HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-09-21 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1984
(SPECIAL)
ITEM SUBJECT
NO.
5
5 -
s
INDEX
4{-
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING rim.
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1984
LEGISLATION PAG
NO.
1
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY SESSION: POLICE COVER-UP
ALLEGATION.
DISCUSSION
2
DISCUSSION AND CONTINUANCE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
FOR INCREASED RATES AT STREET METERS AND OFF
STREET LOTS.
DISCUSSION
3
RESCHEDULING OF OCTOBER 11 MEETING TO OCTOBER
109 1984.
R-84=1081
4
CONTINUE LEGISLATIIVE INQUIRY: MOTION OF INTENT
REGARDING FORMER CHIEF HARMS SPEAKING FREELY.
AUTHORIZE RERTENTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ON
RECOMMENDATION OF CITY ATTORNEY. DECLARE CITY
COMMISSIOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MIKE
COSGROVE.
M-84-1082
M-84-1083
M-84-1084
4-A
RESUME PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER TWO ON FY 1984=-85
BUDGET.
DISCUSSION
5
DISCUSSION OF GARBAGE FEES, CURBSIDE PICKUPS AND
FAILURE OF FIRST ATTEMPT TO PASS MILLAGE
ORDINANCE.
DISCUSSION
6
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: TERRITORIAL LIMITS AND
FIX MILLAGE.
ORD. 9900
7
FAILED MOTION TO GO TO CURBSIDE PICKUP OF TRASH
AND GARBAGE.
DISCUSSION
8
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPROPRIATIONS FOR
1984-1985.
ORD. 9901
9
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: DESIGNATED TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF D.D.A. AND FIX MILLAGE.
ORD. 9902
10
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPROPRIATIONS FOR
D.D.A.
ORD. 9903
11
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCREASE WASTE
COLLECTION FEES.
1ST READING
12
FREEZE 183 VACANT POSITIONS IN CITY GOVERNMENT.
R-84-1085
13
MOTION REGARDING FORMER CHIEF HARMS APPEARANCE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY -
ALLOCATING 4109000. FOR ONE SINGLE BREACH OF
EXISTING CONTRACT. ETC.
M-84-1086
1-47
r
i
47-51
51
93-95
95-96
96-98
98-100
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 21st day of September, 1984, the City Commission.
of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place it the
City Hall, 3500 Par_ American Drive, Miami, Florida it =
special session.
The meeting was called to order at 3:22 O'Clock P.M.
by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the
Commission_ four_d to be present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Howard V. Gary, City Manager
Lucia A. Dougherty, City Attorney
Ralph G. Orgie, City Clerk
Matty Hirai, Assistart City Clerk
An in.vocation was delivered by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. entered at the meeting at
4:20 P.M. and Commissioner Joe Carollo entered the meeting
at 4:30 P.M.
---------- ----- ----- �-------------- ------
1. LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY SESSION: POLICE COVER-UP
ALLEGATION.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Ferre: This is a Special City Of Miami Commission.
Meeting which has been called by the Constitution_ of a Board
of Inquiry pursuant to the City of Miami Charter. The Board
of Inquiry is to deal with police issues. Specifically with
the case of Michael Johnson.. As we begin these
deliberations first of all let me announce that Commissioner
Perez is called to inform us that he would be here at
quarter to four and at the latest 4 o'clock. I would like
to at the outset state that I have gore to the State
Attorney's Office and have had a conversation. with Janet
Reno. I have also followed up with two, perhaps three
telephone conversations with her. The problem, of course,
that we are dealing with here is that on the one hard there
is a civil suit that is pending and will be going to trial
it December of this year. Ard we, of course, do not wart to
do anything that will in anyway jeopardize or create
unnecessary problems it the legal represen.tatior that our
City Attorney anal ui;r Counsel will have during that civil
case. In. other words, we d,)n.'t want to...We wart justice to
be done, but we obviously dcnit wart to emotionalize or
confuse the issues by anything the, we do here or the other
gl 1 September 21, 1984
n
hand there are still perdirg criminal charges that are beiq
handled by the States Attorney's Office and they, I'm shire
will end up in trials. We don't want to it anyway
jeopardize the criminal procedures. So, in this particular
area we have to walk the very narrow path of trying to
ur_derstard what the purpose and the purposes were... and it
there were any wrong doings with regards to the upper
echelon.----- of the Police Department. The following letter
has been sert as an ir.vitatior to appear and I will read
that for the record. Pursuant to the provisions of Section
14 of the Miami City Charter the City Commission has
determined that it should conduct an investigation into the
shooting of Michael Johnson, which occurred in the City of
Miami on May 18, 1980. The legislative inquiry will be held
on Friday, September the 21st at 3 P.M. in the Chambers of
i
the City Commission, City Hall, 3500 Par. American. Drive,
Dirr_er Key Marina, Miami. You are invited to attend and
present the City Commission with any information you may
possess in regard to this subject. These invitations were
sent to the following people; Chief Herbert Breslow, Robert
W. Warshaw, Kenneth I. Harms, Sgt. Edward Harek, Captain L.
Glover, Sgt. Norris Lowe, Lt. Lane Bradford, Sgt. Richard
Napoli, Diosdado Diaz, Col. Emory Putman, Office Michael
Loitti, Sgt. Franklin Christman, Officer Robert Edwards,
Officer Matthew Fultz, Officer Ron Ilhardt, Sgt. Ernest
Vivian, Lt. William Berger, Officer William Heffernan., Col.
John R. Forn.er, Officer W. Clerke, Officer George Roschel,
Captain Willam Starks, Lt. Walton_, Captain. Michael Cosgrove
and Mr. Don. Dunlap. I would like to point out that Section
14 of the Miami City Charter gives the City of Miami
Commission when it's constituted as a Board of Inquiry
subpoera powers. However, I would like to point out that
this has been an invitation to appear before this board of
inquiry rather than a subpoena. I wish to put on the record
and I think I speak for all of us, if rot all at least the
majority of this Commission in saying that we would not at
any time hesitate to use our subpoena powers if it should _=
become necessary to do so. I would like to next read into
the record for those that are present so that it is clearly =-
ur_derstood a memorandum from Lucia Dougherty on the subject
of Speciel Commission meeting convened as a legislative
investigation_ committee regarding the Michael Johnson. case.
"Pursuant to Section. 14 of the Miami Charter, you have
resolved to constitute yourselves as a panel of legislative
inquiry to pursue matters involving the police irvestigatior
of the Michael Johnson. case. Your motives in this regard
are to insure that cases are properly investigated by the
Police Department so that through such investigation
wrongdoing is exposed, wrongdoers are punished and that
persons innocent of wrongdoing are cleared. Ir_ this regard
your role is to reveal and expose weaknesses in the Police
Department that can be subject to future legislation. While
fulfilling these critical objectives, it is necessary to
consider the following: (1) This panel of Inquiry does not
have jurisdiction to prosecute, discipline or dismiss
wrongdoers, but may turn over evidence gathered at these
proceedings to the appropriate agency for investigation or f:
action.. The role of the Commission should and must be that
of a legislative body that is investigating alleged
weaknesses in Police Department procedures for potential
future legislation. (2) The State Attorney advised that
taking statements in public of key witnesses having
knowledge of criminal acts would allow wrongdoers the
opportunity to assess the evidence and defend against such
evidence. As such, she suggested that the City not question
those officers who directly investigated the Michael Johnson
case. (3) Under Florida law and City contracts, Police
employees who are subject to discipline are protected by a
cadre of rights and procedures that may not be subject to
interference by this inquiry. Also, pursuant to Garrity V.
gl 2 September 21, 1984
State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 443 (1967) the 14th Amendment
prohibits the use ir criminal proceedings of confessions
obtained from police officers under threat of removal from
office. Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of
criminal prosecutions or pending disciplinary proceedings,
it should be made clear from the outset that statements made
at his inquiry are totally voluntary, and are not made
under direct or indirect threat or intimidation, both as to
criminal proceedings and as to continued employment. (4)
The Michael Johnson civil suit and the perjury trial of two
officers in the car at the time of the shooting are set for
trial in late November. As such, the plaintiffs in the
civil suit could exploit statements or inuerdo made at this
hearing Likewise, the defendants in the perjury suit
would have benefit of these statements. Hence, this
proceeding could jeopardize one or both of these pending
suits, if only by prejudicing potential jurors as a result
of media coverage. (5) This Panel of Inquiry, unlike the
State Attorney's Office has no prosecutional immunity for
defamation. Therefore, it is suggested that comments should
be made bearing this in mind." It is my opinion. that Lucia
Dougherty's intentions in writing this overbearing
memorandum are honorable. I do however feel that the extent
of this in many ways cast an aura of the inability of this
Commission to fully act. In the first point of this
memorandum regarding the Panel of Inquiry where the
implication is that the proceedings deal only with potential
future legislation., may I state that the Charter very
clearly spells out that any member of this Commission and
obviously, a board of inquiry can at any time get involved
in the facts dealing with certain things that occur because
: this is the only elected body within the city structure of
the City of Miami and as such we have a fiduciary
responsibility that goes beyond the legislative role as
such. To deny this would be to deny the fu21 intent of the
Constitution_ of the United States and what vas occurred on
several occasions in Washington at the Legislative level
when Congress has impaneled itself time and time again into
a board of inquiry to deal specifically with problems in the
administration_. The most famous, of course, of which was
Watergate and it had a lot more to do than passing
legislation. The se�ord point in which the State Attorney
has advised, again, is proper, but might leave the wrong
impression. My conversation with the State Attorney was
very clear and both at which Lucia Allen. Dougherty was
present and in the subsequent conversations that I had with
her and that means specifically that the State Attorney did
rot in anyway at any time tell me that we should not have
this Board Inquiry. She left that decision completely up to
this Commission. There is no question_ that there is a ---
since there are criminal charges and criminal investigations
going or_, but there are areas that we must be... that are
sensitive and we must be very careful with. With regards to
Point #3 which is the point dealing with coercion. It is
certainly my intention to make clear that every person that
speaks before this Board of Inquiry clearly states into the
record that at no time has he or she been coerced to appear
here or to make any statements. Furthermore, with regards
to coercion... Coercion is something that works both ways.
It is also my intention to make sure that nobody is
reprimanded for having come to this Board of Inquiry to
testify openly. I thir_k that is as important a right of the
14th Amendment as is the reverse. In other words that the
Garrity vs State of New Jersey speaks, I'm sure, to both
sides of that constitutional right. The question of the
Michael Johnson civil suit is ore that, of course, I am
deeply concerned with and I think that it has been
sufficiently covered under point four of this memorandum.
Now, with regards to the aspects of defamation 'let me say
that when this Commission_ constituted itself as a Board of
gl 3 September 21, 10,84
Inquiry it 1974 we were well aware of that as we have
been ---as I have been and J. L. Plummer who has been here
since that time and those of you that have joined this
Commission, since are aware that anything that we say
officially as a City Commissior_ is always subject to these
provisions. I would like at this time so as to make the
record as clear as possible to read two documents into the
record. The first one so as to set the stage to what this
is all about and so that I do not fall into the fifth
warning that Lucia Dougherty gave about involving ourselves
into something that could be called defamation.. I will put
that burden_ on the Miami Herald and therefore, rather than
my relating the events I will read the everts as written by
the Miami Herald which I think speaks for themselves. "DID
AN OFFICER PULL THE SHOTGUN'S TRIGGER?--- Dated the 28th of
August of 1983. Probe seeks the answer in the 1980 riot
shooting. Somebody shot Michael Johnson. By lire Edna
Buchanan. Somebody shot Michael Johnson. He says it was a
Miami Policeman_. Police say it was a Miami Policeman.. And
under oath some officers ever, say that "it is commor
knowledge who shot Michael Johnson.." It occurred during the
turmoil of the 1980 Miami riots and now, more than three
years later the Michael Johnson case is becoming an ugly
issue dispute within_ the Miami Police Department.
