County
i Auditorium it meeting with President Reagan, I came back to
my office it City Hall. When I came back there was a
relative of Mr. Gary waiting for me there. He asked for all
my staff to leave my inter -office. The individual sat down
in my office, put his hard in his pocket, and took out a
roll of hundred dollar bills that said was coming from Ray
Corona of the Sunshine State Bark, that he warted to donate
this money to my campaign.. I irformed the individual that I
did not wart that money. I did rot accept that money. Some
weeks later, the same individual came to my office and
dropped an envelope that included several checks for $1,000
each made out to my name that was supposed to be for my
campaign at the time. The checks were supposed to come
{ from, as the cover letter stated, the Sunshine State Bark.
Each check was typed on the same date, June 28, 1983 by the
same typewriter. None of the checks had a name or address
or them. They all came from three separate bask accounts of
the Sunshine State Bark and each was accompanied by a
separate slip with the names of individuals that I have
never heard of before, .never knew existed. These checks
were not deposited into my campaign account, and were
returned to Mr. Ray Corona of the Sunshine State Bank.
1 These cases here have not beer the only ores where Mr.
Corona has tried to influence this Commissioner. There have
been other cases, other ir.cider.ts, and each time I have
taker the responsible position that I should have taker and
reported these incidents to the appropriate agercies. Now,
Mr. Gary, Mr. Dawkins, you could try to use as much of a
smoke screen_ as you would like. I could understand. But
the facts remain.. The facts are too, Mr. Gary, maybe this
explains why you were so anxious of having tens of thousands
of dollars of City money spent on personal police proteetior
when according to the own information that the Police
Department gave there was very little legit reasons why you
should have had that proteetior.. But again, this year of
1984, I was called by special agents of the federal
government that requested a meeting with me. I met with
them for approximately two hours. The sole purpose of their
meeting with me, the subject was that they were looking into
Mr. Howard Gary. Maybe Mr. Gary, possibly, that could have
been the reason you warted the police protection. Could it
! have been, Mr. Gary, that you were concerned that other
agencies might have beer surveillirg you? Maybe that is the
reason_, or your phone up there, in the past months you have
had one of the little gadgets that when the light turns or,
it supposedly you are being bugged. That never worked, by
the way. That was provided to you by the security director
and personal body guards at times of Mr. Ray Corona sitting
over here. Mr. Mayor, members of the public, this City can
ro lor_ger be rur like this. We carrot keep on having the
type of double standard that we have been having, but we are
being faced with such an extreme danger to this community
for aryone here, media or public that would like copies of
the documents that I've talked about here, the sworn
deposition from our own_ lead chief investigators of the
Tick -Talk cases, the statements that he made under oath,
where he states that he knew of the reputation of the
Sunshine State Bank and goes into the areas I repeated, I'd
be more than happy to provide it for you.
Mayor Ferre: Are you concluded with your statement?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, the only additional statement I
would like to make is that again, anyone that would like sue
me, I'd be more than happy to provide the quarter so that
rearest available
they car go to the phone and get the
attorney they would like.
sl
15
October 2, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Before I recognize you, Father, let me say
that obviously, the statements and the accusations that have
been made are in serious in nature. Obviously, these are
matters that are beyond our immediate competency. These
acts that are alleged, directly or indirectly, are obviously
matters that are within the purview of federal agencies, be
they the F.B.I. or the D.E.A. or whatever other agencies are
involved. I think this is something, the seriousness of
which would require that we read the transcripts, seriously
think of what the applications are, implications are; then
I'm pretty sure we will have both the U.S. Attorney and the
State's Attorney involved in concluding these things. We
carrot, of course, function properly as a government with
clouds of this nature and I think they have to be cleared.
I think I would imagine that it is incumbent upon_ the well
being of this community that they be cleared as quickly as
possible. I'll recognize you after the statement by Father,
then you, then_ after that, I would hope that...we have
irvited and subpoenaed some people here, and it's row almost
12:30. I know that Mr. Hurtgen has some other appointments
that he has to go to, and I'd like to be able to get to them
as quickly as possible. However, because of the seriousness
of this matter, and since your name has been specifically
mertioned, I would not deny you the right to make a
statenic!:L into the record. But I hope that we can get back
to the Nevell Johnson. case.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, Michael Johnson.
Mayor Ferre: Michael Johnson case quicker. All
first you, Father.
Rev. Ronald Fox: My name is Ronald Fox, rector of
Episcopal Church. I live at 341 William Avenue.
want to do, the question I was raising, I came here
thirg and heard another. I'm not interested in
Commissioner Joe Carollo exonerate himself or hear
right,
Christ
What I
for ore
hearing
a tirade
against the City Manager Gary. I came here to hear
something else. I would hope that we would stick to that
agenda. If we are going to deal with the City Manager, then
we should know that and he should have the proper
representatives here. I think that the Commissioner was out
of order it the tirade that he put forth. I think the Chair
I should have the ir_tegrity to stop him because I did not see
anything germane to the Johnson_ case.
Mayor Ferre: Father Fox, let me explain_ this to you. I
understand where the confusion might come. The issue before
us is whether or rot there was a cover-up beyond the initial
cover up in the Michael Johrsor. case. As I understand what
Commissioner Carollo is saying, aside from the issues of
Howard Gary and Sunshine Bark, is whether or not there was
information within. the Police Department that at ore time or
another, was rot delivered quickly and expeditiously to the
D.E.A. I think that issue deals with a potential of a
cover-up. So, I said at the beginning of this, I would not
muzzle arybody and it is not my intention to do so. Now
Commissioner Carollo has as much right as any member of this
Commission_ to make a statement. He has made it. Obviously,
it is a serious matter. What he has talked about is not
just a light thing. It is a serious matter and it is in the
best interest of both Howard Gary and every member of this
Commission_ and this City to have this matter cleared up as
quickly as possible.
Rev. Fox: I would agree with that, but I think this should
be done at the proper time. I don't think this is the
proper time.
12
11
Mayor Ferre: It is my intention,
conclude this ....
hopefully, before we
Rev. Fox: I don't think there was no congruence between
what he was saying and the other.
Mayor Ferre: Father, I'm rot going to get into a debate as
to whether Commissioner Carollo has... I dor_'t think there
is any question that he has a right to make a statement, ask
questions, and investigate anything he thinks is appropriate
dealing with the Police Department.
Rev. Fox: At the proper time, proper place.
Mayor Ferre: At the proper time, and this is the proper
time.
Rev. Fox: I don't think so.
Mayor Ferre: Well, this is an inquiry dealing with Police
matters.
Mr. Jack Alfonso: My name is Jack Alfonso.
Mr. Bill Miles: I think I'm next, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problems to which one of you
is next.
Mr. Miles: I was standing first.
Mr. Alfonso: O.K., I give you my turn_.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Alfonso yields, so I recognize you, sir.
Mr. Miles: Thank you, thank you, sir. My name is Bill
Miles. I live at 5501 N.W. 15th Avenue. I'd like to
address my remarks to Commissioner Carollo. I'd like to
say, Commissioner Carollo, your rick -picking and witch hunt
continues. Do you have plans for the City Manager's job or
for the Mayor's job? Why the constant attack on Howard
Gary? Why don't we talk about your distribution_ of K.K.K.
literature, hate literature, towards Jews and Blacks some
years ago. Gary, I'll have you understand, is a ten -
generation American. You are our guest in this country, ar_d
we're kind of sick of you.
Mr. Carollo: Sir, let me correct you. I'm a United States
citizen.
Mr. Miles: I have the floor!
Mr. Carollo: I am as patriotic as you or anybody herel
Mr. Miles: Joe Carollo, I have the damn floorl
Mr. Carollo: You certainly do, but I'm not going to let....
Mayor Ferre: All right, all right.
Mr. Miles: I have the floorl
Mr. Carollo: ....someon_e question my patriotism.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles, Commissioner Carollo.
Mr. Miles: I have the floor and I am a taxpayer.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles, if you'll keep order, sir.
Commissioner Carollo, Mr. Miles does have the floor.
sl 17 October 2, 1984
Mr. Miles: Lister, I wart to tell Joe Carollo that he is a
guest in America, and we don't wart the kind of crap that
he's been putting down in. this Commission_. Howard Gary is a
ter_ -generation. American.
Mayor Ferre: He has the right to speak.
Mr. Miles: He is a guest. I have a right to say what I
want to say.
Mr. Carollo: Why don't you say that, sir, to Mr. Ray
Corona, Al Veracruz, Tory Fernandez and all the rest of
those drug dealers.
Mr . Miles : Come out of that chair and shake your finger in
my face I
Mayor Ferre: Now, now, Mr. Miles.
4 Mr. Miles: Come out of that chair down here and shake your
cotton picking finger on my face.
i
Mr. Carollo: That's exactly what I thought, sir.
Mr. Miles: Well, come on, do it row.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles.
Mr. Miles: Joe, do it now.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles, I know you are excited.
Mr. Miles: No, he's a rotten bastard, that's what he is.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles, I would ask....
Mr. Carollo: The truth always hurts. Doesn't it?
Mr. Plummer: Maurice, take a recess of five minutes.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles, I would ask you to be civil about
this.
Mr. Miles: Who could be civil with this morkey sitting on
this seat?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, what I quoted was a sworn
statement.
Mayor Ferre: Are you finished?
Mr. Miles: We don't wart him here! We don't wart him here!
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Miles.
Mr. Miles: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. All right, Mr. Alfonso.
Mr. Alfonso: I am the President of Sunshine Security. My
office is 351 S.W. 8th Street. To remain silent at this
moment, would be to agree with Mr. Carollo regarding about
the service I have provided to the Corona family. I have
been givir_g security service, only security service, to the
Corona family for more than sever years. They have beer_
with the Bark of Miami, then they moved to the Total Bank,
then they moved to the Sunshine Bank. I've beer_ having
their service. They have been very happy with my service,
security guard service only. I could give bodyguard
service, for which I am licensed, but I never give any
bodyguard service to Mr. Corona. To accept that would be to
accept a lie. If someone knows the truth, well Mr. Carollo,
I always had the pleasure to be around him for mary, many
years. He knows that I don't give... It's something he
warts to get me involved in great conspiracy of his
imagination. That's the reason I want to be clear. He
knows that. He's lying. I wish to know if he is a mar. who —
likes to put everybody under oath, he wish to be under oath
so someone can ask some questions to him at this time. Are
you willing?
Mr. Carollo: Sir, Mr. Alfonso, let me say this to you.
Anytime....
Mr. Alfonso: Are you willing?
Mr. Carollo: Anytime, Mr. Alfonso, I'm not going to let an
individual like you come in here....
Mr. Alfonso: Your ex —friend.
o Mr. Carollo: I'm not going to let an individual like you...
Mr. Alfonso, let me tell you something. You know damn_ well,
this is why you have come here today. This is why you have
been conspiring with Mr. Gary. This is why you have been
scared.
Mr. Alfonso: I've been scared?
Mr. Carollo: ....of the statements that I have made of this
stuff that has been going to the appropriate agencies.
Mr. Alfonso: Scared to give service?
Mr. Carollo: Let me ask you this, Mr. Alfonso.
Mr. Alfor_so: Come or.
Mr. Carollo: Isn't it true that your daughter works in the
office of Mr. Gary as the receptionist up there? Isr_'t it
{ true that your sister was hired by Mr. Gary, as a favor to
you? In the Budget Department, isn't it true that you have
scores of others of your family or friends that were hired
specifically for you in the City of Miami? Mr. Alfonso, let
me say this to you, sir.
Mr. Alfonso: That's rot the question. I asked you, sir;
that's ar. answer.
Mr. Carollo: I have gore before, and I am sure I will go
again_ before Federal Grand Juries, and everything that I
will state, I will state there. Anything that the Federal
Government that would like to ask me, any kind of rumors;
allegations, innuendoes, they can ask me.
Mr. Alfonso: I am not so high. I never reached the Federal
Government.
Mr. Carollo: The problem is, sir, that I am rot going to
fall into your little games. Any further statements that
you have, sir, I suggest you either put them in writing,
send them to the media, like you do, send it to the
government.
Mr. Alfonso:
Mr. Carollo:
You are the king of swearing, Mr. Carollo.
That's right, Mr. Alfonso.
sl
19
October 2, 1984
Mr. Alfonso: Talking about relatives, ore of your
relatives... you asked one of your relatives to come from
Clearwater, some place, to ask for a job to Mr. Gary. He
gave it to you, and it's against the Charter. I, as a
citizen, can ask anything; but I didn't. They have the
right to come and apply for a job. But you, as a
Commissioner, ask many times for jobs to the City Manager,
and that is against the Charter, sir.
Mr. Carollo: You tell me one.
Mr. Alforso: Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify this for the
record. I don't have the ability to give...or the privilege
to give bodyguard service to Corona, because he never
requested that service; that is for the record. A bodyguard
service implies that you be with him, around him, and know
what he's doing, because you are next to him keeping his
body. I am rot his bodyguard. I only provide security
service to the bark, which I have giver service to the
Corona family for sever years and from me they have the
highest respect, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Now, unless there is
someboriv A' �A , �•�e have to get ir_to the questions and answers
dealing....
Mr. Dawkins: I'd like one more thir_g before we go forward,
please.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary, I know you are sitting over there
and if you answer someone may say insubordination. But is
there anything you would like to tell me about what was
said, or any statemert you would like to make, sir?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir, it's good to see that in a judicial
process, which this is that we have again to show some
semblance of decency ar.d fairness and rot talk about
innuendoes. It doesr_'t matter in regards to some names
Commissioner Carollo called that I'm not aware of; that's
the first thing. With regard to Tick-Talk's case, it may be
appropriate to put Police Chief Kenneth Harms and anybody
else in the Police Department that you may choose -and maybe
if we look long enough, we may find somebody that you'd like
to testify before you about whether this City Manager,
Howard Gary, knew about or questioned anybody about Tick -
Talk. My first recollection ... rot my first recollection., my
first knowledge of Tick -Talk occurred at the right when I
got a phone call from I think it was Chief Harms who
informed me that they were in the process -and by the way
this was late at right. It wasn't 2.47 a.m. in the morning,
but it was around 11:00 o'clock, which contrary to some
people, I do work 24 hours a day, and people call my house -
but I got a call that said, "Mr. Manager, we want to let you
know that we are it the process right now, we are at
people's houses, at least the police officers were, making
arrests or a big drug case," said, "so," "Well, we warted
you to be aware of the fact that some of the people that we
are arresting are krowr to irfluential people in this town
and we don't want you to be broad -sided." said, "Fine."
They attempted, proceeded to give me some names of some
individuals who were involved, just so if I got called by
any of my bosses or by any of the news media, I would be
aware because a major drug bust. That was the first
knowledge of Tick -Talk. Under ro circumstances have I seen
Tick -Talk information. I don't have the luxury that ever.
Commission Carollo has of having access to transcripts,
because that is not important to me. That is something that
the Police Department does. I don't interfere with any
sl 20 October 2, 1984
investigations. I think it is also important to rote for
the record, instead of ore -sided ir.nue^_does, that my second
knowledge of Tick -Talk occurred when it hit the newspaper,
where it said we botched the case, and my concern_ was raised
to the Chief then, because the Mayor raised some concerns
about why we were botching up so many cases, why we botched
this case up. So, I won't get involved in violating any
laws about revealing, unlike some other people, revealing
things that should not be revealed, because it's against the
law to reveal an or_-goirg investigation. I was explairir_g
why the case was botched up. I think it resulted it the
termination_ of a police officer, who worked within the
Police Department. I can't think of his rame right now, who
supposedly tampered with the evidence, as well as some other
complications. That is my knowledge of Tick -Talk. Now, in
terms of guilt by association., I'm so happy I live in the
United States of America, and there is a sense of
constitutional rights, decency, and fair play. I have not,
and I will rot sit up here and attempt to find somebody
guilty by association., to try to do something that properly,
if it is not a witch hurt, belongs in the well -trained U.S.
Attorney's office, if that is what he says, which I am not
aware of, or D.E.A. or F.D.L.E., or the State Attorney's
office, because I think that is where they belong. Fire,
they can investigate arybody. I think it is important that
people understand why you are showing... I could take this
book right here, and I could take out one sheet of this book
and it's out of context. I could take one serterce and not
go to the second page and read the second sentence; it's out
of context. It is easy to take those things out of context.
But nobody asks whether Howard Gary, ever though the
innuendoes try to ... people try to flow the innuendos, got
involved in Tick -Talk, tried to jeopardize Tick -Talk, really
understood what Tick -Talk was about, because when I was
called that rig.,t when they were making the arrests, they
didn't even say Tick -Talk, they just said a drug bust. I
only knew the word Tick -Talk and the whole clock issue when
it hit the newspaper. Guilt by association, I think it is
important to rote that since Commissioner Carollo has so
much confidence in the U.S. goverrmert, and I'm sure he
understands administrative structures, that you would know
what the function, of a board of director is. I guess you
would assume that a board of director is equivalert to the
City Commission. I would assume that just as the City
Commission cannot be held responsible or is not aware of all
the administrative things that occur in the Police
Department as well as other places, likewise, a board of
directors. Since you have so much confidence in the U.S.
government, I am sure that you are aware that there are
every bark in the United States of America goes through
audit by the F.D.I.C., by the State banking examiners. I am
sure you are aware of barking rules and barking laws that
requires you to go through a very, very rigid cash
transaction reports and detailed reporting that goes to
these Federal agencies. I'm sure you are aware,
Commissioner Carollo, also, that none of these agencies have
said that bark laundered money. I can't vouch whether any
bark in the United States of America launders mor_ey because
I'm or the board of directors and I don't get into the
details of administration of any bark. I am sure that you
are aware that those reports also
complied with their cash transaction_
reports. And just for the record, s
your mind once and for all, Howard
r_ever participate in laundering of a.
will Howard Gary be involved in
transaction, and no, Howard Gary
individuals which...I mean obviously,
He don't know.
21
says that they have
currency transaction_
o you can clear up it
Gary has never, will
„y illegal money, ror
any kind of drug
don't know those
you must know them.
October 2, 1984
I
Mayor Ferre: Any other statements or any of this so that we
can now proceed with the Michael Johnson?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to clear the
record up again. I think the person that all these
1 statements should be addressed to is the lead investigator
1 in Tick -Talk. Investigator Diosdado Dias who was the one
who made these accusations under oath, the ones that I've
j quoted. Now, if they are rot true then it must be that the
investigator, Diosdado Diaz, was lying. Then, if he was _
lying under oath, well, we know the consequence of that. So
I think that the statements that some people made here today
should be addressed to Diosdado Diaz. He was the lead
investigator in Tick -Talk; he made certain_ statements under
oath, which I stated here. If he made them, apparently he
had reasons why he made them.
{
1 Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, go right ahead, Mr. Manager.
i Mr. Gary: Diosdado, also known. as Big Bird, was the same
person alleged to have followed a Commissioner.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Carollo.
TAPE 4
Mr. Gary: Exactly, and it's funny now that when it's
convenient to Commissioner Carollo, he warts to use and
accept the statements by Big Bird, but at that time when he
was told that Big Bird was not following him, he would rot
believe that.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Manager, that's you opinion, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Are we row ready to proceed? Mr. Manager,
members of the Commission, are there any other statements
row so that we can...I would like.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you what my intentions are. I wart
to talk to Mr. Hurtgen. I wart to talk to Col. Witt Major
Witt. Is it colonel or major? Are you a colonel or a
major?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He says he's a colonel.
Mayor Ferre: Colonel, I'm sorry, Col. Witt, I'd like to
ask, but before I ask you questions, we reed to take a five
minute break and maybe calm everybody down. Is there
anybody here —are we concluded with this, other than
getting into the Johnson case? Captain_ Glover, would you
step forward, please? I have a problem in asking questions
of the City Administration and the legal officers, in fact,
I will not ask the questions unless I get a clear
understanding from you, should you be reinstated or should
you not be fired or should you clear up the matter that you
are not going to use information that comes out of this in a
law suit against the City of Miami for damages. If you are
ready to tell us that, then. I don't have any problems in
asking Mr. Hurtgen and others. If you do rot, then I
frankly am not going to be able to ask you or ask them the
questions that I wart to ask. I apologize to you. You have
a right to say that it is your intention to sue the City of
Miami and that's fine. I understand.
Captain. L. Glover:
this point.
sl
I would have to say that I don't know at
22
October 2, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Captain. Then, Mr. Hurtgen, I'm
not going to be able to ask you the questions that I
hopefully will be asking in the future of you. We'll take a
five minute break.
WHEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO
A RECESS AT 12:53 P.M., RECONVENING AT
1:02 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT EXCEPT
COMMISSIONERS CAROLLO AND PEREZ.
Mayor Ferre: We will now proceed with this inquiry. I
i would like to ... there are several areas of discussion that
{ we reed to have here today. I previously asked in my
a opening statement questions dealing with in the concluding
remarks of the "Summary of Investigation" page 11 and page
12, questions 8 and 9, because it was the conclusion of this
t internal security recommendation that the allegations or. Lt.
J Bradford were substantiated. That is that as commander of
the Homicide Detail, it not insuring completion of the
Michael Johnson investigation and attempted to shift the
responsibility. Subsequently, in conclusion_ number 9, it
says that Sgt. Napoli failed to properly supervise Detective
Harek. Now, we reed to get into the chair_ of command, but
the question remains, and this is the crux of this whole
matter, is there a substitution_, could you strike out the
names Napoli and Bradford and could you substitute other
people higher up and if the conclusion of the
investigation -I'm sorry, I thought Mr. Gary was here.
We'll wait for Mr. Gary to get here.
WHEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO
A RECESS AT 12:55 P.M., RECONVENING AT
1:07 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT
Mayor Ferre: Because obviously, this is within your
specific jurisdiction, but in case there are questions as to
what the purpose of this hearing is, I wart to make sure
that or. the record, and I warted you to hear this. The
allegations with regard to Bradford and Napoli are that they
neglected, one as a commander of Homicide Detail, of not
insuring completion of the Michael Johnson_ investigation and
attempted to shift responsibility. That's a two fold
allegation. It then further says that Napoli failed to
properly supervise Detective Harek. I ask you, Mr. Manager,
is that rot applicable to people up the lire? In. other
words, if Internal Security is recommending action because
Bradford did not complete his report and did not follow
through and didn't do his duty, let's see what that's based
or.. First of all it says in page 3 of the John. S. Ross,
f
Commander of Internal Security memorandum, section. 3-b, that
a discharge of firearms report shall be prepared by the
member firing the weapon and submitted through channels to
the Chief of Police. Secondly it says that there is a
report to be made on any forced use, a written_ report to the
Chief of Police. Subsequently, it says that it is the
responsibility of Homicide. There is not a question that
there was going back and forth there, Mr. Manager, as to who
was responsible. Was it Homicide or was it Internal
Security? Now, in section 2, it reads page 7 and 8,
Homocide Detail, sub -section. 8, Homocide Responsibility,
a
"the Homocide Detail is responsible for the following
investigations of: (1) Homicides and attempted homicides."
sl 23 October 2, 1984
C
11
Then three says "Use of deadly
a person is injured or killed.