Evidence disappeared. A document vanished. Officers quit.
No one was ever charged. Now there are accusatior_s of
cover-ups and talk of a "reconstructed" report. Police
partners side by side at the scene, failed to recollect the
same everts. One swears he heard no gunshots; an officer
with him says he heard about ter gurshots. The investigation
lay dormart for more thar a year. "I just grant to know,
will I ever know who shot me?" Johnson, 27, asked Friday.
His lawyers, Bruce J. Scheir_berg and Thomas G. Sherman,
filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Miami and
"Officer John. Doe" 10 days ago, charging that police
violated his civil rights, then, engineered a cover-up.
Miami Police Chief Kern.eth Harms on. Friday launched a new
criminal investigation - into the possibility of a police
conspiracy in the case. "We are not finished with this case
by any stretch of the imagination.," said Harms. State
Attorney Janet Hero will not discuss the matter. Her staff,
she says, also still is investigating. That is not what
Hero's deputy chief assistant, Abe Laeser, advised police
months ago. He declared that the statute of limitations had
expired. No one car, ever be charged for shooting Michael
Johnson or for filing false reports, he wrote. In. a final
memo, April 15, 1983, Laeser told police it remains unknown
how, or by whom, Johnson was shot. "We have no option but
to close out the investigation..." " I do rot accept that,"
Reno said last week. "I wart further work done on it."
"Other avenues" will be explored when Laeser returns from
vacation Monday, said George Yoss, Reno's chief assistant.
Johrsor was shot or one of the most chaotic days in the
history of Miami: Sunday, May 18, 1980, the first full day
of the McDuffie riots. The riots erupted after acquittal of
Metro police officers on charges of fatally beating Arthur
McDuffie. Police faked an accident report after a
motorcycle chase. Before the rage ended, 18 persons died
and damage exceeded $100 million. This account of the
Michael Johrson case is based primarily on documents,
statements, and reports in Miami police files. At 5 p.m.
that Sunday, hundreds of blacks were looting a Zayre's and a
Grand Union supermarket in a shopping certer at NW 12th
Avenue and 54th Street. Miami police strategy: retake the
stores from the looters. Carloads of riot -garbed police
descended on the shopping center or. signal. K-9 officers
converged from or direction.. Motorcycle officers, riding in
squad cars, came from another. Arriving police fired in the
air, looters ran, fleeing cars crashed. One officer recalls
is as "a demolition. derby". Driving across the parking lot
gl 4 September 21, 1984
in his white Ford LTD was Michael Johnson., then 24. He was
not a looter, he says. Witnesses' accounts appear to
confirm his claim. Johnson_, then a construction worker, was
en route to pick up his wife and was caught in riot -choked
traffic, he said. Trying to shortcut to NW Seventh Avenue,
he drove across the shopping center. It was ar unfortunate
decision_. Leading the convoy of motormen into the lot was
Patrol Car 242. Officers John. Dees, then 29, Ker_r.eth W.
Kemp, 31, and George Roschel, 30 acknowledge that they were
in the car. Other officers say that another mar., Sgt.
Norris Lowe, 44, the leader of the operation., was also i.
Car 242. In fact, they say, he was drivir_g it. Lowe, a
popular, 25-year police office veteran, carrot recall what
patrol car he rode in that violent afternoon, he says, but
he is certain it was not Car 242. Walking down an alley
east of Grand Union was John. Ferguson, then_ 26. He was no
looter. He had stepped off a jitney and was trying to make
his way home. He had promised his worried mother he would
be there by 6 p.m. He did not make it. He saw Johnson's
car approaching east through the parking lot, he said. He
saw the patrol cars close in.. It appeared as though a squad
car was trying to force Johnson's LTD down the alley where
he was walking, Ferguson_ said. The police car forced
Johnson into a right turn., he said. Ir doing so, the cars
collided. Johnson said he was driving 10 to 20 miles an
hour. "The police car cut me off and hit my car. Their
door was next to my door. Then they shot me." Four white
policemen were in the car, he said. One pointed a shotgun
at him and pulled the trigger, he said. They wore riot
helmets with face shields. He cannot identify them.
Johnson was shot through the upper left bicep- and the right
forearm. The bones in his right arm were shattered. In the
months to come surgeons would graft sections of his hip
bones to his arm. Held together by pins, the wound would
reopen.. He faces further surgery. After he was shotgunned,
Johnson's LTD careened down the alley. Ferguson saw the big
car coming. He had no place to run_. The car struck him,
hurled him up onto the hood, and carried him. Seconds
before it smashed into a telegraph pole - 70 or 80 yards
from the original collision., witnesses say - Ferguson. leaped
off, probably saving his life. Johnson put the car into
park and stumbled out, dazed and bleeding. He needed help.
No one came to his aid. He saw a white policeman standing
on NW 11 Avenue, he said, shooting at cars. "Something told
me rot to call that policeman," he said. He ran for his
life. Muriel Calhoun, 44, standing on the corner and
watching the looting, saw police arrive, heard gunfire and
saw hundreds of people rurn.irg. As she ran_ home she saw a
white car hit a pole, saw the driver jump out and run east
on 52r_d Street. Veronica Level saw Johnson, stagger and fall
in front of her home. James Washington_, 20, a neighbor,
went to him. "The police just shot me", Johnson. said.
Joanne Thomas, 29, saw Johnson fall. She went home and got
her car. Several witnesses, including a 74-year-old woman.,
helped lift the injured man into the car. They drove to
Jackson Memorial Hospital and left Johnson at the emergency
room. Ferguson_, the stunned ar.d injured pedestrian, was
rounded up with a number of looters. Police, about to
handcuff him, saw that this arm was fractured. He shared an
ambulance to Jackson_ with Police Lt. Larry Barkert, who was
shot in the foot, accidentally, by another policeman_. The
right at Zayre's, police took spray cars and painted the
words "looter" and "thief" on cars left in the lot. Mayor
Maurice Ferre called the vandals "bums". On May 20,
Internal Security Sgt. William Berger found Johnson's LTD,
still resting against the pole. There were bullet holes and
blood in the car. The license tag was gore. Police found a
telephone number among personal papers in the trunk. Alvin
Miller, 12, answered the call. He said the LTD belonged to
Michael Johnson_, his stepfather, hurt in the riot and
,I
gl 5 September 21, 1984
hospitalized. Homicide Detective Edward Har.ek found Johnson_
at the hospital. Johnson_ said police shot him. The
detective issued Johnson traffic tickets, for careless
driving and no license. The charges were later dropped when
no police officer showed up in court. From his hospital
bed, Johnson_ asked a cousin, to retrieve the key from the
ignition of the LTD. He did not. According to Johnson, a
policeman took the keys from the car, tossed them onto the
roof and ordered his cousin to leave. Or. May 23, John.
Ferguson_ limped into police headquarters. He reported that
he had been hit by a white Ford moments after it collided
with a police car at Zayre's. He warted to press charges
against the driver who nearly killed him. Investigators
linked the incidents. Homicide Detective Hanek and Sgt.
Richard Napoli began to investigate the shooting. Lab,
reports confirmed that eight lead fragments recovered were
consistent with 00 buckshot and that the blood inside the
LTD and or, the front grille was human.. They interviewed
members of the motor squad. They examined the accident
report. It was dated May 20. A stamp reflects that it was
filed o. May 25. Officer Kenneth W. Kemp, a passenger in
Car 242, wrote the report. He called the accident a hit-
and-run. He put the time at 5:25 P.M. May 18 and the place
at NW 11th Avenue and 53rd Street, rot the shopping center
parking lot. He listed three - not four - occupants of Car
242: passengers Kemp and Roschel and the driver, Johr. Dees.
The homicide detectives never finished their investigation.
Their supervisor, Lt. Lane Bradford, instructed them to turn
all their files over the department's Internal Security
Unit. There was a hassle over who was going to handle the
case, homicide or internal security," recalls Har.ek, now
retired. "Who had jurisdiction_, who had more authority? We
went to the State Attorney's office. They ,just dropped it.
"I was told to hard over everything I had to internal
security. I just did as I was told. I don't know what they
did with it." What internal security investigators did with
it, it appears, was almost nothing. Harms says "a reverse
jurisdictional dispute" caused the investigation to fall
into "sort of a bureaucratic limbo." The investigation lay
dormant for 15 months. Internal Security Lt. James Walton
says that his detectives do not investigate such a case
until a homicide probe is finished. And, of course, the
homicide investigation had never been finished, because the
detectives were told to turn_ it over to internal security.
Michael Johnson visited police headquarters several times to
find out what was happening in his case and "get things
straighten out," his attorney Scheinberg said. "He never
got a legitimate response." Unable to work construction
because of his ir.juri.es, he landed a job as a maintenance
mar.. Ir_ the spring of 1982, attorney Scheirberg informed
the city that he represented Johnson_ and that he warted the
results of their investigation. Suddenly, the case sprang
back to life. Lt. Robert Murphy and Captain Williar_ Starks,
then in charge of homicide, heard about the case for the
first time and were told "of the reed for them to complete
the irvestigatirr.." Murphy assigned Sgt. Ernest Vivian. and
Detective Ronald Ilhardt of the "Gold Case Squad". They
interviewed witnesses, viewed riot- films and tapes, tracked
down_ former officers and took statements. They learned that
the only police at the shopping center at the time of the
incident were Miami officers. The National Guard had rot
yet been activated. No ore other than police was observed
with shotguns. The police photos of Johnson's wrecked car,
resting against the pole, had vanished. They were never
found. Muriel Calhoun told the detectives she saw the
accident and that her husband, Willie, a former Miami police
officer, took photographs. Willie Calhoun told the
detectives that he had gore to the State Attorney's Office
twice. He said no one there seemed to care about
infractions by police - they were only interested in crimes
by citizens. Calhoun....
gl 6 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: (cont'd) told the detectives that he had gore
to the State Attorney's Office twice. He said no one there
seemed to care about the infractions by polic?, they were
only interested in crimes by citizens. Calhotan got angry,
he said refused to cooperate and destroyed the photos. The
spokesman at the State Attorrey's Office confirmed Calhoun
was there and of his lack of cooperation., the missing log.
The "Gold Case" detectives detectives asked for p-sheets,
daily logs that reflect officers' cars and riding assign-
ments. They got all the sheets for the month of May of
1980, all except May 18th. That ore for that day was miss-
ing. Investigators suspected that the number of occupants
in car 242 ar.d the accident's location were charged in a
restructured accident report. Behind car 242 that day, as
the police caravan moved into the shopping center parking
lots was car 248. In. that car rode Officer Robert Edwards,
Mathew Fultz, William Heffernan and Walter Clerke. Detec-
tives questioned, three told the irvestigators they saw the
accident between car 242 and Johnson's LTD in the parking
lot, rot at the street as stated in the accident report.
Edwards said he thought Sergeant Lowe was in. car 242. There
was a lot of talk after the incident, he said. "It just
became general knowledge". He said in a statement that
"John. Dees had fired his gun at the car as if it was at-
tempting Lo ilee the scene and had hit the guy in the arm
and the guy ran.. It was rather open.. I believe John_ Dees
talked about it openly himself." After Fultz said he heard
gun shots other officers told him that a white car and a
police car collided and a police officer shot at it, the car
hit somebody, hit a pole and the driver ran and he was
running down the rode, his arm was flopping where it looked
like he had been shot". Officer Fultz said another officer
told him "with a grin" that the "mar apparently broke his
arm in the car accident". He said that the only policeman
he saw firing a weapon was a patrolman shootirg a carbine
ir_to the air. Somebody fired a shot. Officer Heffernan
said he heard a shotgun blast behind him. As he swung his
right stick at the looter, looking for his right stick
later, he said he heard Dees talking to another officer,
"something about a shot being fired at the guy that was
driving the car that they had an accident with." "The way I
interpreted it was that they were involved in the accident
and the guy and somebody, an officer that was in his car
fired a shot at him." Three months later in a statement
under oath at the State Attorn.ey's Office, Heffernan_ com-
plained that the matter "was rot handled appropriately in
the initial investigation." prosecutor Lasser agreed.