"(20) Weapons and firearms."
was the responsibility o;
investigation. Further, it
2.533,
"Responsible for Enforcement of Rules and
Regulations: A superior officer shall be
responsible for the enforcement of the rules of
regulations, for compliance with the Department
of Police procedures, and for the maintenance of
strict discipline. He shall give such close
attention to this duty as to render urr_ecessary
for a complaint to be lodged before action is
taker.. He will not fail to take suitable action
or the discovery of any failure or error by
alleged misconduct or neglect of duty by a
subordinate, by a subordinate, and he shall act
as promptly as circumstances will allow."
Section 2.537 says the following:
"Reporting Miscor_ducts: A superior officer shall
make an impartial written report to his
commanding officer in every case of misconduct,
incompetency, neglect of duty, or violations of
i the rules and regulations on the part of a
subordinate or citizens complaint lodged against
a subordinate and his failure to do so shall be
deemed in neglect of duty. The superior officer
shall include in this report his recommendation
as to any disciplinary action to be taken. In
addition_, he shall bring before his commanding
officer at once any subordinate guilty of a
serious or flagrant violation of the rules and
regulations or of any neglect of duty.
'Section. 2.535. Misconduct of a Member rot in
his Command: A superior officer who observes or
is informed of neglect of duty or misconduct by a
member or employee rot assigned to his command
shall immediately take whatever action necessary
and bring it to the attention of the member's
superior officer, who shall immediately
investigate the matter to determine the facts,
and make a written_ report of the findings to his
commanding officer to be forwarded through the
channels to the division, command officer."
Finally in Section. 3.351331:
i "Neglecting to report any member or employee of
the department known to be guilty of violations
3 of any rule regulation_ or order issued for the
guidance of the departmert where such violations
would bring discredit to such members of the
department..."
and it continues. The question. therefore, Mr. Manger, that
this Board of Inquiry wishes to pursue is if it is sauce
for the goose, is it sauce for the gander? If it is
applicable, and in the conclusions substantiated of Lt.
Bradford and of Sgt. Napoli, is it further applicable, as
I've read into the record and the rules and regulations of
the Police Department to any other members of the Police
Department. Now, before we conclude this, I would like to
at this point, or somewhere along this, turn this matter
over to you and ask for you and the Chief to look into
whether or not there were any further violations, as I've
read into the record. It seems to me that if you look at
the May 22, 1980 meeting at 12:15 of Harms, Cosgrove, Gunn.,
Putman., and Bradford that it was obvious at this point that
there had beer_ a cover-up. Furthermore, Mr. Manager, I'd
like to point out that in July 14, 1980, Sgt. Napoli
was...there was a sworn statement taker from Hanek and
Napoli on the 9th of July. Or the 14th, they resigned,
force by police officers when.
..(17) Aggravated assault" and
There is no question_ that it
Homicide to make this
reads as follows in section.
sl 24 October 2, 1984
these resigned. Then Kemp's statement is taker and
subsequently on. 8/8/80 Kemp resigns. As you krow, when
there is a resigr_atior_ from the Police Department, the
Chief is informed and he has a responsibility of looking
into these resigrations. The clear implication., if you
look at this record, rot taker_ out of context, rot one
sheet at a time, but the whole document, if you look at the
regulations of the City, if you look at the sequence of
everts, I think it is very difficult for this observer to
conclude anything other than there was neglect of duty.
Now whose neglect, I don't know. That's what we're trying
to get into. Is it limited to Bradford? Is it limited to
Putman.? Or does it go higher? And, if it is applicable to
Putman and it is applicable to Napoli, isn't the same
circumstances, which concludes it the internal securities
recommendation, substantiating the accusations against
Napoli and Bradford, isr_'t it also applicable to others?
Finally, on this general area, it seems to me that the
question then_ also deals with who actually knew what was
going or and who's responsibility it really was and if
Glover and Lowe are recommended for firing, then_ how car.
frankly Putman, Bradford, and Napoli come out any different
when they have done what they, in their own admissions,
have done? Now I'm rot asking for an. answer row because
obviously this is a matter that you reed to look into in
more detail. But out of courtesy to the people who were
subpoenaed here, their attorneys have asked that they be
released. I do have some questions of them. I will now
ask, and if they will, would they step forward at this
time.
Mr. Dawkins: While they are coming forward, may I make a
statement, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: I have to leave at 1:30 to catch a plane
because I stated the other day that I did have, so I'll be
leaving at 1:30, sir.
Mr. Plummer: My problem at 2:30 is one that can be
charged. My customers don't make appointments.
Mayor Ferre: Is Vicky Suarez, Sara Bolles, and Maria
Pedrajo here? You are the attorney that represents? Do
you wart Vicky Suarez or Sara Bolles first?
Mr. McMaster: Either one.
Mayor Ferre: It doesn't make any difference?
Mr. McMaster: It will make no difference.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Vicky Suarez.
Ms. Carir. Kahgan: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of
the Commission, my name is Carin Kahgar_, my address is 321
N.E. 26 Street. I'm an attorney by profession.. I'm here
on behalf of Victoria Suarez, who did receive a subpoena to
be here this afternoon. Prior to any comments by Ms.
Suarez, I would just repeat. Ms. Suarez's understanding of
the proceedings, based upon my conversations with Ms.
Dougherty and then. Mr. McMaster, who I understand is row
performing that function for the Commission.. I indicated
that Ms. Suarez is here pursuant to the Commission's
subpoena that was issued to her pursuant to Section 14 of
the City Charter. That Subpoena was issued in correction
with this Commission's investigation into the shooting
incident and subsequent cover-up concerning Michael
Johnson., that Ms. Suarez was requested to be here by
sl 25 October 2, 1984
.�J
subpoena as a witness only and that the Commission has some
questions they wish to pose her as a witness, not as a
target or the subject of any investigation, and further
simply that failure to comply with this subpoena, since it
is a subpoena would subject her to possible contempt
sanctions. With those basic understandings, Ms. Suarez is =
ready to speak with you.
Mayor Ferre: Let me say to you, counselor, and through you
indirectly to Ms. Suarez, it is not my ir_tentior_, I can
only speak for myself, it is not my intention in any way to
embarrass her, to create any problems for her, or is she -
the subject of any investigation. The purpose of this is
to, in my mind, deal specifically with the way the Police
Department functions and specifically regarding the
knowledge of Chief Harms, Chief Breslow, Chief Warshaw, and
others of the investigation dealing with Michael Johnson.
Ms. Kahgar_: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Good afternoon, Ms. Suarez.
Ms. Victoria Suarez: Good afternoon.
Mayor Ferre: I apologize for any inconvenience that this
may cause you. I hope you understand that obviously, these
are important matters that deal with the well being of the
City of Miami.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: My first question to you is, do you have any
objections to going under oath?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You have not been coerced or pressured one
way or the other to be under oath?
Ms. Suarez: No, Sir.
Mrs. Matty Hirai: Would you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to
give in this matter will be the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Suarez: It is.
Mayor Ferre: Ms. Suarez, let me ask you first of all
whether anybody in the Police Department, civilian_ or City
Administration asked you not to appear when you were
invited to come here?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did anybody suggest to you that it would
perhaps it might be best if you would not show up?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Or allude to that? Did you discuss the
subject with anybody? Did you ask anybody?
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir, I did.
Mayor Ferre: Who did you ask?
Ms. Suarez: I asked Chief Breslow.
Mayor Ferre: You asked Chief Breslow whether it was
appropriate for you to appear here? Why don't you tell us
what you asked him and what the conversation_ was.
sl 26 October 2, 1984
a
Ms. Suarez: I asked Chief Breslow that I warted to know
what my obligation_ was under the invitation that I had
received. Chief Breslow said he could rot advise me, that
the only thing he could compare the invitation I had
received with that as ar_ invitation_ you receive for any
other kind of affair. It was up to me strictly.
Mayor Ferre: Now, would you tell us how long you have been
employed in. the City of Miami?
Ms. Suarez: I came to work for the City of Miami it April
1972.
Mayor Ferre: Did you come with the Police Department?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir, I did not.
Mayor Ferre: When did you join_ the Police Department?
Ms. Suarez: Ir October 1975.
Mayor Ferre: And you have been continuously, since 185
through 184 in. the Police Department.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir, I have.
Mayor Ferre: What is your present capacity?
Ms. Suarez: I'm a Clerk IV it the Chief's office.
Mayor Ferre: How long have you beer_ in. the Chief's office?
Ms. Suarez: Since October 1975.
Mayor Ferre: You were there during the administrations of
three police chiefs.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you work, in particular, with any one
member of the Chief's office? Do you take rotes? Do you
file? Do you do work for one person_ or several people in
the department.
Ms. Suarez: Do you have a specific time frame?
Mayor Ferre: Since 1980 through 1984, who have you worked
for in the department?
Ms. Suarez: In_ 1984....
Mayor Ferre: 1980 through 1984, the last four years, since
the Michael Johnson, shooting to today.
Ms. Suarez: O.K., we have an office, when Chief Harms came
into the position., he named Chief Warshaw as the Office
Manager at the time. That's who we reported to.
Mayor Ferre: You reported to Chief Harms and now to Chief
Breslow.
Ms. Suarez: After Chief Warshaw was made Assistant Chief,
they brought up Col. Riggs or then Lt. Riggs who was then_
the Office Manager and we reported through him. After
Chief Breslow took office, we report through Major
Flemming, who is the Office Manager now.
Mayor Ferre: So, as I understand it, at the present time
you work with Riggs, Breslow, Warshaw, and Flemming.
- --',
sl
27 October 2, 1984
U
Ms. Suarez:
Mayor Ferre:
here?
Ms. Suarez:
Yes, sir .
Is there anybody else who we are missing
I don't thirk so.
Mayor Ferre: Now let me ask you just some questions with
regard to procedures. I'd like to know what the methods
are that are used by you in the Chief's office of preparing
memos of the Chief's briefings. I'd like to know the
method, the procedures, do you keep rotes, are they filed?
Ms. Suarez: What do you mean by briefirgs, sir?
Mayor Ferre: I mean that there are discussions on
important issues between_ the Police Chief... Let's take
the Michael Johnson case, in particular. You know that
there are or -going discussions dealing with these matters
between_ Breslow and Warshaw and others. I would like to
know how you keep records, minutes, memoranda dealing
specifically with important matters of this nature.
Ms. Suarez: I have rot attended any meetings where that
particular issue has beer discussed in front of me.
Mayor Ferre: You have never received dictation., you have
never filed a memorandum, you have never dealt in any way
directly or indirectly in that office with any issue
dealing with any internal investigation or homicide
investigation.
Ms. Suarez: As far as I car recall, no, sir, nothing has
come to my hands dealing with that particular
investigation.
Mayor Ferre: Do you take shorthand or do you type things
up for any member of the Chief's office?
Ms. Suarez: Sometimes.