During the statement, Heffernan said he heard shots but said
he heard no talk afterwards. Officer Clerke was the fourth
mar in. car 248, he quit the department three days after the
shooting wher. the "Cold Case" detectives visited him in. Port
St. Lucie he refused to give a statement. Subpoenaed to the
State Attorneys Office later, Clerke said he knew nothing
of how Johnson was shot or how Sergeant Lowe was in the car,
or what Sergeant Lowe was at the time. Clerke added that he
is a good friend of John. Dees." They own a house in the
keys together. John Dees quit the Department less than two
months after the shootirg. He lives in Bradenton. Or the
advice of his attorney, he refused to give a formal state-
ment. To the detectives he said that he heard no gur_ fire,
that ro one in. car 242 fired any shots ar_d that Kemp's
accident report was correct. I'm in no mood to discuss
something that happer_ed three years ago, Dees told the
Herald Friday. Officer Kemp quit the Department less than
three months after the shooting. He lives in Dur.eller. He
also refused to give a formal statemert. To the detectives
he said he heard a lot of gunfire, he said his accident
report was accurate and that no ore it Car 242 fired a gun.
Officer Roschel, an occupant of car 242 told the Herald he
gl 7 September 21, 1984
cannot discuss the case because it is still under ir_vestiga�-
tior_, so did Sergeant Lowe. Some officers remembered.
Although Sergeant Lowe said he could not remember which car
1 he occupied that afternoon, two other motorcycle officers
say they think they remember. Lowe was with them said
Sergeant Frank Christmas ..... Christmas drove car 249, he
said he heard ro shots and does not know where the accident
took place but is almost sure Lowe was in the car. Lummus,
now living in Boynton_ Beach, said he too thinks Lowe was
with him. Officer Michael Liotti was with them in car 249.
He does not remember Sergeant Lowe as being there. Liotti,
accompanied by ar attorney, told the detectives he heard
gunfire and heard talk from other officers infront of
Zayre's "about Dees shooting somebody". He saw the blood
stained shotgur blasted LTD, he said, and was told that John
Bee's car was in an accident and that John. Dees had shot the
guy in the accident." Pressed by details, he could rot
recall who told him. He said he had a mental block. He
declined to have a hypnotist try to restore his memory.
Asked if the original accident report was charged, Liotti
replied, Lowe and Dees were good friends, they kept things
to themselves. It was kind of a hush-hush, it seemed like
it was kind of quashed. Officer Edwards who rode in the
convoy, the second car, said he overheard Sergeant Lowe and
Officel NewN working or an accident report in their office
late. They were discussing how the report should be made
and what should be on it. Sergeant Lowe was directing it and
telling Kemp what to say. Log this four occupants. On
September 21, of 1982, a detective reviewing ar unrelated
case came upon a copy of the p-sheet for May 18th. He
turned it over to "Cold Case" detectives. It listed the
occupants of car 242 as Officers Dees, Kemp, Roschel and
Sergeant Lowe. As the investigation progressed, the "Cold
Case" detectives and their lieutenant said they received
threatening telephone calls at their homes. An aronymous
caller told Gibheart's wife "You'd better watch out". More
than a year ago on August 11, 1982, Gibheart reported that
he spoke to Dees, "I told him that we felt he was rot
' telling the truth. We told him we were going to subpoena
him before the state and force him to tell the truth.
Before we did that, I wanted to give him the chance to tell
us the truth. Before we did that, I warted to give him the
chance to tell us the truth. He said he would talk to Kemp
and get back with us. On October of 1982, prosecutor Lasser
subpoer_ed Dees. There is no copy of the statement ir. the
files of the Internal Affairs or homicide. The State At-
torney will rot discuss the matter. In a statement to
detectives last year, Officer edwards spoke of the original
investigation. in 1980. The men of the Motor Squad were
given to understand he said that, "If there was no further
pressure brought to bear on the City of Miami Police Depart-
ment to pursue their investigation that it would rot be
pursued any further. That did come out of the Homicide
Detective's mouth directly to me". They seemed to know at
the time that it involved Sergeant Lowe and Dees. Question:
"Do you know or did you hear why Dees quit the Police De-
partment?" Edwards: "Again., that was commor knowledge,
although there was a lot of discontent among all the motor-
men., mostly stemming from the riots, it was more or less
common knowledge that besides the reason., just in case
anything did come up he wasn't going to be around." Ques-
tion: "If it did come up, is that in reference to the
shooting?". Edwards: "Yes. Chief Harms said he warts to
know if there were any administrative irregularities in Lhe
har.dlirg of the case." At a press conference Friday, Harms
said, "Events from the past sometimes resurrect themselves
and can cause us concern and frustration. The Michael
Johnson is an example of such an occurrence. That's the
er.d of that Miami Herald story. It just so happens that
four days before that story was published in the Miami
gl 8 September 21, 1984
Mayor F'erre: (continued) This document written or the 24th
day of August was giver_ to me a few weeks before my election
in November of 1983. Subsequent to, after the election in
late November or early December in a meeting with the City
Manager, I turned it over him. We subsequently discussed
this memorandum and I was informed by the City Manager that
it was being investigated and that there would be a report
that would be forthcoming fairly soon.. He put it in chro--
rology, in January Chief Harms was dismissed. At that very
time, I mentioned and reminded the City Manager of the
existence of this memorandum and the implications that it
had and the reed to get this matter clarified. In April and
March of 1984, a memorandum was forthcoming from Chief
Herbert Breslow that stated that the Johnson. Case would be
concluded within_ a month. April went by and a month went by
and nothing had occurred. In. May of this year, that the
luncheon at the retirement of Chief Gurn I talked with both
Robert Warshaw and Chief Herb Breslow about the importance
of concluding this investigation since at that point a full
four years had gore by. I was told by both of these men
that the investigation was about conclude, that there was
some testimony that needed to be taken and that it was
difficult to get this testimony since some of these people
did not live, no longer lived in the City of,Miami. I also
at that time mentioned the importance of taking the state-
ment of Kenneth Harms before this matter was concluded. I
specifically stated to both of these men that I did not
think it was possible to conclude this investigation without
the statement of former Chief Kenneth Harms. I have gone
back to reconstruct that conversation and there is absolute-
ly no question in my mind that at that time both Chief
Warshaw and Chief Breslow agreed with my statement that this
investigation could not be concluded without the statement
from Kenneth Harms. When the investigation was concluded,
the City Commission was informed of it in the memorandum.
It was a short memorandum that did not fully include the
reasons for the dilsciplinary actions that were taker.. To
my surprise, I found out that Chief Harms was deposed and
there was no statement taker. from Kenneth Harms. Based on
the implications of the memorandum in my possession. of Lt.
R. M. Murphy's written or. the 24th of August 1983 and the
fact that Harms was not deposed -n this important issue, it
seemed to me that perhaps we needed to officially ask some
questions to determine if, indeed, during this whole process
people in the upper echelon. of the Police Department were
aware of what evidently turned out to be a cover-up within_
the Police Department and that is the basic purpose for this
hearing today. I have now a series of questions and I would
like to, for the record....
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, car. we take a couple of minutes so
that Commissioner Perez car. read the memorandum that was
issued by the City Attorney? As for myself, Mr. Mayor, in
reference to point 85 that the City Attorney warted to
remind us that this panel of inquiry, unlike the State
Attorney's Office has no prosecution immunity for ir.forma-
tior., anybody that can't stand the heat, I would be more
than happy to provide them with a quarter to go to the phone
booth and call an attorney so they can sue me. In. as far as
anyone that under oath I give any questions to, the only
thing that I expect is for the questions to be answered. If
anybody thinks that any questions that I might ask here
gl 9 September 21, 1984
LZ
today might be unfair, I'll give them the oppoturity for
myself to voluntarily go under oath and they could ask me
any questions that they like. The only catch is that they
also answer every question that is asked of them.
Mayor Ferre: I have the following questions which I will
submit into the record, and I, of course, recognize. Chief,
that some of these things will have to be answered at a
subsequent time just so that we can have the record
straight. Number one, I would like the chronological order
of everts on. May 18th of 1980. We tried to reconstruct some
of that. We have some of it here, but most of the
information we have of course is the newspaper reports.
Secondly, what were the number of units involved in the
operation_ itself number of individuals involved in the
operation., name of the Police Chief involved, plus the
Patrol oCarine Enforcement, and so on.. Number three, who is
in charge of the total operation., who is in charge on the
scene. Number four, how many squad cars were called that
handled the reported duties? What was order of arrival of
the units respordin.g? Was patrol car 242 leading the `(
convoy?
I would like the name of the police officer's riding i 242
and 248. At the time of the incident, May 18th, 1980, how
many individuals were assigned to the Enforcement Unit? Of
those individuals, how many are still assigned to that unit?
If there is a large turnover rate, I would like to know if
this is unusual for that unit. the following people, as I
urderstard it, were personnel in Enforcement Unit January
13t through December 31, 1980: Lt. Perry Anderson, who I
. understand was transferred to Enforcement June 9, 1980; Lt.
Larry Glover, promoted and transferred to Patrol, June 19,
1980, By the way, I would also like to see a full list of
all of the officers that were promoted while this coverup
investigation, went or., and what were they promoted to, and I
would like to know what records there are in the Police
Department and the promotions that were made as to whether
or not they were being investigated, and whether or not the
upper echelons of the Police Department, when they approved
the promotion_ were aware of the fact that there was an
investigation, going on on the police officer that
subsequently got promoted. Sgt. Harold Bishop resigned. I
would like to know the date of his resignation.. Sgt. Morris
Lowe, Sgt. John. O'Brien., Officer Quinton. Oead, Officer
Samuel Beal, Officer John. Choate, Officer Franklin.
Christmas, promoted and transferred to Patrol, June 29,
1980. Officer Walter Kirk resigned May 20, 1980. Officer
John Dease, Officer John. Dalton:, resigned July 15, 1980.
Officer Robert Edwards, Officer Miguel Fernandez, Officer
Matthew Fultz, transferred to Training January 5, 1981.
Officer Ian HLFlswa, transferred to Patrol February 24,
1980. Officer James Heider., Officer William Heffernan,
Officer Brent Helms, Officer Charles Kelly, transferred to
Er_foremert, May 25, 1980. Officer Jesse Kelly, Officer
Kenneth Kemp, resigned August 89 1980. Officer Samuel Kerr,
Officer Gary King, resigned. We reed the date on there.
Officer Michael Liotti, Officer, Francis Lummis, resigned
October 11, 1980. Officer Frank Maddix, Officer George
Roschell, Officer Richard Samowitz, Officer Samuel Stubbs,
Officer Jerry Weeks, Officer Richard Pierson., transferred to
Enforcement, July 1, 1980. I would like to have a
verification of that list and an updating as to promotions,
dates of promotions and resignations or transfers for all of
the officers that I have named, or those that I have missed
that were in that group. At the time of the incident, May
18, 1980, how many individuals were assigned to the
Enforcement Unit? Of those individuals, how many are still
assigned to that unit? I would like, of the personnel i.
the Enforcement Unit, how many of these were investigated by
gl 10 September 21, 1984
_.... ,..-.-:....-. x5y�aw .� :ey= *�w *:.� '�E �i _ urrr;,�,i' raer#;,�i `�?"efi�spvcz�r�✓ems , ,-_,,..,,
Ir.terral Security at that time, and subsequently, were ar.y
of these people under investigation subsequently promoted
and if so, is this the usual policy, and if such, I would
like examples of other promotions of police officers while
they were under investigation.. At the time of the incident,
was there ever a report filed as to the firing of police
weapons? If so, who were the officers who fired weapons at
that time? On what date was accident report written, and
i wher was it filed? What is the usual reporting time? Who
and what Department was assigned to investigate shooting?
Is this the usual procedure? Who was in charge of unit
investigating shooting? Who does that person directly
report to? In other words, what I wart to find out is the
chair_ of command, and how far ;;he original report went. On
what date was Chief of Police first informed of the findings
of the original investigation. Was the original
irvestigatior_ ever closed? If yes, on what date? By whose
orders? If the case was never officially closed, what
actions were taker to solve investigations in the fifteen
month period between shooting and the filing of the lawsuit?
Chief, all right, I will ask you some questions. The
shooting of Michael Johnson occurred four and ore -half years
ago. At the time of Lieutenant Murphy's memorandum to you,
the ;^f'_;^ot'_cr_s, in my opinion are rather serious and
without in any way jeopardizing the criminal investigation_
or potential lawsuit, I would like, in your words your
understanding of what occurred, and perhaps a little clear
explanation_ of what this coverup was all about and whether
or rot it went any higher than the people who have been
investigated and charged.
Chief Herbert Breslow: Chief Herbert Breslow, Miami Police
Department. I requested of Lieutenant Murphy that he write
this memo. I requested it because Lieutenant Murphy had
been part of the total investigation process. In order for
me to give you a background as to what Murphy means, I would
have to do some history of Lieutenant Murphy's relatior_ship
with some individuals. Lieutenant Murphy disliked former
Chief Harms very much and during the course of his
assignments up in Homicide, he and Captain. Glover were
involved in a feud, where each were throwing allegations at
the other. I requested this memo for Internal Security. I
reviewed the memo when I got it. I knew there were many
things in the memo that were Murphy's personality and he was
venting. He was venting because of his situation and he was
not in an assignment that he preferred being ir., and I
passed this forward to Internal Security for them to follow
up and do with as they choose. I can answer any specific
question you would like in this memo, or at least I will
attempt to do so.
Mayor Ferre: We may be getting into that later on, but at
this point, I just reed to know in general when you received
this memorandum in August and three years and several months
have gore by since this ircidert, whether or rot you were
concerned or alarmed at the fact that three and one-half
years have gore by without the conclusion of such a report
and was this the first that you knew of this investigation
and the accusations of coverup, which is the first time that
the word "coverup" had beer. used? You, or were you privy to
information regarding the allegations of coverup prior?
Chief Breslow: Somewhere between. July of 1982 and September
of 1982 I was aware that Lieutenant Murphy was investigating
this particular case that occurred back in 1980, and I was
aware that they were investigating the police officers who
were believed to have shot Michael Johnson - vehicle that
had that accident, and I was aware that they were
investigating it; however, I was also aware that they could
not conclude who did the shooting.
gl 11 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: The question was, were you aware of ar_y
suspicion or accusation of coverup prior to this memorandum
of August, 1983? Were you aware of it in 1982?
Chief Breslow: That is hard to say. I was aware that
police officers were supposed to have beer involved in a
shooting and it wasn't reported, and in that sense, a
coverup did occur.
Mayor Ferre: Did this Department report to you, Chief?
i
Chief Breslow: Indirectly. Homicide reported to a Captain,
who reported to a Major in charge of C.I.S., who reported to
a Deputy Chief, who reported to me.
Mayor Ferre: In. other words, you were removed five times,
but this Department was in the realm of your responsibility?
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: is it usual in a police department for an
internal investigative unit to be six times removed from the
Chief I am talking about Harms row. In other
words, you told me that the Lieutenant reported to a Captain
who reported to a Major who reported to someone who reported
to you and you report to the Chief. The way I count, that
is six times removed.
Chief Breslow: Basically, this was not Internal Security,
this was Homicide. Now, there are two phases of an
investigation..
Mayor Ferre: Is Internal Security ...
Chief Breslow: Internal Security in 1980 reported directly
u to the Chief of Police.
Mayor Ferre: Internal Security in 1980 reported directly to
the Chief of Police. Who was in charge of Internal Security
at the time?
Chief Breslow: In 1980 Lieutenant Putman was in charge.
Mayor Ferre: Lieutenant Putman was in charge of Internal
Security and reported directly to Police Chief Kenneth
Harms — did not report to you
E
Chief Breslow: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, was that also true in. 1982? The question
is, did Internal Security report directly to Chief Harms in
1982?
Chief Breslow: I am going to guess on this. I think it was
November of 1982 that Internal Security then reported to an
Assistant Chief, who reported to Chief Harms.
Mayor Ferre: Who was the Assistant Chief that Ir.terr.al
Security reported to in November of 1982?
Chief Breslow: Robert Warshaw.
Mayor Ferre: Now, at the time, you. said July to September
of 1982 that you were aware of ieuten.ant Murphy's
investigations and the allegation that, a police officer had
shot Mr. Johnson. You had no direct relationship with the
internal investigation?
S
gl 12 September 21, 1984
Chief Breslow: The internal investigation doesn't
ordinarily start when there are potential criminal charges.
The criminal case takes precedent because of Gerrity which
you pointed out earlier. So, the criminal investigation_
takes place first. When that is completed, then. Internal
Security takes over the administrative investigation so as
rot to taint the criminal case should police personnel be
involved.
Mayor Ferre: Was that done by Homicide?
Chief Breslow: Homicide was to do the criminal
irvestigatior_.
Mayor Ferre: And who was in charge of Homicide i.n 1980?
Chief Breslow: In 1980, Lieutenant Bradford was in charge
of Homicide.
Mayor Ferre: Who was in charge of Homicide in 1982?
Chief Breslow: Until September of 1982, Lieutenant Murphy.
Mayor Ferre: Until September of 1982. Why would Lieutenant
Murphy, in August of 1983, eleven, months after he was
relieved, write you a memorandum regarding this
investigation.?
Chief Breslow: Because I asked him to.
Mayor Ferre: You asked him to put it on the record for what
reason.?
Chief Breslow: I asked him to document any irvolvemert he
had as an investigator or part of that investigation into
the Michael Johr.sor. case.
Mayor Ferre: Was that memorandum at any time ever lost in
the Department?
Chief Breslow: This memorandum? No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: It was always ir your file.
Chief Breslow: It was in my file. It was brought to me and
I personally handed it over to, or put it on Chief Warshaw's
desk.
Mayor Ferre: You personally gave it to Chief Warshaw?
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. I gave it to him personally or I
Put it on his desk.
Mayor Ferre: The original? You kept no copies of it?
Chief Breslow: I've got a copy here, but I did not keep the
original, no.
Mayor Ferre: At the time you did not keep a copy of it.
Chief Breslow: I don't recall keeping a copy of it. I may
have, but I don't recall.
Mayor Ferre: To the best of your knowledge, you were not
aware that this memorandum ever disappeared from the
Department?
Chief Breslow: This memorandum? No, sir, rot to my
knowledge.
81
13 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor ...
Mayor Ferre: Please, if there are any questions you want to
ask about this, go ahead.
Mr. Carollo: I'd like to make a question of the Chair. In
the past hearings that you had, were the invitees asked to
go under oath, or rot?
Mayor Ferre: In the 1984 hearings that we had, everybody
that testified was subpoenaed. At that time, they were put
under oath. Everything was under oath. The difference row
is two -fold. First of all, these people were all invited,
rather than. subpoenaed. Secondly, as Wally Rodak knows and
as so advised all of the officers in the Department, the
State of Florida has certain laws which protect police
officers in what is commonly referred to as the policemar'4
Bill of Rights, and police officers do not have to
necessarily answer any questions. They do not have to
appear here. That is their right. I think because of the
fact that we have both criminal investigations going on and
because there is a civil suite, that I would only ask people
to go under oath voluntarily. I have no objections to that
being asked. However, as you know, constitutionally you
cannot, force anybody to go under oath anyway of they don't
wart to.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, that is more than clear. The point
I was getting to was that if the Chair so rules and warts to
proceed without having any voluntarily of course, just like
they are all here voluntarily, go under oath to make their
statements, that is fine. I just want to establish what ...
Mayor Ferre: I have no objections to doing that, provided,
however, that we don't get into an extended question and
answer period with a person when asked if he wishes to go
under oath and that person. says "No, I don't want to get
into a question ...".
Mr. Carollo: No, I don't think we should. They are here
voluntarily. Any-ne can walk out anytime the heat gets too
much. Chief, wot'. Ld you like to go under oath, sir?
Chief Breslow: ',hatever the Commission chooses for me to
do, I will do.
Mr. Carollo: No, sir, it is ...
Chief Breslow: If you wart me under oath, I will go under
oath.
Mr. Carollo: It is sometime that I am asking, and I am
going to ask of everyone that comes up here.
Chief Breslow: I have no objections to being under oath.
Mr. Carollo: Like 1 naid before, anyone that goes under
oath, that I am asking ;he questions of, feels at any time
that they would like for me to go under oath, and ask me any
questions that they wish, I would be more than happy to do
it as long as I have the same privilege in return.
Mayor Ferre: All right, then at this request, Chief, I wart
to make sure that we understand that you are here totally
_ voluntarily, and that you have not been ordered one way or
the other to answer anything in any particular fashion, and
that you are rot being coerced ore way or the other. Is
that correct?
gl 14 September 21, 1984
Chief Breslow: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
Mr. Or_gie: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly
swear the evidence you are about to give in this matter will
be the truth, so help you God?
Chief Breslow: I do.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I am going to be asking
some background information and all of the people that would
appear here today or any other time that we have additional
hearings on this. Chief, can you as briefly as possible go
over your background in law enforcement, sir? How long you
have been it law enforcement, how long you have been with
the City of Miami and how you progressed to the present rank
that you have, sir. Again. sir, I am going to be asking this
question of every one. It has nothing to do with you
personally. I just wart to establish the law enforcement
background of each individual that would appear here today,
sir.
Chief Breslow: I entered the Miami Police Academy September
26, 1955; completed the Police Academy in mid December of
1955. I was in patrol, traffic. I was promoted to Sergeant
in 1963, I believe. You will have to ... these dates may
rot be accurate.
Mr. Carollo: So we understand that dates can vary a year or
so, if you are going from memory.
Chief Breslow: April of 1963 I was promoted to Sergeant. I
served in patrol, I served as the Administrative Assistant
to the Patrol Command. I served as Administrative Assistant
to the Chief of Operations. I served as an investigator in
Burglary. I served as a juvenile investigator. I was
assigned to training out of Miami Dade Community College. I
made Lieutenant, I think it was August of 1967 or 1968, and
I served out there until approximately 1969. Meanwhile I
had been transferred back to being in charge of the Police
Academy. In 1969 or 1979 I went to Strategic Information.
Unit. I promoted Captain., I think in January of 1972. I
served for ore week in Planning & Research and was
transferred back to S.I.U., the Strategic Information Unit.
I made Major around January of 1973. I was assigned Patrol
for about five months and then back up to S.I.S. and stayed
there until 1975 or 1976, at which time I was transferred, I
think to Personnel and Training and then. I became the
Commander of the Administration Division_ as a Major in 1977
or 1978, I am rot sure which. I went back to Patrol when.
Harms made Chief. Before Harms made Chief I was transferred
back to Patrol. I stayed there until about April and then I
was made Acting Chief of the Administration.. I reigned
there until about August of that year and became the
Criminal Investigation. Section. Commander, and I made
Assistant Chief in I think it was 1978 and took charge of
the Operations Division.. I may have spent a short time in
Administration. before I went to Operations.
Mr. Carollo: All right sir. During all these years, sir,
have there been any reprimands placed in your file -
offieial reprimands from supervisors?
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: And I am not, Chief, trying to make a big deal
out of that. Most police officers that have the years that
you have in law enforcement are bound to get some kind of
reprimand at one time or another. So again., please do not
gl
15 September 21, 1984
M
.n
misconstrue my question. Car you relate for the record,
Chief, what to the best of your recollection what those
reprimands have been in the past for?
Chief Breslow: Yes, I got a reprimand in Spring or Summer
or 1956 for shooting at the range on duty, and I did.