Mayor Ferre: Have you ever been requested by any person
who has dictated a memorandum to you, or has given you some
rotes dealing with information to leave out certain,
sections?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You have rot. You have never beer asked,
informed or old to delete portions of any memorandums or
information_ that comes that you are dealing with?
Ms. Suarez: Could you be more specific?
Mayor Ferre: Have you ever been told by someone giving you
dictation_ or giving you a report, delete this paragraph,
don't put this paragraph in. You can type everything up
but this particular page.
Ms. Suarez: On revisions, I assume it would happen..
Mayor Ferre: You say it
might have happened.
i
Ms. Suarez: It may
happen_. It's possible.
i
Mayor Ferre: You
said
you were never involved in any of
the briefings and
you
never had anything to do with
anything relating
to
Michael Johnson directly or
indirectly.
sl
9M.
October 2, 1984
Ms. Suarez: To the best of my knowledge, no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you review all memorandums that come
through the Chief's office?
Ms. Suarez: Nov sir, I don't.
Mayor Ferre: Do you review memorandums and information
that come from Internal Security?
Ms. Suarez: As it respects to what, sir?
Mayor Ferre: Any memorandum or information that comes to
the Chief that deals with Internal Security, have you ever
dealt with any of these memorandums ever?
Ms. Suarez: I see certain correspondence from Internal
Security, or memoranda at some points.
Mayor Ferre: Do you file it?
Ms. Suarez: I do not... Do I file it? Not necessarily.
I could or it might be something that has to be transmitted
somewhere else.
Mayor Ferre: But there have been moments when you have
filed them.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, there are times.
Mayor Ferre: Are memos made and kept on every meeting with
the Chief?
Ms. Suarez: I could not answer that, sir. I do not know.
Mayor Ferre: Have you ever been at a meeting of the Chief
and staff.
Ms. Suarez: Not in the recent past.
Mayor Ferre: In the last... With Chief Harms, did you
ever attend at a Chief Breslow or Chief Harms a meeting in
which the Chief and the upper echelons of staff were
present?
Ms. Suarez: I have attended staff meetings, yes.
Mayor Ferre: Have you taker. rotes?
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you transcribe those rotes?
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Are those notes then giver_ to the Chief, or
do they go into the file directly?
Ms. Suarez: No, they are given to the Chief and then,
after the Chief has reviewed them, they are distributed.
Mayor Ferre: And the Chief, of course, makes corrections
or charges or deletions.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Have you been at a meeting where there is a
decision that the meeting be off the record?
sl
29
October 2, 1984
Ms. Suarez: No, sir. _=
F
Mayor Ferre: Every time you've been present to take rotes,
you have taker_ rotes. You have not been asked to leave the
meeting, you have not been asked to not take rotes on this
particular meeting?
i
i Ms. Suarez: Not that I remember, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much.
i
3 bMs. Suarez: You're welcome.
a
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I have a question_ that is
personal.
Ms. Suarez: I can't hear you.
Mr. Dawkins: Not of you, darling. I'm not you. I'm
talking to the Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: You can sit down.. I dor't think he has....
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, the gentleman that was hired as a
counselor, what specific duties was he hired for? What is
his official task, or what is he doing?
Mayor Ferre: Ms. Allen., would you answer that, please?
I'm sorry, Miss Dougherty.
Mr. Plummer: Also I'd like to know what he's being paid on
the hourly basis.
Mrs. Dougherty: Or the resolution that was passed at the
last meeting, I believe that both you, Commissioner Dawkins
and you, Commissioner Plummer, were not here, authorizes
the payment of $100 an hour up to $15,000 at which time we
would have to come back to you for further authorization_
for any further payment of fees.
Mr. Dawkins: And these fees would deliver what?
Mrs. Dougherty: He is serving as your counsel,
your
special counsel in correction with....
Mr. Dawkins: As our counselor?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Then just like he is bringing rotes to
the
Mayor, he's supposed to bring them to me, if I reed them.
Is that correct?
Mayor Ferre: Sure.
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, he is your cour_sel in correction
with these investigations.
Mv. Dawkins: I wart him to understand that when
I'm
questioning people, I expect to see rotes to me, just
like
I'm seeing them to the Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: That's fire, and I will make these all
part
of the record, by the way. I have no problems.
Mr. Dawkins: I don't care about them being part of the
record. I just wart to make sure that he treats me the
same way he treats... I don't kr_ow about Commissioner
Plummer, but I reed the same assistance everybody else
reeds.
sl 30 October 2, 1984
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if I may, Mr. McMaster, I
think....
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I would like very much to
finish with Sara Bolles so that she and her attorneys can
return.. Then we can get into Mr. McMaster and all that
Mr. Peter Schwedock: If the Commission please, I'm Peter
Schwedock, 28 West Flagler Street. I represent Sara Bolles.
I do take it from the Mayor's comments before Ms. Suarez
testified that none of these ladies are the targets of any
investigation? I would like it known. that Ms. Bolles is
here pursuant to the subpoena under Section. 14 of the
Charter. It is my understanding that she will not be the
target of any ir_vestigatior., that she is here solely because
she has been subpoenaed under the subpoena power of this
{ Commission..
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Counselor. Let me say that it is
not my intention and, of course, the members of the
Commission can speak for themselves, that Ms. Bolles is not
the subject of an investigation at this time. I, of course,
carrot speak to anything in the future. I don't see that
she is a part of any of this other than just answer some
questions or, procedures. I do rot think I have any other
questions other than the ores that you have already heard
and I will be asking the same questions of Maria Pedra jo in
_ a moment. Good afternoor_, Ms. Bolles, do you have any
objections to going under oath?
Ms. Sara Bolles: No, sir.
Ms. Hirai: Would you raise you right hard, please? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in
this matter will be the truth, so help you God?
{
Mayor Ferre: Ms. Bolles, how long have you worked for the
City of Miami?
Ms. Bolles: I started in July of 1978 and I went to the
Chief's Office it May of 1981.
Mayor Ferre: May of 81, so you have been in the Chief's
Office from 81 to the present time. Now, what is your
present capacity in the Chief's Office?
Ms. Bolles: I'm a secretary to Chief Warshaw.
Mayor Ferre: How long have you served in that capacity?
Ms. Bolles: Since he was made Assistant Chief. I came into
the Chief's Office when. Ms. Suarez was out on leave.
Mayor Ferre: That was in 1981.
Ms. Bolles: Right.
Mayor Ferre: Now, you heard the general terure of the
questions that I asked Ms. Suarez, and I will repeat these
for you. Do you, are you, have you been present at, meetings
between, the Police Chief, Assistant Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs
--, A
and other members of the upper echelons in the Police
Department?
=
Ms. Bolles: Yes, sir.
RT 31 10I2l84
Mayor Ferre: Do you take rotes?
Ms. Bolles: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you transcribe those rotes and then you
send them to who?
Ms. Bolles: They are distributed to the staff.
Mayor Ferre: When corrections are made, then you
subsequently make the corrections and go back...
Ms. Bolles: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Have you been asked at any time to delete
something from a memorandum or from a meeting, during the
meetings? Specifically, have you been asked to "leave that
portion out"?
Ms. Bolles: No, sir, I would write up the minutes and give
them to Chief Warshaw for his approval.
Mayor Ferre: So in other words you have not been asked
specifically, directly or indirectly to leave one section or
any sections of these minutes out of your rotes?
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Have you been present at meetings when there
is a request that this portion of the meeting be off the
record?
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And for you not to take rotes.
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Have you been asked to get up and leave during
a discussion_?
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Could you describe to us what the method is
that you as secretary to Chief Warshaw have used In
preparing memos for briefings or for submission of
information into the files, is there any particular
methodology that you use?
Ms. Bolles: In. what specifically, sir?
Mayor Ferre: I'm trying to determine whether or rot there
is a specific procedure in which you are instructed as to
how to make rotes or how to prepare minutes or how to
prepare rotes for briefings.
Ms. Bolles: No, sir, they would be dictated and I would
type them.
Mayor Ferre: Were you at any time asked not to be present
i
at any of these meetings, directly or indirectly?
7
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did you talk to anybody about being present at
these meetings?
Ms. Bolles: What meetings specifically?
RT
32
14/2/84
5
Mayor Ferre: Of the hearings before this Commission dealing
with an investigation of the Michael Johnson Case.
Ms. Bolles: No, sir ...
Mayor Ferre: When you were invited to appear here.
j Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You have rot discussed that with anybody.
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I have no further questions at this time. Do
any members of this Commission?
Mr. Carollo: Is there any information., Ms. Bolles, that you
have that might bring some additional light to this whole
affair to this Commission_? Any statements that you might
recollect that were made in your presence, any actions that
might have been taker in your presence?
Ms. Bolles: No, sir, I don't have any. There is nothing
said, very much in front of us.
Mr. Carollo: Were you ever giver_ any kind of reprimand by
any of your superiors...
Ms. Bolles: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: During the last year or two?
Ms. Bolles: No.
Mr. Carollo: None whatsoever. All right. Thank you very
much for your statement, ma'am, and let me say this to you
and the other ladies that are here. I don't like having to
subpoena, invited the way that we did you ladies here before
US. I think you are all, indeed, very conscientious and
very honest employees. You are ladies and I don't like
having to have done what we did but I hope you could
understand that it was a situation_ that we reed to get to
the bottom of this and because of the positions that you all
have had during the course of the past years, your testimony
here was of importance so I hope you could understand that,
ma'am.
Ms. Bolles: I understand. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre:
I will call Maria Pedrajo in a moment, but in
the meantime,
before, I do wart to talk to Col. Dick Witt.
Is Col. Witt
here? Okay, we'll wait for the Colonel.
Mr. Carollo:
Vicki car. you stay just for ore more minute?
I'm sorry I
wasn't here when, you spoke and there are just
r some very brief
questions I would like to ask you.
Mayor Ferre:
All right, would you please step forward, Ms.
Suarez.
Mr. Carollo:
At any time, Ms. Suarez, during the last year
or two, did
you receive any kind of verbal or written
reprimands from
any of your supervisors?
Ms. Victoria
Suarez: No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Carollo:
None, whatsoever. Did you receive any verbal
or written instructions
rot to go to Chief Harms without
having to go
through anyone else before him?
RT 33 10/2/84
ft
Ms. Suarez: I was told that I was to report to Chief Harms
through Chief Warshaw.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, who told you that you had to report to
Chief Harms through Chief Warshaw?
Ms. Suarez: Chief Warshaw told me.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Warshaw told you. When did he tell you
that, do you reflect the approximate time when that was told
to you?
Ms. Suarez: It was shortly after Chief Harms had been made
Chief of Police.
Mr. Carollo: It was shortly after Chief Harms had been made
Chief of Police.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: And so in essence, your communication with
Chief Harms was limited in the sense that whatever you would
have to communicate to him you would have to do it through
Chief Warshaw.
Ms. Suarez: He was the Office Manager and was designated as
the Office Manager, therefore, we had to go through him,
yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: During the past few years during any occasion_
either that you were present and heard other individuals
make statements in your presence, or might have heard phone
conversations or things that might have been told to you
directly during the past few years, can you share any
additional information with this Commission_ that you think
might help us in the course of this investigation, anything
that you could think of?
Ms. Suarez: No, sir, I really can't think of anything that
I could offer you at this point.
Mr. Carollo: All right, thank you very much, ma'am.
Mayor Ferre: All right, before you leave, could I get Ms.
Bolles also to step forward for a moment? I have one
further question, of both of you. No, dor_'t sit down_, Ms.
Suarez, I have a question of you. Was there ever a time
between. 1980 and now when you were instructed to send
information that was going to Chief Harms through Bob
Warshaw?
Ms. Bolles: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Would you tell us what your recollectio4i is of
that?
Ms. Bolles: Yes. Well, all of my mail goes through Chief
Warshaw first. Anything that comes from his division_ goes
to Chief Warshaw first and then in. to Chief Breslow.
Mayor Ferre: How, you have been there since 1975...
Ms. Bolles: No, since 181.
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, since 181. Has that been the case
since you've been there it 181?
Ms. Bolles: Yes.
RT 34 10/2/84
SIL
Mayor Ferre: In other words any information that is going
to, that was going to Chief Harms first went through Chief
Warshaw?
Ms. Bolles: If it was from his division_, the Special
Services Division. Ur_its such as Internal Security, SIS.
Mayor Ferre: I see. Thank you. Now, Ms. Suarez, the same
question of you. Were you ever instructed to furr_el or
schedule ir_formatior going to the Chief through any
individual?
Ms. Suarez: Up until the time that Assistant Chief Warshaw
was made Assistant Chief anything that came to the Chief of
Police was given to him per the instructions we had received
after Assistant Chief Warshaw made Assistant Chief there was
a new office manager and the irformatior_, correspondence or
whatever was giver to that particular person.
Mayor Ferre: So ir_formatior that went to Harms first went
through Bob Warshaw or someone else?
Ms. Suarez: Yes, right. Through Chief Warshaw until the
time that he was made Assistant Chief to, well, Col. Riggs
now, at the time that Chief Warshaw was promoted....
Mayor Ferre: Was that standard operating procedure in the
Police Department, going back to since you joined in 1975?
Ms. Suarez: There were different management styles so, you
know, they have different procedures.
Mayor Ferre: Well, since Harms became Police Chief.
Ms. Suarez: That was the policy.
Mayor Ferre: That was the policy that things would go
through other people before they reached Harms.
Ms. Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you.
Ms. Suarez: You're welcome.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Col. Witt.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I believe that we should in the
interest of fairness, since both of these felt reed to be
represented by counsel, that it should rot be an expense to
them and I think at this time it would be appropriate... I
don't think, Vicki doesn't have a lawyer, is that correct?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, she does.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, you're representing two. What I was going
to do is make the same motion_ that I did for Chief ...
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, J. L., how about Ms. Pedrajo,
does she have an attorney?
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me make it broad enough, Mr. Mayor,
that any legal expense incurred by these three people for
their appearance here today for the benefit of this
Commission., that we authorize the City Manager to cover
those expenses so they will not be out of pocket.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Carollo: Second.
RT
35
10/2/84
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner X,
who moved its adoption: t
MOTION 84-1097
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE WHATEVER MONIES
MAY BE NECESSARY TO COVER FOR EXPENSES
INCURRED BY CITY EMPLOYEES WHO WERE
SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION ON THIS DATE TO TESTIFY IN
CONNECTION WITH MATTERS CONCERNING THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the
motion_ was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissiorer Joe Carollo
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor;r Ferre: All right, row, Col. Witt. Thank you,
ladies. And Ms. Pedrajo, we will be right with you as soon
as we finish here with Col. Witt. Col. Mitt, the statement
was made ... Col. Witt, do you have any objections to going
under oath?
Col. Witt: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, and this is voluntary and you have
not been it any way pressured by anyone to do this.
Col. Witt: No, sir,
Ms. Hirai: Would you raise your right hard, please? Do you
solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in
this matter shall be the truth, so help you, God?
Col. Witt: I do.
Mayor Ferre: Colonel, let me ask you, my interest is very
specific. We do not have the transcripts at this time, but
we will have them, but I am sure that I speak generally for
the record that the statements were made here that the dis-
ciplinary actions that were taken with regards to Sergeart
Lowe and Captain. Glover were disciplinary actions that were
recommended by their section commanders. I have asked for
both you and Fonrer to be here. Forr_er is ill so he is rot
preser_t today, but in your case, you were the Section
Commander for Glover. My interest is in, firdirg out if you
did make the recommendation_, if this recommendation_ was
ordered by anyone, whether you did it totally on your own or
whether you did it through somebody's order to you. And I
think that is the general area and I'll have specific
questions, but I thick perhaps the best thing to do is to
let you explain it yourself, how the recommer_dation of the
decision. on Glover came about.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I might. May I respectfully
request that Col. Witt, myself and Mr. Hertker consult
before we respond b(-zause we understand that you wart to get
to the bottom of this and you wart appropriate disciplinary
RT 36 10/2/84
FIN _Nu
and I wart to make sure that answering those questions will
not jeopardize it and for him to explain why if it will so
that we won't have any problems later on, if you don't mind,
I respectfully request that.
Mayor Ferre: Let me give you the record specifically, Mr.
Manager. This is September 21st, Page 25 and it goes like
this: Carollo: Ore of the questions that I have, Chief,
and there is so much that has occurred here and so much time
that has passed and so many questions on my mind I'm going
to be jumping back and forth with different questions. What
I would like to ask you now, sir, is now did you arrive at
the varying degrees of punishment that you have recommended
for the different officers involved, Napoli, Bradford, Lowe,
Glover, Putnam? Chief Breslow: I have rot recommended
punishment for three of the five officers because it has not
reached me, it has not gone through the process. Carollo:
Let me rephrase the question.. The recommendations that came
down to you from the varying degrees of punishment, who were
the individuals who were responsible for those
recommendations and to your knowledge what was the reasoning
behind the varying degrees of pur.ishmen_t they recommended
for different people? Chief Breslow: The division, chiefs
were instructed by me to review the Internal Security files
and to make sure that similar situations occurring in the
different divisions were treated similarly and rot lightly
in one division_ and a hard lire in another division. Now,
furthermore, further down_, Carollo says, besides Bared and
Dickinson, did Breslow or anybody else have input into these
recommendations? Chief Breslow: This went down the chair
of command through the immediate supervisor over these
individuals for recommendations. Nestor, this is very nice
but this is not the portion that I'm dealing with and you'll
have to do your work over again and that's what happens when
you rush into things without doing it thoroughly. We'll get
into the specific record subsequently, but I think you
understand what the issue is.
Mr. Gary: I have no problem in. responding, I just don't
want...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if I may, during this interim time,
I would like to do what I was going to do before. Is that
all right with you? Mr. McMaster, are you fully aware, sir,
of the Public Document Law in. the State of Florida?
Mr. McMaster: Am I, sir? No.
Mr. Plummer: You're not?
Mr. McMaster: Not completely, no.
Mr. Plummer: I would strongly advise the City Attorney to
well verse you on Public Document Law and secondly, I think
what Commissioner Dawkins was trying to say to you is that
any document, any letter, any correspondence or anything
that you give to any member of this Commission_, it has been
the policy that it is made available to all members of this
Commission whether it be the Mayor or an. individual
Commissioner, that any and all documents whether written or
oral become available to any member of this Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Plummer
that, let me give you the reason
legally, the Board of Inquiry is i
three votes on. this Commission..
at this point. Now, obviously I c
rot share that with other members
McMaster obviously has to write
, let me override you or
Por it. As of right now,
my person as decided by
am the Board of Inquiry
o rot want to' in any way
of the Commission_. Mr.
quick memorandums, quick
RT
37
10/2/84
5VIIlUUI[1C3 PR=I 1111').7LU vu Li: "--- .. ---- . -- -
attorneys to ask questions directly. I have decided not to
do that with Mr. McMasters. He is sending me rotes of
questions that he thinks are pertinent that I should ask.
Those questions and those rotes will be put into the public
record. You will have full access to every rote that Mr.
McMaster gives to me. Now, 1 think it is burdensome for Mr.
McMaster when he makes the rote to me to have to make 5
copies immediately before he gives it to me ar.d, therefore,
I will rule that Mr. McMaster, since I am as chair
conducting this Board of Inquiry, will give me rotes and I
will have all copies of all rotes made, giver_ to you, other
members of the Commission to put into the record.
Mr . Plummer: Mr. Mayor, that, of course, is your decision
to make. I think that it is most important that if all of
us are to participate in, this inquiry that we must all be
equally prepared and as such, I do rot know how I speaking
for an individual member an be as prepared to ask the
questions of the people that come here as you are, sir.
Mayor Ferre: That's why the Commission gave me the rights
to be a Board of Inquiry of one person_ and, therefore, I am
again_ repeating to you that I will not deny any member of
this Commission any statements, questions that are asked nor
will I deny them ary information that they wish and I will
immediately make all these rotes available as they have been
giver to me. There are three pages of notes.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, am I to understand, sir, that any
and all witnesses whether volunteer of subpoenaed are
subject to return at the request of any Commissioner who
then_ has further questions?
Mayor Ferre: Of course. Would you make a copy of all these
rotes.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, Attorney Peter iiertken left because he
assumed that you weren't going to proceed with Capt. Glover,
that you no lor_ger needed him. However, in an effort to
proceed with your deliberations, I have instructed Col. Witt
to proceed to answer those questions that would not
compromise the disciplinary process which would jeopardize
the rights of Capt. Glover or the City.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. Col. Witt, would you repeat
for me the thrust of the questions that I have asked you to
make sure before you answer that you have understood the
questions?
Col. Witt: The essence of my understanding of your
question, Mr. Mayor, was did I, in fact, recommend the
dismissal of Capt. Glover and was that recommendation done
of my own volition or as the result of some extraneous
pressure.
Mayor Ferre: Not necessarily pressure, it could have been a
direct command by a superior or superiors or it could have
been a memorandum or an order — that is not pressure, that
could have been an order, I don't know, that is the
question..
Col. Witt: Okay, I understand, sir, the question.. In. order
to answer your question completely, I would hope you would
allow me to proceed it a narrative form.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
RT
10/2/84
Col. Witt: I received the investigation, the total
investigation which is considerably larger than the summary
package and from Assistant Chief Alfredo Bared who is my
direct commanding officer. I proceeded to read it per his
direction as he indicated to me that there were portions
that pertained to Larry Glover who was then reporting to me F
as a member of the administration section. I spent
approximately 10 hours before I completed the reading of it.
At that time I had my first meeting with Chief Bared at his
request for us to discuss my thoughts on that case. As I
proceeded to discuss it with him, he interrupted me.
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that last statement.
Col. Witt: As I began_ to discuss the case with Chief Bared
he interrupted me and indicated to me that at that point in
time he had not had an opportunity to read the case himself
and he felt that my narrative to him might influence his
thinking as he proceeded through it. Therefore, he was
going to wait until he had read it and he and I would sit
and discuss it again at some future date. About five days
went by and he indicated to me that he had an opportunity to
read it and we had a second meeting. During that second
meeting the thing that he and I discussed at probably some
length and extensive depth was the need for some consistency
in the outcomes. That was a point that he made to me, he
indicated to me that he would at the direction_ of Chief
Breslow be meeting with the other division chiefs and the
focal point of their discussion would be some consistency as
to the recommended discipline. Later, I don't have specific
dates, I just recall these incidents. Later, Chief Bared
and I had a third meeting. At this point in time he asked
me for my recommendation. The understanding is that Capt.