Mr. Carollo: I don't think that is anything serious, Chief.
Anything else, sir?
Chief Breslow: No other reprimands. I was involved in an
accident that they found was my fault, but I was not given a
reprimand.
Mr. Carollo: Thank you, sir. Now, Chief, can you relate to
me just what is the roll of Homicide in investigating and
the rule of Internal Security and is it the policy in cases
such as these for both of these to do a joint investigation
or not?
Chief Breslow: Basically what you have is if a shooting
occurs that involves personal injury, Homicide does the
criminal potential investigation.. Internal Security
monitors that investigation. They don't do anything overtly
until Homicide says we are through with the criminal process
because if they get involved in that process in talking
directly with police witnesses, they could taint the
criminal prosecution if one should come about later.
Mr. Carollo: Did the Internal Security conclusion of the
Johrsor case indicate that there was indeed a coverup, or
rot?
Chief Breslow: The final conclusion_?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir.
Chief Breslow: They concluded that ... and as I said, I am
stepping on ground now that people are under indictment for;
however, I will answer your question.. They concluded that
three officers were in that car and that those three
officers covered up the shooting.
Mr. Carollo: Again., sir, to be more precise, you are then
saying that indeed, that final Internal Security memorandum
indicates that there was indeed a coverup?
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay. During the four years that this has
beer. investigated or and off, car you recount to us the
charge of command of the individuals that were in charge.
For instance, particularly the later years, who was the
individual that either, Internal Security, or Homicide
directly reported to?
Chief Breslow: I am going to have to guess or the accuracy
of the dates. We can get a more accurate picture for you at
a later date, but I don't wart to be held to the exact
dates. Internal Security, and we are going back to 1980, is
that correct? You don't want to go back beyond 1980.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I am referring to this incident. If you
wart to go back sir, to what the policy has beer. any
changes, you can.
Chief Breslow: In 1980, Internal Security reported directly
to the Chief of Police. Around November of 1982, the
organization structure was charged and ...
7
gl 16 September 21, 1984
Mr. Gary: 1981
Chief Breslow: Sorry, 1981, I stand corrected. In 1981 the
organization structure was charged where it reported to an
Assistant Chief, and that is what it reports to now.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, so in 1981 it was changed where Internal
Security reported to an Assistant Chief.
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Who was the Assistant Chief it reported to at
the time?
Chief Breslow: Robert Warshaw.
Mr. Carollo: Robert Warshaw, all right. Whom does Internal
Security report to now?
Chief Breslow: Robert Warshaw.
i
Mr. Carollo: Since 1981 until today, Internal Security
reported directly to Assista•.V Chief Warshaw.
3
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: One 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 in my mind that I am
going to be jumping back and forth with different questions.
What I would like to ask you now, sir, is how did you arrive
at the varying degrees of punishment that you have
I recommended for the different officers involved -- Napoli,
Bradford, Lowe, Glover, Putman?
Chief Breslow: I have not recommended punishment for three
of the five officers because it has not reached me. It
hasn't gone through the process.
Mr. Carollo: Let me rephrase the question.. The
recommendations that came down_ to you for the varying
degrees of punishment, who were the individuals that were
responsible for those recommendations and to your knowledge,
what was the reasoning behind the varying degrees of
purishment they recommended for different people?
Chief Breslow: The Division_ Chiefs were instructed by me to
review the In.terr.al Security files and to make sure that
similar situations occurring in the different divisions were
treated similarly at not lightly in one division_ and a hard
lire in another division..
Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, sir. Who were the Division. Chiefs?
Chief Breslow: Assistant Chief Bared and Assistant Chief
Dicksor.
Mr. Carollo: Just those two?
Chief Breslow: Breslow was there, but none of these people
— reported to him.
Mr. Carollo: Bared and Dickson. Besides Bared and Dickson,
did Breslow or anybody else have input into those
recommendations?
Chief Breslow: This went down the chair_ of command to the
immediate supervisor over these individuals for
recommerdatior_s.
gl 17 September 21, 1984
:"F
Mr. Carollo: When you say it went down the chair of
command, the recommendations went from the top ...
Chief Breslow: No, the recommendations didr_1t go ...
Mr. Carollo: From the bottom to the top?
Chief Breslow: The recommendations did rot come from the
top. The package of Internal Security investigation went
down to the immediate supervisor, Section_ Commander, or
Deputy Chief or Division. Chief, which ever the case may be,
for that person to review the file and make a recommendation
and that recommendation would work back up the chair of
command through the normal process for final decision_.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, row, again, I am trying to get a whole
on the reasoning behind such a difference degree of
purishmert from one officer to another. To the best of your
knowledge and information, why was there such a difference?
How can there be such a difference in the degree of
punishment that was recommended through the process you just
described.
3 Chief Breslow: I again_ would have to look at the
irvestigatior_ and the ir_dividuals involved in the situation
that he was involved in to determine what the appropriate
recommendation would be.
Mayor Ferre: There is a form basis to ... I may reed to
interrupt your series here. Where I was headed Chief,
before Commissioner Carollo started asking pertiner_t
questions, is I reeded ... I warted to know whether you
feel -• as I understand it, there are five people at this
point that have been, or will be reprimanded ore way or
another. In some cases, dismissal, in other cases, less.
In your opinion., did anybody hire the people that have been
reprimanded knowing that there was a coverup?
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
Mayor Ferre: So, it is your opinion_, having carefully
weighed all of this and looked into it thoroughly, which I
assume you have ...
Chief Breslow: I have read the entire file.
Mayor Ferre: That is not my question. I assume that in
your duties as Police Chief, you have thoroughly looked into
all of the material available to you and are satisfied that
you have done a complete job of looking into culpability in
this matter.
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You have done that. All right, and to the
best of your knowledge, it is your opinion that the coverup
did not go any higher and that nobody else was privy to any
informatior regarding the coverup until these facts came
out.
Chief Breslow: I have no information to lead me to believe
that anybody who was involved in the situation was not
brought out in the report.
Mayor Ferre: That includes the charge of people from
different commands, for example, Murphy, who was charged
from one area of responsibility to another area. It is your
opinion that none of the people who made the decisions to
charge these officers had it any way any influence on this,
any relationship to the Johnson case?
gl 18 September 21, 1984
Chief Breslow: Lieutenant Murphy was transferred on my
orders and I have here the articles from the Miami Herald that were primary the reasons for my transferring him We
tried to implement a control policy for overtime in
Homicide. In turn, we met resistance from Captain. Starks
and Lieutenant Murphy to the extent where Lieutenant Murphy
himself signed a petition_ against the controls of overtime
and talked directly to the Herald, stating they disagreed
with the policy of the Administration of the Miami Police
Department to control overtime. I feel that is
inappropriate for a commanding officer who is supposed to be
the person who controls overtime to say that he doesn't ant
any controls of overtime. The overtime bills for Homicide
is always high and if you have commanding officers who
support this, it is going to be ever, higher.
Mayor Ferre: So the answer then to my question_, again_,
specifically was, in your opinion., your knowledge, no
transfer, including Lt. Murphy, or any other transfers that -
occurred at that time dealing with internal security or
Homicide had anything or any relation_ to the Johnson case. -
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Carollo: If I may, Chief,
throughout the scope of these four
amount of discussion, concerning the
case, whether Homicide should
Security. Did you feel that any
should have beer held jointly by
Security?
there is apparently
years a considerable
responsibility of the
investigate, Internal
time the investigation
Homicide and Internal
Chief Breslow: Should be a joint investigation.?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir.
Chief Breslow: It carat be because of Gerrity. It has to
be separate because of Gerrity, inasmuch as an. Internal
Security person. ... let me give you an example. I am a
police officer. You are investigating a criminal action.. I
can take the Fifth Amendment in the criminal action case and
there are no consequences. However, if I am called into
Internal Security, and you ask me questions and I refuse to
answer, I can be fired for that. For that reason., one is a
compelled testimony, and the other is not.
Mr. Carollo: What I am saying by joint, Chief, is the steps
of the investigation. There are many areas where it is
almost a must for investigators to work hand in hard, not
necessarily interrogating subjects, or suspects, but in
working together. That is what I meant on. that. To your
knowledge, has there been occasions where commanders, higher
ups, have directed the direction of an, investigation_, over-
ruling Internal Security assessments or conclusions?
Chief Breslow: There have been occasions where commanding
officers have disagreed with Internal Security conclusions,
yes.
Mr. Carollo: Was that the case in any point in time in this
particular case?
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Carollo: Did any brass (if I may use the expression_)
over -rule or directed, indirectly or directly, the
conclusion_ or the direction of the investigation_?
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
gl
19 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Last, but not least, Chief, I thick you are a
professional. Your records certainly shows that you are a
professional law enforcement officer and have gore through
the ranks. In your best estimation_, do you feel that anyone
that has beer arrested for any vice violations, whether
gambling or any other, should be placed in a high position
of command in law enforcement, whether that be Captain_,
Major, Colonel, or what have you?
Chief Breslow: It would depend. Arrest and being convicted
are two different things and it depends on the
circumstances, when it happened, where it happened, etc.
Mr. Carollo: To your knowledge, is there any officer with
the rank of Captain or above that has an arrest record,
period, or an arrest record for a vice, particularly a vice
dealing with gambling?
Chief Breslow: I cant recall. There may be, but I do not
recall any off hard.
Mr. Carollo: You have no knowledge that there is any
commanding officer?
Chief Breslow: I have just been advised - yes, I have ore
commanding officer that had beer. arrested.
Mr. Carollo: And what is his rank, sir?
Chief Breslow: Colonel.
Mr. Carollo: Do you happen to know how long ago that
individual was arrested and the reason for his arrest?
Chief Breslow: I would have to check. I don't have that
information exactly.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, was this individual promoted recently?
Chief Breslow: Within the past several months.
Mr. Carollo: Past several months?
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: When he was promoted in the past several
months, no one made sure to look at that = I guess what I am
trying to say, Chief, is that I can understand if someone
has been promoted quite some time ago, but someone that has
been promoted just recently, a couple of months ago like you
said, if that is the case and has something like this in
their background, I would imagine that that would be fresh
in the minds of the brass in this department to be very
familiarized with the background of the key people that are
going to be running the department. I am a little surprised
that that date is missing. Do you recall what the
particular arrest is for?
Chief Breslow: I would have to check into that information
for you.
Mr. Carollo: Is anyone here from your Admir.istratior privy
to that information?
Chief Breslow: I am advised that it was gambling and he was
found not guilty in court.
Mr. Carollo: I will ask Assistant Chief Warshaw a question
related to that a little later. It seems that he is more
gl 20 September 21, 1984
familiarized with that issue than you are, sir. To you
knowledge, has there been an, allegations recently, in the
past year, of Miami police officers involved in the usage of
cocair_e?
Chief Breslow: I am sure we have had officers involved in
the use of cocaine and investigated.
Mr. Carollo: But, has there been a direct allegation.? To
be more precise, I am referring to an incident that appeared
in the press not long ago. Frankly, when. I read it, I
couldn't believe that I was reading it and I could only feel
that it had to be erroneous information.. I could not _
believe that that was so. I just felt that it was probably
one of those things that some of the papers write that are
not accurate. At least, I would certainly hope that was the
case, but it had to do with the police officer, Miami police
officer that was arrested. I really do not recollect his
r_ame. He was arrested by Dade County police. I think it
had to be a domestic, but during the article that talked
about the reason why this officer was arrested, it mentioned
that late last year his father, a Colonel in the Miami
Police Department, had called Metro P. D., alleging that his
son was high on cocaine and that was driving his vehicle =
with suicidal tendencies. Are you familiar with this
incident, Chief? -
I
Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. _
Mr. Carollo: Is this police officer still working for the
x Department?
Chief Breslow: That was Nat Veal Jr., his son, who is, I
think relieved of duty right now, pending the outcome of
that lighter situation. He had a domestic situation and the
Metro Police were to the scene.
Mr. Carollo: What is his name, sir?
i
Chief Breslow: Nathaniel Veal, Jr., I believe is his name.
Mr. Carollo: And what is his father's r+ame, the Colonel
- that made the allegations against his son?
Chief Breslow: Nat Veal, Sr., and it turned out that his
son was an alcoholic and not high on drugs, and he went to
an alcoholic rehabilitation_ program.
Mr. Carollo: I am only sir, speaking to what I read in the
paper, and I think you would agree with me that is what the
newspaper, Miami Herald reported.
z
Chief Breslow: I would have to re -read the article.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I suggest that when allegations such as
those are made against police officers, both people, I think
it certainly should be read.
Chief Breslow: These charges were investigated by Internal
Security at that time, sir.
Mr. Carollo: How long has this individual beer, suspended
from the Department?
Chief Breslow: Relived of duty? Since that incident - I
don't recall when. exactly.
Mr. Carollo: Since that incident?
Mayor Ferre: Let me understand the officer's name again_?
gl 21 September 21, 1984
E3
Chief Breslow:
Nathaniel Veal, Jr.
Mayor Ferre: Let me understand the officer's name, again.?
Chief Breslow: Nathaniel Veal, Jr.
Mayor Ferre: That is no relation to Samuel veal?
Chief Breslow: No, no. Veal.
Mr. Carollo: Who is the officer's father, the Colonel?
Chief Breslow: Nathaniel Veal, Sr.
Mr. Carollo: Nathaniel Veal, Sr.?
Chief Breslow: The title may rot be accurate, but I am
assuming it is.
Mr. Carollo: And Col. Veal, Jr., to identify him better,
does he have any police record ir.asfar as having beer.
arrested?
Chief Breslow: You just asked me earlier and I was told
that he had been arrested for gambling.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, I just warted to see if this is the same
individual or rot. I guess you confirmed it. Ore last
question-, Chief. Any time during your term as Chief, or
prior to that, have you come into any allegations, any
information from informants, what have you, of any illegal
drug usage by any member of this Commission., or this
Administration?
Chief Breslow: Have I become aware of any?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir. I am talking about illegal drugs,
such as cocaine, mari juar_a, or other, by any member of this t
Commission_, or this Administration?
Chief Breslow: If I came across that information, I would
forward it to the appropriate authorities.
Mr. Carollo: Have you come before any such information., or
has any such information reached you, either through rumors,
allegations, informants, in the past?
Chief Breslow: I am sure I
career as a police officer
appropriate authorities.
havo heard many things in my
and I forward them to the
Mr. Carollo: Chief, I am trying to be as precise as I
possibly can, anal I am sorry ! r maybe you are rot
understanding me, but I ... if you you know, we car.
take you off of being under oath, so you worst have to be
under oath in answering that. I am well aware that as a law
enforcement officer, through your long, extensive career,
you have received many allegations of wrong doings that you
have followed your sworn duty and either had our Department
investigate them, or sent them to the appropriate law
enforcement agencies to. But, to be more precise, have you
during the last several years, or during your term as Chief,
received any information, through informants, or any other
sources, of any illegal usage of narcotics, whether cocaine,
marijuana, or other types of illegal narcotics by any member
of this Commission., or ;;his Administration of the City of
Miami?
gl 22 September 21, 1984
All
Chief Breslow: I don't know specifically off hard, but I am
sure I receive a lot of information I forward to the
appropriate authorities.
Mr. Carollo: Chief, after asking you the question four or
five times and receiving that answer for the third time, I —
car understand that you do not wart to make any statements
publicly on that. I guess I could understand you not
wanting to get into that. Last, but not least, during the
Tick -talks investigations, who were the officers that
investigated that investigation i'espor.sible in reporting to?
Chief Breslow: I believe Tick -'talks was done by a special
investigation section_.
Mr. Carollo: Right, it is S.I.J. or S.I.S.
Chief Breslow: Right.
Mr. Carollo: The lead investigator in that particular
investigation was who?
Chief Breslow: I would have to check with Col. Oboz.
Mr. Carollo: Was it Saul Diaz by any chance?
Chief Breslow: Probably.
Mr. Carollo: To the best of my recollection_, it was, Chief.
ever. though I am not in law enforcement these days, at least
directly. To the best of your recollection., Chief, during
the scope of that investigation, they were supposed to
report to Oboz, correct?
Chief Breslow: If they were in S.I.S., yes.
Mr. Carollo: Who did Oboz report to?
Chief Breslow: I believe he reported to Chief Warshaw.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Warshaw. Okay, do you have any
informption that during the scope of that investigation of
Tick -talks, there were direct links that were found or
brought up by the investigators from the Miami Police
Department that were investigating that that raises
'
questions of individuals, either involved in the illegal
drug trade or involved in the laundering of drug monies that
_
had direct and very close direct and very extensive direct
associations with any members or member of this Commission. F
or this Administration, City of Miami?
Chief Breslow: I am not familiar with the details of Tick -
talks, I only know basically an over view that I have read
in the paper. It was not under my command and I an. not .. .
Mr. Carollo: Okay, but Oboz did report to Chief Warshaw,
correct?
Chief Breslow: They repot to Oboz who reports to Chief
Warshaw.
Mr. Carollo: I guess I will have to ask Chief Warshaw a few
more questions. Chief, this is all the questions that I
have for the meantime. Thank you, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I do have two more questions at this time,
Chief. One is, are you aware of any other coverups that are
being, or have been investigated 'and have not been
concluded?
gl 23 September 21, 1984
Chief Breslow: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: There are ro pending in.vestigatior.s or any
eoverups at this time.
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
Mayor Ferre: You are rot personally aware of any
accusations of eoverups at this time, perdirg within. the
Police Department?
Chief Breslow: At this time I am rot aware if there are.
Mayor Ferre: There are none? There are yore perdirg?
Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge.
Mayor Ferre: Are you aware of ary investigations dealing
with illegal beings in the holding rooms of the Police
Department?
Chief Breslow: I think I ...
Mayor F^MM=: Is there an investigation going or_?
Chief Breslow: I think within the past several months I
read some report on the log of some allegations similar to
what you just stated. I am advised that it would be a
misdemeanor for me to admit that he as an Internal Security
Investigation going on.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. So, I will address that issue
while ... with the regards to the reed to further pursue
some of these questions with special legal coursel, which I
am going to get into later or.. Perhaps this might be an
appropriate juncture to explain that there will be some
testimony that may require of the Commission to retain
special counsel, and I will get into that as we go along. I
have no further questions at this time, Chief and I
appreciate your answering questions. At this poirt, I would
like to ask Assistant Chief Warshaw. We also have former
Assistant Chief Cosgrove.
Mr. Carollo: Cosgrove, I believe is here. I think Captain.
Glover is here. I don't know whom else might be here.
Mayor Ferre: Well, in the case of Glover, since I
urderstard Glover is part of the action that is going or.
now, I think it would rot be wise, even though I would like
to ask Glover some questions, I don't think it would be
appropriate at this time because of the pending charges and
investigation.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, you might be entirely correct in
your assumption, however, if there would be any statements
that Captain. Glover might wart to make ...
Mayor Ferre: I have no objections.
Mr. Carollo: ... I don't think we should try to impede that
whatsoever.
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely rot. I have no objections to
Captain. Glover making a statement if he so wishes. I am
just reluctant to gettirg a series of questions of Captain.
Glover that might in any way impair any investigations or
lawsuits, whether civil or criminal that are at the present
time going on.
gl 24 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, while the Clerk is placing Chief
Warshaw under oath, if he wishes to go under oath, that is,
there is no requirement of that, it is entirely voluntary, I
reed to step out for a couple of minutes to take care of `
some of my personal business.
Mayor Ferre: We have to get into budget hearings.
Mr. Carollo: I will be back in two or three minutes.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let me ask Chief Warshaw, do you
voluntarily wish to go under oath or rot?
Assistant Chief Warshaw: 1 have no objections to that, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let me again restate that Chief,
you do this totally voluntarily, that you have rot beer,
coerced or influenced by anybody directly or indirectly or
this matter. Is that correct?
Chief Warshaw: That is correct.
Mr. Orgie: Raise your right hard, please. Do you solemnly
swear the evidence you are about to give in this matter will
be the truth, so help you God?
Chief Warshaw: I do.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, to your knowledge, did anybody higher
than the people that had been charged at any time
participate in, have knowledge of, or privy to information
g dealing with the coverup - the alleged coverup.
Chief Warshaw: To my knowledge, no.
Mayor Ferre: When Chief Breslow gave you the memorandum
written by Lt. Murphy in August of last year, was the first
time that you had ever heard of this alleged coverup?
Chief Warshaw: For the most part, yes. I carrot say with
absolute certainty that within the scope of all the time
that passed that I lever in the hallway, or whatever, heard
T of anything that was either specific or alluded to that, but
by and large, the answer is yes, that was the first time.
That memorandum came about because we solicited that
memorandum because we were about to undertake a new
investigation.
Mayor Ferre: Were you ... you heard the Chief, Chief
Breslow, previously state that he had heard in 1982 that
there was some rumor about a police officer shooting Michael
Johnson and the investigation, and that there was,
evidently, some discussion. to was implied. I assume you
have heard the same rumors and the same discussions?
Chief Warshaw: Well, yes sir, and I didn't particularly
hear it in terms of rumors. In March or April of 1982, a
letter from the attorneys representing Michael Johnson was
forwarded to the Commander of Internal Security, who brought
to my attention, Number one, the existence of the letter,
and Number two, the fact that this matter had never been
fully completed, and the investigation hadn't been
addressed. As a result of my dialogue with the person at
that time, a new investigation_, under the command of the
Criminal Investigation. Section was undertaken.
Mayor Ferre: Was that under your orders? Did you order
that?
gl 25 September 21, 1984
Chief Warshaw: I ordered that the Commander of Internal
Security immediately seek out the Commander of the Criminal
Investigation. Section and get to the bottom of this matter.
That was accomplished.
Mayor Ferre: And at that time you were satisfied that there
was ro coverup going on? I am sure you have heard the
rumors and the implications that were directly stated and
that you, because of the rank that you held and the
responsibility, immediately look into this and you were
satisfied at that time that there was no coverup?
Chief Warshaw: Well, quite frankly, in. March and April of
1982, at least as I recall it then and as I recall it then
and as I recall it now, this is the first time I had ever
even heard of Michael Johnson, so when, the letter came from
the attorney representing Mr. Johnson., we didn't really know
what we had and the purpose of bringing it to the attention
of the Criminal Investigation Section was specifically that,
to determine what we did have.
Mayor Ferre: At that time, this was not under Internal
Security, but rather, Homicide?
Chief Warshaw: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Homicide did not report to you?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Internal Security was not involved and in your
opinion, was unaware of the accusation, a was unaware of the
potential problem of the Michael Johnson shooting?
Chief Warshaw: I really don't know. I really don't know if
they ...
Mayor Ferre: Internal Security eventually reported to you.
That was in. November of 1982?
Chief Warshaw: In. November of 1981.
Mayor Ferre: Of 1981.
Chief Warshaw: November of 1981, but between. November of
1981, and March of 1982, when we received this letter, the
matter of Michael Johnson had never been brought to my
attention, no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Well, at no time then., between. November of
1981 and March of 1982 did the subject of a potential
investigation_ come up?
Chief Warshaw: At least I never heard it, and it is always
possible, but I never heard it, no.
Mayor Ferre: I am not asking you for conjecture.
Chief Warshaw: Right. I never heard it.
Mayor Ferre: You never heard of it through March.
Chief Warshaw: That is correct, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Well now, so then the first time you heard of
something like this was in. March of 1982.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
gl 26 September 21, 1984
N
Mayor Ferre: And at that time, you then, ordered an
investigation by whom?
Chief Warshaw: I ordered the Commander of Internal Security
to bring this to the attention of the Commander of the
Criminal Investigation. Section_, whose responsibility, at
least in terms of that sub -section., Homicide, which is in.