Larry Glover had been charged with a violation. of Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, specifically Civil Service
Rule 14.2 which constitutes grounds for dismissal,
suspension and demotion.. During that meeting, both Chief
Bared and I felt secure in not recommending demotion. for
Capt. Glover. My recommendation at that time was for a
suspension. He asked me for my arguments for recommending a
suspension.. My primary argument for recommending a
suspension was based upon two things: One which I thought
was objective, the other one very obviously subjective. The
objective one was his almost 20 years of service with the
City of Miami. My subjective reason for recommending a
suspension was that over the 20 years Larry Glover has been
a member of the Miami Police Department he and I have had a
close social relationship, therefore, if one were to
describe pressure, then. I felt pressure, yes. He asked me
if I would go back and re -read the file and if I would read
it in such a way as to try and set aside my subjectivity and
consider the possibility of dismissal. I told him I would.
On September the 5th, I received a telephone call from Chief
Bared at home in response to a message to call him when. I
got home. I raised him on his pager and he called me. It
was approximately 6 P.M., he told me at that time that it
was necessary for the reprimand to be completed and in his
office by no later than. 11:00 O'Clock the next morning,
Sara Bolles, pleas
September 6th. He asked me if I would prepare the
reprimand, rot to reach a conclusion as to penalty and to
meet with him at 9:30 for purposes of discussion, final last
discussion. I arrived at work at 5 O' Clock in the morning
and began_ to prepare the reprimand. I met with Chief Bared
at 9:30 as pre -arranged. Once again we discussed the
RT
39
10/2/84
penalty to be meted out to Capt. Glover. I once again made _
my recommendation for suspension.. Chief Bared countered
with these arguments: The gravity of the charges in that he
was charged and that charge was substantiated by Internal
Security with being untruthful while under oath at the State
Attorn.ey's Office after having been giver_ use immunity. (2)
That the philosophy of the Department was that a man of his
rank and experience had a greater duty of care than would a '
Police Officer under the same set of circumstances and
probably finally that we had a responsibility to the
community regardless of what anybody else did to see to it
that we exercised our responsibility, my responsibilities,
the Colonel of Police's resporsibility as Division. Chief
with the Miami Police Department in the best way we knew
how. His argument was legal, it was ethical, it wasn't co-
ercive and very frankly, I couldn't counter it. I asceded.
I don't think I conceded, I couldn't find any flaws, any
lack of validity in his position. I then completed the
reprimand, the reprimand recommending dismissal.
Mayor Ferre: The question then_ remains, since you walked in
at 9:30 with the idea of reprimanding suspersior and
subsequently wrote a reprimand of dismissal, was this
because you were convinced that Chief Bared was correct and
you charged your position or was it because you perceived
that in effect your superior officer gave you an order?
Col. Witt: No, I didn't feel threatened, I didn't feel
ordered by....
Mayor Ferre: I didn't ask you whether you were threatened.
Col. Witt: I didn't feel ordered by Chief Bared.
Mayor Ferre: So this was your own conclusion_.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: It was your conclusion, therefore, that
different to what you had believed up until then and
different than what you walked in. at 9:30 believing, that it
was proper to reprimand Capt. Glover by firing him.
Col. Witt: I felt that the outcome, the recommendation for
dismissal was legally valid and that it was an exercise that
was responsible.
Mayor Ferre: That wasn't the question_, colonel. I'm rot
asking you as to your legal opinion and I'm rot asking you
as to whether it was an exercise as you described. I asked
you specifically whether or rot this was your decision at
this point to recommend firing.
Col. Witt: Ir_ those cold hard terms, yes, sir. Chief Bared
had convinced me and that was my decision..
Mayor Ferre: That's all I warted to know. Now, let me ask
you this. Were you aware that Capt. Glover took a polygraph
test specifically on this issue?
Col. Witt: As I recall, the case file makes some reference
to a polygraph test conducted by Mr. George Slattery, I
think I'm correct,.
Mayor Ferre: Do you know whether anybody else took a
polygraph test in this whole case?
Col. Witt;: As I recall, there wasn't another single person
that took a polygraph test in this case.
- RT 40
10/2/84
Mayor Ferre: It is my understanding that the only polygraph
test taken was by Capt. Glover.
Col, Witt: Yes, sir, that is my understanding.
Mayor Ferre: Now, it seems to me that of all the people
involved in the taking of lie detector tests that certainly
Slattery, is that his name?
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Has the highest reputation, ar.d is used almost
exclusively by both the U.S. and the State Attorney's Office
because of the accuracy of these tests. Now, you do concur
that Slattery has a good reputation?
Col. Witt: Unquestionably.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you this. When a police officer, a
sworn officer, a officer of the court, voluntarily goes and
takes a polygraph test and passes it isn't that germane?
Col. Witt: I have ro personal knowledge of the mechanism.
Do I personally put stock in it? Yes, sir, I do.
Mayor Ferre: Well, if you personally put stock in it,
wouldr_'t you then have asked for a copy of the polygraph
test and looked at it before you came to the conclusion?
Col. Witt: I'm totally incapable of reading a polygraph
chart.
Mayor Ferre: It is writter. i.r English, the polygraph report
are, there are a series of questiors that are asked and a
series of answers and then there is a conclusior by the
person that gives the polygraph test and it is a two or a
three page document. If you believe so much in polygraph
tests, Col. Witt, my question_ to you is before you here is a
man who has worked in the Police Department for 20 years,
who has given of his time and life to being an officer, who
has a fairly good record and here you are recommending, of
your own free volition, to fire him and I asked you whether
or rot you read the polygraph test and I reed to know
whether or rot you saw it.
Col. Witt: No, sir, I did not.
Mayor Ferre: Do you think that is consistent with proper
decision_ making of a police officer that affects the life
of an individual who has worked 20 years for the Police
Department, you're recommending firing when the polygraph
test says that he was asked whether he lied or didn't lie
ar.d he passed the polygraph test? Dort you think that is
germane to this whole issue?
Col. Witt: Yes, I think it is germane.
You must understand
3
the context in which I was acting.
The investigators
discounted the polygraph test. I sat
as a reviewer of
facts, rot the maker of facts, working
with the facts as
assembled by the Internal Security Unit
who had discounted
the polygraph because it had beer drawn
by Capt. Glover's
attorney, and for whatever other reasons
that they may have
enumerated in their case file as to the reason why they
discounted it. I then, dealt with their conclusions. In
among those facts, I had an. opportunity,
I personally had an
opportunity to review Capt. Glover's sworn
statement both to
Assistant State Attorney George Yoss and
to Lt. Walton. So
I had some basis, some factual basis
significantly more
extensive than perhaps a r.ir.e question polygraph test upor
U
which to act.
HT 41
10/2/84
a
i
Mayor Ferre: Col. Witt, by your owr testimony just five
mir_utes ago you said that you carefully reviewed the facts
and you had concluded that because of Capt. Glover's
history, experience, background, because of the matters in
the case that you had properly read you could only recommend
a susper_sion ar_d at that point Chief Bared stopped you and
said he didn't wart to be ir_fluenced, he warted to
objectively look at this. Now, then he calls you and you
call him back from your home and he tells you that at 9:30
he warts the final report. You then get there at 5:00 in
the morning ar_d you walk into his office at 9:30 with the
final recommendation by your own. words and the
recommendation at that poir_t when you enter his office is
that he be suspended. Now, subsequert to a discussion with
Bared where he gives you all different facts, you now
testify that without coercion., without anybody ir_fluer.cing
you, you there charged your mind and decided that rather
than reprimand by 30 day suspension_ that Bared's logic was
sufficiently strong where now you charge your mind for the
first time during all this process and decided that you were
going to recommend the firing of this officer of 20 years at
that point and evidently, from what you're saying is that
you found no legal reason to disagree with Bared, you could
fird no ethical reason to disagree with Bared and that what
Chief Bared had said is that an officer that has the rank,
and that means Captain., of Glover, has a greater duty of
care I think were the words that you used.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And based, therefore, on that argument you
came to a conclusion voluntarily and you then, therefore,
concluded as Section Commander that Glover be fired rather
than reprimand him by 30 days suspension_.
Col. Witt: Well, I added that beyond a greater duty of care
it was also the gravity of the charge as well. There was a
responsibility to the community, a responsibility that we
had to carry out.
Mayor Ferre: But yet, you do not take into account Mr.
Slattery's polygraph test that specifically when he is asked
whether he lied, it specifically states that he did not lie
and that, you feel, is overridden by your reading of the
testimony which you concluded one way before 9:30 and
concluded differently after 9:30 without looking at the
polygraph test.
Col. Witt: No, my conclusions did not vary before 9:30 or
after 9:30.
Mayor Ferre: Well, they were different weren't they? When
you walked in you were going to recommend 30 days
suspension, isr_'t that you just testified?
Col. Witt: Well, that's the penalty. Now, my conclusions
were that Capt. Glover was, indeed, guilty of those things
with which he was charged. That was my conclusion.
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you rephrase or paraphrase for me
what he was guilty of.
Col. Witt: I followed in a more than. 7 page reprimand a
rather lengthy investigation conducted over a series of
months by Internal Security. It says: The allegation. that
Capt. Glover was untruthful in his sworn_ statement to
Assistant State Attorney George Yoss on December 15th...
Mayor Ferre: Are you going to read all 7 pages?
42
10/2/84
0
Col. Witt: No, sir, I'm just going to read that area.
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, I didn't know.
Col. Witt: ....in his sworn_ statement to Assistant State
Attorney George Yoss on December 15th, 1983 when he denied
having seen or read any part of the Michael Johr.sor_ Case
File substantiated, therefore, Capt. Glover is in violation
of the following: Miami Police Department Rules and
Regulations 3.103.1 - Members to be Truthful and City of
Miami Civil Service Rules and Regulations Sectior 14.2 -
Grounds for Dismissal, Suspension and Demotion_, subsection.
(e) , subsection. (h) .
Mayor Ferre: Colonel, getting back to the issue, the
question at hard is that Capt. Glover made a statement to
the States Attorney that he had rot seer_, he had not
personally seer_ the homicide file on the Michael Johnson
Case. That is the issue.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, he after the States Attorney finished
with the file had seer_ it, the file had been released. He
stated whey_ he was under sworn_ statement that he had rot
seer_ the file. He subsequently, after reading testimony,
his own testimony when it was giver_ to him, or the same day
it was given to him, consulted with his attorney that same
day, called the State Attorney's Office and said, I have a
aclaritory statement that reeds to be made in reference to
this issue and he, therefore, made the aclaritory statement.
Now, based on that, the premise was that he had lied, that
he had seen the file wher he hadn't seen the file when in
effect he had seen the file. When he got his testimony he
immediately corrected it.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, under rules of perjury in cases of
people that are involved in being deposed, have a right to
correct their statement unless they have waived the right to
do so. Now, he corrected his statement.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Under the rules of procedure he is allowed to
do that.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, to clarify this matter further, this mar_
voluntarily went and took a polygraph test and passed the
polygraph test. So not is it inadmissible in criminal rules
of procedure, not only is it standard operating proceedings
in legal actions, but the mar took a polygraph test which
was not taker_ into account for the reasons you have
expressed. Now, based on all of this, you come to a
conclusion that you feel that the severity is the firing...
Now, let me ask you, since you are talking about the greater
duty of care of hired officers and the gravity of the
charge, would you conclude that if someone else who had a
higher rank had done the same thing, would they be, in your
opinion, therefore, subject to firing also?
Col. Witt: If the evidence bore it out, yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Of course. In other words, if the'evider.ce is
borne out that someone lied, because that is what the issue
is.
RT 43 10/2/84
Col. Witt: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Did Glover lie, that is the issue. The
accusation is he did lie and, therefore, he should be fired
based on the fact that he lied. Okay? Now, so I'm just
asking,
obviously you have nothing to do with that decision.,
that is the decision. that Mr. Gary and the Chief would have s'
to take. If someone else during this process were found to
be lying whether to this Commission or to anybody else,
would the same sense of indignation and would the greater
duty of care be applicable to officers also from the rank of
captain higher who would be found lying?
Col. Witt: If they were to be submitted to me for that
decision., you would get a like decision..
Mayor Ferre: I or_ly have one last question because since
Commissioner Carollo was out during that 10 or 15 minutes...
Mr. Carollo: I was listening, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I just want to make sure that there is
some clear understanding, and I just wart it for the record.
You originally concluded after reading the file and in the
first three meetings with Chief Bared, had concluded that
Glover was guilty but that the reprimand should be 30 days
suspension. You subsequently went into a 9:30 meeting and
had a discussion with Bared and then_ you concluded that he
should be fired. Would you repeat one more time what the
transition_ was from one severity to the other?
Col. Witt: Yes. As I told you, my position was based upon
two things, neither of which dealt with the matter of guilt.
One of which dealt with his long service to the City of
Miami, the bulk of which it is my belief has been exemplary.
The other was purely subjective, emotional or my part - a
long standing relationship with Larry Glover and his wife.
I know his family, I've been in his home. He knows my
family. My reasoning was not a logical process but frankly,
very emotional and frankly I felt a lot of pressure. I
talked at 9:30 in the morr.ir_g on September 6th with Chief
Bared. Chief Bared asked, take this in a situation., try, as
best you car_, to leave out Larry Glover. Think about anyone
under these circumstances, any Captain_. We're rot just
dealing with a police officer, we are, in fact, dealing with
a 20 year captain so it effect, he was taking ore of my
arguments and turning it back on me and asking me if a
person. with 20 years experience who had become a captain_ who
had an otherwise exemplary record wasn't that person_
expected by the public, by us, to show a greater duty of
care? I couldn't combat the argument, very frankly, not
logically, not rationally.
Mayor Ferre: Despite the fact that the incident of lying
was under sworn testimony which he subsequently corrected
the moment he found out that he had made a misstatement and
then took a polygraph test to clear himself that he lied?
Col. Witt: Mr. Mayor, we are dealing with two bodies of
law, ore is criminal law for which he recanted and could rot
be charged. The other is administrative law pursuant to the
Civil Service ordinances of the City of Miami. Ever the
standards have differed. One is to the exclusion of a
reasonable doubt, the other is based upon_ a preponderance of
evidence and based upon a preponderance of evidence, two
sworn statements of Larry Glover, I came to the conclusion_
that he had, in fact, lied. What his motivation was for it,
I don't have the slightest idea.
RT 44 10/2/84
r
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you one last question on this,
Colonel. Do any of these other officers that have been
reprimanded or suggested for reprimanding of the five report
to you?
Col. Witt: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Glover is the only person_ that you have to
deal with.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I was going to ask you a subjective question_
which I'm not going to put you through because you have no
direct command and I think it would be unfair to you to ask
you the question_ on that so I have no further questions.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have one question_. Col. Witt,
the memorandum in question, did you write that memorandum?
Col. Witt: I'm not sure what memorandum you're talking
about, Commissioner Carollo,.
Mr. Carollo: We're referring to the memorandum that gave
the recommendations.
Col. Witt: I wrote a reprimand, I don't think any of the
members of the Commission have a copy of that reprimand.
Mr. Carollo: That's what I'm referring to, the memorandum
that had your reprimand in it, did you write that yourself?
Col. Witt: The majority of the words, if I had to make a
guesstimate, it would be 90% of these words are taken
verbatim from the investigation package.
Mr. Carollo: They were taken verbatim from the
investigation_ package.
Col. Witt: Yes, again., in. fact, I think there are several
pages that actually contain_ quotation marks around them.
Mr. Carollo: In. other words some 90% of that reprimand, in
your memorandum, came from the statements of others that was
handed down_ to you.
Col. Witt: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Did anyone instruct you or guide you or
recommend to you or ir_siruate to you how to go about in
writing that reprimand?
Col. Witt: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: None whatsoever?
Col. Witt: None whatsoever, I am a pretty fluid writer and
I don't think most people....
Mayor Ferre: Did you write all of the reprimand, this full
7 pages or just portions of it?
Col. Witt: There are about two, maybe two and a half pages
of this which are direct quotes form the investigation_
file....
Mayor Ferre: Other than the direct quotes, did anybody
write any portion of that document?
Col. Witt: No, nothing whatsoever.
RT
45
10/2/ 84
Mayor Ferre: Directly or indirectly, you were not
instructed to put something in by anyone, nobody wrote
anything and gave it to you to include in your statement?
Col. Witt: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have any other questions? All right,
Chief Bared. Chief, we are asking everybody here to go
under oath voluntarily. Do you have any problems with that?
Chief Bared: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Nobody has influenced you or coerced you one
way or the other?
Chief Bared: No, sir.
Ms. Hirai: Would you raise your right hard, please. Do you
solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in
this matter will be the truth, so help you, God?
Chief Bared: I do.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, you have heard the testimor_y by Col.
Witt, is there anything in it that is incongruent or that
you disagree with?
Chief Bared: Everything that Col. Witt has stated in front
of the Commission, to the best of my recollection_, it is
factual.
Mayor Ferre: So let me ask you then specifically. Did you
at any time instruct or tell Col. Witt what his concluvion
should be?
Chief Bared: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did you in any way influence Col. Witt in
coming to that conclusion in your opinion?
Chief Bared: In. my personal opinion about influencing Col.
Witt about his final decision., no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: So in other words as the Section, Commander he
came to that conclusion, in your opinion, totally of his own.
volition.?
Chief Bared: From what I heard him state before, yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You don't think that the fact that wher he
walked in at 9:30 he had or:e opinion and when, he walked out
from your office an hour later he had another opirion wasn't
in any way due to any discussion_ you may have had with him?
Chief Bared: It might have had something to do with
discussions we had, but the discussions were primarily
focused on his relationship with Capt. Glover and the
majority of the discussions that I had with Col. Witt, I had
to separate him from his personal feelings about the case.
Mayor Ferre: Did you at ar.y time receive ar_y instructions
from anybody as to what the conclusion of this matter should
be?
Chief Bared: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I have ro further questions. Thank you.
Chief Warshaw. You were under oath last time, does he have
to take an oath again or what?
RT
46
10/2/84
Ms. Hirai: Not if he considers himself to still be.
Mayor Ferre: Are you still under oath?
Chief Warshaw: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: I asked you, Chief, last time about your
relationships with Sergeant Napoli.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: as I recall, you said that no, you were rot
personal friends, you did rot have any relationships with
Sergeant Napoli, is that correct?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, many years ago I'm sure we were in
attendance at a party or two but no, sir, I have no personal
relationship.
Mayor Ferre: In other words you and your family, he and his
family do rot socialize.
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And you do not live in the same neighborhood.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You do live in the same neighborhood?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have children that play together?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have children that go to school in any
way in anything where Sergeant Napoli or anybody in Napoli's
family have any relationship?
Chief Warshaw: I'm not familiar with the school situation
of his children. so I don't believe so, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You don't know, you do have a boy?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Who does go to school.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And that, is it a day care center or a private
school?
Chief Warshaw: My son_, public school.
Mayor Ferre: He doesn't go to any day care and has not gone
to any day care center?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir, he has.
Mayor Ferre: And there was no relationship, to the best of
your knowledge, with Sergeant Napoli or any member of his
family with that day care center?
Chief Warshaw: Absolutely not, no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: That's all I have. Thank you. Do you have
any more questions?
NT 47 10/2/84
Mr. Carollo: Not at this point in. time, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Mar_ager, with regards to these answers
that I received here, I have not had an opportunity to read
this but I would, with regards to Sergeant Napoli, perhaps '
the Chief car summarize, Chief Breslow, if you would, if you
could if you would summarize for me haw Sergeant Napoli,
what exactly, what cor_sideratior.s does Sergeant Napoli have
towards getting his Master's Degree?
Chief Breslow: I don't have it in front of me but I car
give you basically what I have from memory. When that
agreement took place, Chief Harms called me in and said he
had reached this agreement with Sergeant Napoli and he
warted to Operations Division to oversee it to see that he
met the terms and that he produced the product for the City
Police Department at the end of the program and that he met
these obligatio
Chief Breslow: In this sense, in the program which he was
taking which is, I understand, equivalent to a doctorate
program, he had to do some internships and to do those
internships he had to have a space of time where he could
work on it. Now, part of that time was permitted that he
could stack up vacation and comp time to use, part of it he
would do on his own time and there was a portion that was
permitted for him to do it on City time and in exchange for
that he would turn, in a work product to the City. I would
have to re -read this to refresh my memory, but that is
basically the situation.
Mayor Ferre: This is an agreement that was come up between
Napoli and the Police Chief.
Chief Breslow: The former Chief.
Mayor Ferre: The former Police Chief, Harms. Did former
Police Chief Harms personally negotiate this or come to this
conclusion?
Chief Breslow: I would have to assume so, he called me in
and he directed me to see to it that this was adhered to.
Mayor Ferre: When he called you in, was this document
finished?
Chief Breslow: I believe so but...
Mayor Ferre: In, other words, you did not draft this
document.
Chief Breslow: No, sir,
Mayor Ferre: And you don't know how this document was
drafted?
Chief Breslow: I'm assuming that he had it drafted by maybe
the legal advisor or someone else.
Mayor Ferre: This statement was signed by Napoli on the 3rd
of February, 1983 as the record reflects here. Was this
standard operating procedure in the Police Department? In
other words, do you know of any other case where something
like this was done?
RT 48 10/2/84
Chief Breslow: Where a person was permitted to do some or
and some off work?
Mayor Ferre: Where a sworn, Police Officer that is on the
payroll of the. City of Miami is specifically giver_ time to
go to a university to do advanced degree work or police
time?
Chief Breslow: On City time I don't recall any, but what we
have had in the past is we have made arrangements for people
to go to school, in other words adjusted hours. We have
giver_ leaves of absence on occasion_ for Police Officers to
work rir higher degrees.
Mayor Ferre: Chief Warshaw, let me ask you about your
knowledge of this document. Were you in any way involved it
the preparing of this document?
Chief Warshaw: To the best of my recollection., no. I was
somewhat surprised there was ever, a document, I would like
to take a look at it.
Mayor Ferre: So you had nothing to do with the granting of
Sergeant Napoli time?
Chief Warshaw: To the best of my memory, no.
Mayor Ferre: You never discussed this with Napoli, you
never discussed this with Harms, you were not involved at
any time in any way in this issue of Napoli receiving this
kind of time?
Chief Warshaw: I hate to say fully never, Mayor, I
certainly don't remember speaking about this with Napoli, it
is conceivable that in the course and conduct of dialogue
with then_ Chief Harms that it came up but I have no
recollection_ of it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, Chief. I have no
further questions at this time except that we asked Maria
Pedrajo to be here and I would like to row ask here and then
that is my final. Ms. Pedrajo, you heard the questions that
I had before of the other secretaries in the Police Chief's
Office, I'm going to be asking similar types of questions.
You are rot the subject of an investigation of wrong —doing.