C.I.S., to get to the bottom of this and complete this
matter and follow through on it - yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Between. March and August when you received the
Murphy memorandum, were there any other memorandums written
by Murphy or by any other officer in. the Department that
brought to your attention or alleged directly or indirectly
or indirectly the coverup?
Chief Warshaw: To the best of my recollection_, no.
Mayor Ferre: So between March of 1982 and the end of August
of 1983, you had not heard from any police officer or any
investigative body within. the Department, any information_
dealing with a potential coverup?
Chief Warshaw: Between. March of 1982, and August of 1983, I
don't independently recall it. It is conceivable, sir, that
someone may have mentioned some progress, but I don't
independently recall that, no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: When Chief Breslow gave you the memorandum
from Lt. Murphy, did you give that memorandum, or did you
discuss it with Chief Harms?
Chief Warshaw: Not fully, sir.
WN
Mayor Ferre: Not fully?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir. I had beer_ aware, am very familiar
with the reasons as to why Lt. Murphy had been transferred
in. September of 1982. Upon reading his memorandum, I felt
very confident in my mind and heart that Lt. Murphy was very
much speaking from the heart. I felt at that time, based
upon my knowledge of the sense of mutual dislike between <.
then_ Chief Harms and Lt. Murphy, that I would at best ,just 1
characterized Lt. Murphy's memorandum to him, and then
assure that the investigation was just done objectively.
Mayor Ferre: It is your opinion then, as I understand it, as
you previously stated, none of the people higher than those
that had been charged were a part of, or privy to, anything
dealing with the coverup?
Chief Warshaw: That is correct, sir. That is my opinion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I don't know whether Commissioner
Carollo has any further questions to you. If you will, we
will wait until he returns and then. I have some further
questions.
Chief Warshaw: Sure.
Mayor Ferre: I know that Capt. Glover is here, and I made
the statement previously that I have no questions for Capt.
Glover. If he wishes to make any statement, .I have ro
objections to his doing so that might shed any light on this
matter. Unless anybody has any questions of him, I do not
- inted to ask him any questions of him.
Mr. Carollo: I would like to ask Chief Warshaw a few
questions. Mr. Clerk, is the Assistant Chief still under
oath?
gl 27 September 21, 1984
nj
N
Mr. Ongie: Yes, he is.
Mr. Carollo: Do you still agree to?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Warshaw, at any time during the last few
days, last week, did you solicit, or approach anyone to
either tell them directly, or to help you in talking ar.y
officer to appear here today that was invited to attend?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: You never spoke to the head of the F.O.P. and
solicited his cooperation in that matter?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Or any other individual officer?
Chief Warshaw: We had some passing dialogue in the context
of another meeting that was held in the Department, but, no,
sir.
Mr. Carollo: Wher you say a passing dialogue, were those
dialogues irvolved in regativisms in your part in wanting
people to ... or the people who were invited, should I say
have them appear today?
Chief Warshaw: I certainly don't perceive it that way, no
sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, so again., for the record, you made no
attempt, either directly or indirectly, in trying to talk
anyone out of appearing today?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Thank you, sir. The Chief made reference to
the fact that beginning in 1981, or was it 1982, that
Irternal Security, or Internal Affairs reported directly to
you.
Chief Warshaw: Yes.
Mr. Carollo: That was beginning when?
Chief Warshaw: 1981.
Mr. Carollo: 1981, okay row, before I pursue, there are
Still some questions that I have. What I would like to do
is, if I may, Mr. Mayor, and I think this is something that
we can't rush, no matter how much time it takes, today, or
tomorrow, or wherever we have to meet again, but I would
like to ask Assistant Chief Warshaw to briefly like I asked
Chief and like I am going to ask everyone else that appears
here if you could briefly go through the scope of your
history and experience it law er.forcemer.t — how long you
have been involved in law enforcemert, and how you how you
progressed through the ranks.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes. I joined the Police Department in May of
1973•
Mr. Carollo: May of 1973•
Mr. Warshaw: I had varying assignments it the Radio Control
Section.. At some point in 1976 I was transferred to the
Research and Planning Section as a police officer. I served
a<—
4
gl
28 September 21, 1984
zw-
in the Inspections Unit as a police officer. In 1978 I went
into the office of the Chief of Police as a police officer,
signed as Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police.
In 1980, I was reclassified into an, unclassified management
position. as Executive Assistant to the Chief of Police. In_ —
1981 I was promoted to Assistant Chief of Police and served
in that capacity since then..
Mr. Carollo: Okay, so you first joined the force in May of
19737
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: And you were promoted to Assistant Chief of
Police in, May of 1980?
Mr. Warshaw: No, sir. Ir_ November of 1981.
Mr. Carollo: November of 1981?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. _
Mr. Carollo: Okay, thanks for your correction., sir.
November of 1981. Did you hold any other rank in. between_?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir, I did not. I was promoted from the
unclassified position..
Mr. Carollo: You were promoted from being a rank and file
titled police officer to Assistant Police Chief.
Chief Warshaw: No, I was not a classified police officer at
the time I was promoted.
Mr. Carollo: But your permanent rank was police officer?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, in other words, I guess (correct me if I
am wrong) it is like in the Army, a private being promoted
to General, or Lt. Colonel, it is the same kind :zf degree of
jumps in, promotions.
Chief Warshaw: It is conceivable. That is an analogy.
Mr. Carollo: During the time before you were ... go ahead,
sir. During the time that you were not an Assistant Police
Chief, did you ever receive any reprimands?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir, in. 1973 or 1974, I received a
reprimand and a 10 day suspension..
Mr. Carollo: Okay, may I ask what was that in reference to?
Chief Warshaw: It was an allegation. that my partner and
failed go by a drunk call.
Mr. Carollo: Was there any other reprimands or complaints
logged in, your file?
Chief Warshaw: I believe for an accident or two?
Mr. Carollo: Sir?
Chief Warshaw: I believe for vehicular accidents.
Mr. Carollo: Vehicular accidents?
Chief Warshaw: Yes.
gl 29 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Okay, these were reprimands that you received
for that, or ...7
Chief Warshaw: For the accidents, I believe it was in the
form of a reprimand.
Mr. Carollo: During any of these reprimands that you
received or any others that you might have forgotten, do you
recollect that if at any time during that scope any of your
supervisors recommended that you be dismissed?
Chief Warshaw: My supervisors, ro, but there was in the
chair_ of command, an accusing sergeant back in 1973, yes.
Mr. Carollo: I'm sorry, I lost you there.
Chief Warshaw: The issue back in. 1973 was brought about by
an allegation_ from a sergeant on another shift. It was an
unusual disciplinary process at the time and that there was
a great disparity with my captain_ recommending no
disciplinary action_ taken against me at all and the captain
representing the other sergeant on the other shift
recommending a termination, so that was ultimately resolved
with " NI.G • 1t:01 • •
Mr. Carollo: But, there was some supervisors from another
shift that were making some recommendations that you be
dismissed?
3
Chief Warshaw., Yes, sir, the captain..
3
Mr. Carollo: Who was the captain that was making those
recommendations that you be dismissed, together with a
sergeant, that recommended that?
i Chief Warshaw: Kelly England.
Mr. Carollo: Kelly England?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Is he still with the Department?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, is he still a captain.?
Chief Warshaw: He is a colonel.
Mr. Carollo: He is a colonel. And who was the sergeant
that was making the recommendation_ for dismissal?
Chief Warshaw: At that time, Sergeant Robert Elsworth.
Mr. Carollo: Is he still in. the Department?.
Chief Warshaw: No, he has been retired for some time now.
Mr. Carollo: Okay. When you first ... row that we have
gotten into your background and expertise in law
enforcement, what was the first time, Assistant Chief
Warshaw, that you first were informed or suspected that
there was eoverup?
Chief Warshaw: Let me ... I will try to readdress the
question as it was posed by the Mayor. In. 1982,
specifically in March of 1982, the Commander of Internal
Security received a letter from the attorneys representing
Michael Johnson, asking for an update as to where we stood
with the investigation. At that time I directed the Command
ELL
gl 30 September 21, 1984
of Internal Security to get together with the Commander of
the Criminal Investigation section and pursue the matter and
get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Carollo.: This was 1982, you were saying?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay. Again., if you could be a little more
specific.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: To the best of your recollection_.
Chief Warshaw: Absolutely.
Mr. Carollo: If you could reconstruct for us how you first
became aware, if indeed there was a coverup, or there was a
coverup in. progress?
Chief Warshaw: Well, when Lt. Walton came to me in March of
1982 ... of course, I can't remember this specifically, but
I don't particularly think he couched in the terms like
"Here, we just got this letter, and there is a coverup". It
was more that "Here is a letter from attorneys representing
a citizen who claims to have been shot by a police officer.
This matter never seems to have been resolved", and it was
really based on that that lead me to directing him to pursue
the Commander of Criminal Investigation Section_, and to get
to the bottom of the situation.
Mr. Carollo: Did at any time during the progress this
whole affair, and what I frankly find mind boggling ...
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: ... is that this could go on for four years. I
still carat comprehend that. It just seems to me like there
was no leadership whatsoever shown in this investigation, by
anyone, but the buck has got to stop somewhere, and during
the years that this was going on, that Internal Security was
reporting to you, did at any time during the scope of this
investigation., did anyone approach you from either within.
the Police Department, or from outside the Police
Department, in trying to get you to direct your
investigation to any other charnels than you were heading to
overlook anything it, the investigation., to try to pass the
buck to anyone else?
Chief Warshaw: Let me answer, if I may, this way,
Commissioner. Commencing in March or April of 1982, this
investigatiot was not in the realm of Internal Security. It
was in the realm of the Criminal Investigation. Section.,
because it is within that section that an investigation and
an allegation, of this sort is pursued. It was really not
until the iummer of 1983, that I personally became more
involved and it was not until November of 1983 that Internal
Security became fully involved because it was at that point
that the criminal investigation was officially concluded, so
there was a gap there between. 1982 and the summer of 1983.
I hope that answer the question..
Mr. Carollo: Did, during the scope of the time ...
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: ... that you were in charge of overlooking
Internal Security, that they had to report to you ...
gl 31 September 21, 1984
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: ... did you keep the Administration of the
City, namely the Manager, or the Manager's office appraised
of what was happer_irg?
Chief Warshaw: Between. 1982 and 1983, Commissioner, for all
ir_ter_ts and purposes I had no knowledge of really what was
going on, at least none that I can independently recall.
Mr. Carollo: In other words, you can't recollect at all any
knowledge of anything that was going on until 1983.
Chief Warshaw: That's correct. As far as I knew, as far
again., as I recall, it was being handled by the Criminal
Investigation, Section..
Mr. Carollo: When you say the Criminal Investigation
Section., you are referring to Homicide, then.?
Chief Warshaw: That is a part of Criminal Investigation.
Section., yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Who was either Homicide or the Criminal
Investigation. Section reporting to at that time? Who do
they have to report to? Where does the buck stop?
Chief Warshaw: Oh, ultimately their chair of command -
Homicide was reporting to the Commarder of the Criminal
Investigation. Section. The Criminal Investigation Section_
was reporting to ...
Mr. Carollo: Who was the Assistant Chief that they were
reporting to?
Chief Warshaw: Chief Breslow - Assistant Chief Breslow, and
in between. was Deputy Chief Alba.
Mr. Carollo: Do you know if Chief Breslow was keeping the
Manager's office or she Manager abreast of what was
happening, that the Administration could know what was going
on in the progress of this?
Chief Warshaw: I don't ... I don't know, sir.
Mr. Carollo: I will have to ask Chief Breslow in a few
minutes. Make a rote if I could. To the best of your
knowledge, do you feel comfortable that there is no one else
involved ir any sort of eoverup in this case?
Chief Warshaw: Then. those ...
Mr. Carollo: Then the people that ...