These are simply questions that are informative in, nature
and I just wart you to clearly understand that what I said
previously to the two other attorneys regarding their
clients I also voluntarily on the record make it applicable
to you also. Now, do you have any objections of going under
oath?
Ms. Maria Pedrajo: No, sir.
Ms. Hirai: Would you raise your right hard, please. Do you
solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in
this matter will be the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Pedrajo: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, Ms. Pedrajo, let me ask you the same
series of questions. You were here when I made them before
so I'm sure you were following. Basically, what I would
like to know from you is were you present during the
meetings and briefings with Chief Harms and other members of
the Police administration were present? Did you take rotes?
How did you proceed? Was there any methodology in preparing
rotes for briefings? Did you submit them to the'chief? Did
you submit them to anybody else? Were they corrected? By
whom were they corrected? If they were, were you ever told
RT 49 10/2/84
10
to delete arythir_g? Those are the questiors that I'm going
to be asking of you.
Ms. Pedrajo: Okay. I routinely did not attend any of the
staff meetings, that I can recall, I went once to explain,
when we set up City Commission procedures and briefings in
preparation for City Commission, Meetings. I did attend the
City Commission briefing meetings with selected staff
members depending on the issues to be discussed and I did
take some rotes that were not transcribed that were
basically follow up questions or to gather information,
needed for a Commission Meeting.
Mayor Ferre: - Okay. Were you ever told to delete anything
from a memorandum?
Ms. Pedrajo: Yes, at times I would draft correspondence for
Chief Harms, position papers or reports and he would, yo,
know, either charge it to his style of writing or to a
better concept of what he meant.
Mayor Ferre: I'm specifically interested in the Michael
Johnson_ Case. Were there any, to the best of your
recollection_, any letters, memorandums or rotes that were
made that were charged where deletions were made?
Ms. Pedrajo: Not that I know of, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You do not remember of any such instance?
Ms. Pedrajo: No, not to my knowledge.
Mayor Ferre: Do you recall any conversations in your
presence between someone who may have had a memorandum or
anything dealing with the Johnson_ Case where information
was, where there was a request that something be deleted
from that memorandum?
Ms. Pedrajo: Not that I can recall, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Were memorandums kept and made in every
meeting with the Police Chief?
Ms. Pedrajo: I kept some special files for Chief Harms,
there were special staff meeting files, staff meeting files
and those are the routine minutes which would go with the
agenda.
Mayor Ferre: Were those minutes taken by him or by you?
Ms. Pedrajo: Well, they were sometimes handwritten rotes of
his that were put in that notebook, there were minutes at
times taker_ by either, I believe it was then. Assistant Chief
Breslow or Assistant Chief Cosgrove, they would send minutes
of certain_ meetings they had with him that went into the
Assistant Chiefs Meeting notebook and the staff meeting
rotes I assume were taken by the secretaries depending or
who chairing the meeting.
Mayor Ferre: Who would be responsible for deciding whether
rotes would be taken at a meeting or whether the chief would
take his own rotes or whether they would be taker_ by someone
else? Was there a pattern_ to that? Who would make those
decisions?
Ms. Pedrajo: Not that I know of, sir, I don't know.
Mayor Ferre: I don't have any further questions. Carollo?
Is there anything else that you might have that would shed
any light on this particular issue, the Michael Johnson_
Case?
RT 50 10i2/84
Ms. Pedrajo: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much.
Ms. Pedrajo: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I do have a request, Mr. Manager, let me get
my rotes or it. It deals with the rotations of Putnam and I
would like to request copies of Col. Putr.am's notebook and
memorandums from May 18, 1980 until January 27, 1984 that in
any mentioned the Michael Johnson_ Case. I don't wart all of
his rotes, I just wart those rotes wherever Michael Johnson
is mentioned directly or indirectly. '.'here is I think an
important part of this file, as I have read these
transcripts, and as I read them into the record are here in
page 94 and 95 of Case No. 8258-X and basically specifically
that's what I'm interested in and I'll put or the record
specifically what I'm looking for. I find it incongruous
with Putr_am's character that, who was such a meticulous rote
taker of everything that goes on, that he would not have
kept Harms appraised of what was going on in this and that
he later or almost cavalierly says that, "Well, he should
have but he didn't." It seems to me that that is a complete
contradiction to what the rules of the City of Miami Police
Departmer_t procedures are and I eventually will be asking
him specifically about that and I reed to be better
documented so that the questions can be proper. There is
some reference in this document that Putnam had daily
briefings with Harms and yet there are no mentions,
accordirg to him, of the Johnson. Case. I would like to ask
Col. Putnam if he kept anybody else informed, perhaps he was
not informing Police Chief Harms but kept somebody else
informed. And I would like to specifically know from him in
writing under oath at the appropriate time when legally it
is permissible what the answer to that question is. I've
got one other pending question., Chief Breslow, that I forgot
to ask you. Excuse me. At the last hearing we went into
this whole question_ of Lt. Murphy's memorandum to you. Lt.
Murphy, as you recall, you had asked Lt. Murphy to put his
feelings in writing and that was the basis for that august
1983 memorandum. In that memorandum the implication is
again, clear on the part of Murphy that there was a cover-up
and since it has been since established that there was a
cover-up, I'm just curious to understand at that point why
there was rot stronger actions that were taker previous to
the August 83 memorandum of Lt. Murphy. I still do not have
the sequence of everts and where the responsibility lied.
The implication, of everything that I've read and heard so
far is that it fell through the cracks.
Chief Breslow: The first investigation did, yes.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, the first investigation fell through the
cracks. I've got to tell you that my suspicion is that it
was put through the cracks. See? And my feeling is at this
point, is that, and I've got to tell you I do rot think that
you or Bob Warshaw, as strong as my questions have been to
both of you, were - as I sense it row - involved at that
point but I do think that Putnam and Bradford had a lot more
to do with all of this than seems to appear and that is
really my feeling. See, and this is frankly where I'm
heading. I reed to understand exactly what, I reed a clear
understanding as to that Murphy memorandum which is the
trigger mechanism to all of this, I still don't have the
sequence of all of that clearly in my mind.
Chief Breslow: Murphy and
they didn't like each other
there was a strong dislike
RT
Chief Harms had a thing going,
very much, as a matter of fact,
between. them.
51 10/2/84
Mayor Ferre: That happens everywhere including in the City
of Miami Commission as well as the City of Miami Police.
Chief Breslow: What I'm trying to do is set a stage for
understanding. In addition., at that point in time Capt.
Glover and Murphy were feuding. There were allegations
going back and forth between Capt. Glover and Murphy and
rumors, one said this about the other and the other said
this and I think there may have ever. beer. I.S. inquiry about
some of the allegations against each other which had rothirg
to do, to my knowledge, with the Michael Johnson_ Case, per
se, but maybe it did but to my knowledge it d idr.' t . When.
the 1982 investigation_ took place it did rot slip through
the cracks. The 1982 investigation_ followed procedures
correctly, they reached a stone wall where they couldn't get
anyone to say ar_ythirg, ar.y of the key figures to say
anything ard, therefore, they reached the stopping place
where Abe Laeser came to the conclusion that that's as far
as they could go. I think that was probably the spring of
1983 when they wrote the memo. I'm not good at dates so I
hope you don't hold me to dates. Murphy and I have been job
friends - when. I say "job friends", I have never socialized
with Murphy, I may have seen him at some functions but I
have never socialized with Murphy. I don't even recall ever
going to lurch with Murphy, but we have been job friends,
I've had a high regard for Murphy, he held some sensitive
jobs, Internal Security being one of them under Chief
Watkins whom I also had a high regard for. So we go back a
ways. I was instrumental in gettir_g Murphy out of the dog
house so -to -speak and getting him into Homicide because he
is an excellent man in many respects. One of his weaknesses
is he loses his cool and his temper sometimes and does
things like this memo. When he wrote this memo to me or my
request, I read the memo in the context of "There goes Bob
again, overloading himself with emotions." I knew first
hard that many of his conclusions and all of them basically
were emotional conclusions, not actual conclusions. And I'd
like to try to go over some of those areas that you might
have a concern of and give you some of my feelings and
attitudes. As I said earlier, I was decision maker in
transferring Murphy out. Murphy allegedly overheard a
conversation_ between_ Putman. and Glover, one side of a
conversation in mid July where he felt that they were
discussing the Michael Johnson Case. Now he felt, because
later on in the memo he says he wasn't sure, if you read the
memo. Or. September 13th which was at least a month and a
half from th? time he heard the conversation, and after he
was notified that he was being transferred that he came to
me and told me about hearing this conversation, between.
Glover and Murphy and I did not take it very seriously
because of the feud between. Glover and Murphy. But I did
mention it in a casual conversation with Harms within_ an
hour or two of the conversation. with Murphy. Glover was
interviewed two days after Murphy was transferred out, ar_d
this was normal process of the investigators, and Glover did
not go into Homicide until the early part of November of
that year which was about roughly a month and a half after
he had given his testimony and there was nothing that came
to my attention that would indicate that he was a key player
other than the fact that he was in charge of the Enforcement
Unit at that time. Murphy alleges in that memo about
missing files and information and the investigative package
that we got addresses each of the items. For example, he
talks about missing statements and they had two statements
that Napoli had taker_ that weren't even dated properly and
weren't really done properly. There was another statement
that he had written_ some hard written. rotes, Napoli did, and
had misplaced them and that is in the discussion of the
investigation.. He mentions the missing film. Well, the
RT 52 10/2/84
investigation. showed that one roll of film didn't come out
because the I.D. Tech didn't have it in right but he went
back out and took a couple a couple of rolls of film of the
vehicles and they have those pictures. There were missing
P-sheets, the P-sheets are really a record of who worked at
a particular time and a particular place and those were
found during the investigation_. In addition., I think there
was one other item mentioned in the Murphy memo that was
missing, and that was also found. Let me see if I have it
in my rotes. Oh, the tapes. Radio tapes. They couldn't
locate the radio transmission tapes and we did locate a copy
of radio transmission, tapes in the Fire Department which
covered the transmissions that took place. So basically,
all the areas in the Murphy memo were covered in the
investigation by the Internal Security Unit and the other
investigators.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. I think as far as I'm concerned the
last hearing, unless something else comes up that I'm rot
aware of will be in mid October after Mike Cosgrove
testifies. Beyond that, I don't think, and then_ I wart, of
course, hear from Glover. Other than. that I don't think
I'll have anything else.
Mr. ra•-niiri• Mr. Mayor, can I request that all the
information that has been requested of the Manager by this
Commission on today's meeting and prior meetings, that we
receive that before we meet again., not like what's been
happening that we receive part of the information or_ the
same day, therefore, we can't go over it and ask questions
based or it.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you know, but in all fairr:ess to both
the Clerk and the Manager's Office, this has all happened
very quickly.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I know the time span has been limited
but I just wart to state it in the record now that there is
some more time in between. that I would like to receive the
information with at least a few days notice.
Mayor Ferre: Well, as I sense it the next hearing on this
will be on the 16th of October so we row have a couple of
weeks. That will give us plenty of time to read all the
transcripts. By that time, I would imagine that all the
transcripts of all - we have now had three meetings, right?
I would hope that that would all be finished and we could
all look into the records.
Ms. Hirai: The full staff is working on it, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, thank you very much. Anything else?
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:52 P.M.
ATTEST:
Ralph G. Orgie
CITY CLERK
Natty Hirai
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
RT 53
Maurice A. Ferre
N A Y O R
•
ttill
K
t