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Breslow made a statement a little while
ago that during the Tick -talk investigations, Oboz, I don't
recall his rank at the time. I think it was Captain..
Chief Warshaw: Major.
Mr. Carollo: Major? Well, it was irrelevant whether he was
a Captain or a Major, he was in charge of that unit.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Breslow stated that he reported directly
to you
gl
32 September 21, 1984
0
r
0
Chief Warshaw: Col. Oboz - now Colonel, yes. At that time,
Major Oboz reported directly to me.
Mr. Carollo: During the scope of the Tick -talks
investigation, ore of the most, if rot the most expensive
drug investigation that this city, maybe even possibly this
Courty, at the local level has taker. upor. - did a« ary time
during that investigation_, and let me state for the record
that that is rot an on -going investigation at this point in
time - did at ar_y time during the scope of that
investigation., did Commander Oboz, or anyone else involved
in that investigation relate to you any informatior_ of
anyone that was either arrested or brought up in that
investigation that either was being investigated, or the
investigators found suspicion of reasonable reason to
believe that they were either pushir_g narcotics or helping
to launder narcotics money involved in any association with
any member of this Commission, or City Administration?
Chief Warshaw: Commissioner, that investigation started
before I had a reporting relationship with Major Oboz.
Frankly, I am rot the expert on that investigation. To be
fair to your question., I am rot familiar with any of that
kind of information. I have no recollection of that ever
being said to me.
Mr. Carollo: I am rot trying to state, Assistant Chiefs
Warshaw, that you were an expert or Tick -talks. I however,
would hope that the most expensive narcotics investigation
that this city has gotten into since its history, which was,
unfortunately, a complete failure in the courts, for
whatever the reasons, and major drug pushers got away or
disappeared scot free. I would hope that someone could have
been responsible as to what our investigators were doing and
what kind of information they were developing, but again,
you did rot receive any kind of information from Oboz or any
of the investigators that were involved ir. that that
pertained to individuals involved, either in the trafficking
of narcotics, or in the laurderirg of narco-dollars that
were associated, or had personal close relatior_ships with
ar.y member of this Commission or of this City
Administration.?
Chief Warshaw: Let me answer it this way. That doesn't
ring a bell. It just doesn't.
Mr. Carollo: Doesn't ring a bell at all?
Chief Warshaw: Doesn't ring a bell.
Mr. Carollo: Let me ask you this, Chief Warshaw, if that
sort of information would have beer.discovered during the
course of that investigation, what would have been the
normal process that would have been followed?
Chief Warshaw: That would have been referred to an
appropriate agency, other than our own..
Mr. Carollo: You are saying, such as Florida Department of
Law Enforcement?
Chief Warshaw: State Attorney's Office, U. S. Justice ...
conceivably, yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Possibly ever. the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, correct?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
gl
33 September 21, 1984
M
/IT; 11
Mr. Carollo: If that what would have been the normal steps
to have been followed, wouldn't it have caused you great
concern if, I might say that in an investigation such as
that, it would have come out that someone that might be
involved in the extensive laundering of drug monies, someone
that possibly Federal agencies have been ir_vestigatirg at
the time, someone that possibly has had to have gore before
Federal Grard Juries, and rot as a witness, was in a very
close, ever, possibly business relationship with a member of
this Administration, this Commission. - would that have been
a concern., a legitimate concern to law enforcement?
Chief Warshaw: Absolutely!
Chief Warshaw: That should be the normal process, Yes, Sir.
Mr. Carollo: This might have been the case and that would
never have been done.
Mr. Bob Warshaw: Without understanding specifically, I
would say, as a rule of thumb, yes.
Mr. Carollo: Assistant Chief Warshaw, at this point in
time, I have ro further questions for you, but seemly that
Assistant Chief Warshaw has held one of the key positions in
the department, one of the three main positions, if not the
two main positions in the department, for some time now and
so has Chief Breslow, after we hear from other people, Mr.
Mayor, we might have to require them to come back out of
their own free will if need be.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, I have one other question, before; you
sit down., I have a question. that I'd like to ask you and I'd
like to ask Chief Breslow the same question.. At the Gurn
luncheon., that time at the luncheon., you and I briefly
talked. I asked you how the investigation of the Johnson
case was going, whether it was concluded. You told me it
was rot. I asked you if Chief Harms had been deposed. You
told me he had rot. I asked you if you thought it was
important or could the investigation be concluded. You told
me that you thought that the deposition had not been taker.,
but that it would be taker_. You agreed that it was
important. You then asked me to talk to Chief Breslow; you
recommended, "You should talk to the Chief about that."
Then. I went over to talk to Chief Breslow about the subject.
Is that the sequence of everts, as you recall it?
Mr. Warshaw: No, sir, I think that it was the other way
around. I think Chief Breslow suggested that you speak with
me. May I ask Chief Breslow? Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I could have talked to the Chief and maybe he
referred me to you. Do you recall that sequence?
Mr. Warshaw: That sequence, yes.
Mayor Ferre: Those discussions.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir, I do.
Mayor Ferre: Why was Chief Harms not deposed and why was a
statement not taker.?
Mr. Warshaw: Very simply, sir, that it was the consensus of
those people who are most closely associated with the
investigation., that there was simply no cause to.
I gl 34 September 21, 1984
kv
Mayor Ferre: But that was not your opinion when you and I
talked in May.
Mr. Warshaw: Well, I too have had to reconstruct this
conversation, and I think there may be a misinterpretation
in fairness to you.
Mayor Ferre: Or whose part?
Mr. Warshaw: Well, in fairness to you, sir, I can see how I
may have led you to believe that. We did discuss two things
in the course of that discussion.. The beginning part of the
corversation did in fact address the Michael Johnson. case; I
remember that. Then towards the latter part of the
discussion., you had expressed a concern about the proposed
settlement in the Kenneth Harms matter, and you had
expressed an explicit concern about the issue of his
availability for questionirg. What I suspect occurred is
that in arswerirg your questionirg, as to whether or rot he
was seeded for questioning, I misir_terpreted that and
applied that only to the issue of other matters that were
on -going in the department at the time. That may have beer
my fault, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Thar_k you, Chief. I'd like to as Mr. Don.
Dunlap to step forward. Mr. Dunlap, I'm going to ask you
some questions relating to this matter. Commissioner
Carollo has asked that people go under oath voluntarily. Do
you have any objections?
Mr. Don_ Dunlap: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You have not been influenced or coerced
directly or indirectly in this matter?
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir, I haven't.
Mayor Ferre: Would you swear in Mr. Dunlap?
Mr. Ralph Ongie: Raise your right hard, please. Do you
solemnly swear the evidence you are about to give in this
matter will be the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Dunlap: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Dunlap, as I understand, you and your
office did investigate this matter. Is that correct?
Mr. Dunlap: The Johnson_ shooting, yes ar.d no, sir. My
office is in charge of administerirg the self-irsurarce
trust fund. At the time of the Johr_son shooting, the
investigation function was handled through the Law
Department, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Who it the Law Department handled the
investigation?
Mr. Dunlap: That was assigned, and I'm saying this from
reviewing the claims file, because I wasn't employed by the
City at the time of the incident. I believe it was a legal
investigator named Sanchez, a gentleman whom I don't know,
sir.
Mayor Ferre: In 1982, you were not employed by the City.
Mr. Dunlap: Yes, I was employed in 1982.'
Mayor Ferre: What month?
gl
35 September 21, 1984
eollkl fAl
Mr. Dunlap: I became employed by the City in February,
1981.
Mayor Ferre: So it 182 you were employed.
Mr. Dunlap: Yes, I was, sir.
Mayor Ferre: During from the time you were employed in
February 1981 through the end of 182, did you at any time
try to settle this matter for the City with the Johr.sor,
family or Mr. Johnson_? Did anybody in the department try to
settle this case?
Mr. Dunlap: In the Finance Department, sir?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: There was no settlement that you are aware of
offered by the City of Miami at any time in the past?
Mr. Dunlap: Ir_ 1982?
Mayor Ferre: At any time.
Mr. Dunlap: At any time, not that I am aware of, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You are not aware of any settlement.
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Negotiations, discussions, offer, or
investigation?
Mr. Dunlap: I'm aware of negotiations and discussions. I
am not aware of any settlement offer made by the City, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You were aware of investigations. Is that
what you said?
Mr. Dunlap: There were discussions, sir. I'm sorry if I
used the word investigations.
Mayor Ferre: You were aware of discussions about a
settlement.
Mr. Dunlap: Discussions of a claim, sir, ana discussions of
a settlement, yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: When did these discussions go on?
Mr. Dunlap: The settlement discussions I am aware of, I
know that the Law Department is currently in discussion.....
Mayor Ferre: I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking
about in the past. Were you aware of any discussions last
year, the year before that, any time in the past four and a
half years?
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir, I am not, not personally.
Mayor Ferre: Other than now, this is the first time that
you know of that there are any discussions about a
settlement. Is that right?
Mr. Dunlap: I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand what this
is..
.`4 P
Macao" Ferre: This is the first time that you aware of any
discussions about a settlement now in the present. You did =
rot know of any settlements in the past; discussions of _
settlement.
Mr. Dunlap: My awarement...or manner of which I am aware of
discussions is my office has discussed the large claim....
Mayor Ferre: The large what?
Mr. Dunlap: All large claims with the law department. They
are in charge. When a file goes into litigation., it's their
file. We assist. We are aware that they are discussing it.
We use it in doing budget projections.
Mayor Ferre: But this is all current.
Mr. Dunlap: It's all current, yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: It's all current. It didn't happen three
months ago or six months ago or a year ago? It's all right f
now in the recent weeks or months. _
Mr. Dunlap: In. recent months, yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Previous to recent weeks and months, there had
been no discussion; you had no information or no knowledge
of anything dealing with any discussions dealing with the
settlement of the Johnson case. Is that correct?
Mr. Dunlap: Not that I know of, sir.
Mayor Ferre: So, you were just involved in this when, a
month ago, two months ago? When was the first time you
became involved or you heard of discussions about
settlement?
Mr. Dunlap: Sir, I really don't know the answer to that
question.. I was aware that the claim existed.
Mayor Ferre: Was it within this last year?
Mr. Dunlap: For the most part, yes, sir.
i
r
Mayor Ferre: Was it previous to 1984?
Mr. Dunlap: It could have been. I don't remember, sir. !
Mayor Ferre: Are you aware, Mr. Dunlap, or have you been
aware at any time of any alleged cover-ups in your
discussions with the Law Department?
Mr. Dunlap: Other than.....
Mayor Ferre: Other than what has come out....
Mr. Dunlap: Other than what's in the newspaper, no, sir.
Mayor Ferre: ....in the newspaper. Thank you, Mr. Dunlap.
That's all I have. Captain_ Cosgrove.
Mr. Doug Lyons: May it please the Commission, gentlemen., my
name is Doug Lyons. I am the attorney representing Captain
Cosgrove along with Lance Stelzer who is present with me
here. Mike appreciates you all giving him an invitation_ to
come here today and to testify and answer your questions and
he welcomes the opportunity to do so. However, Captain,
Cosgrove will be retiring it October 15th of this year. As
you are aware, there is a present civil suit pending. As a
result of that suit and matters leading up to that suit,
gl 37 September 21, 1984
Captain. Cosgrove has beer. a target and victim of harassment
by the Police Department. He is very concerned that his
testimony here today could lead to further harassment,
intimidation., and action by the Police Department for
violation of the rules and regulations of the Police
Department. He has no problem testifying substantively and
answering completely and fully any questions that this
Commission has of him in any areas. Before doing so,
however, he would like to have assurances from this
Commission., from the City Manager, and from the Chief of
Police that anything he says today will rot be used in any
way to deprive him of any of the benefits that he's entitled
to for the twenty years of service with the Police
Department, or be used as a vehicle for further harassment
or intimidation or other actions against him by the
department. Specifically, I have prepared a copy of a
manual of rules and regulations of the Department of Police
of the City of Miami, which I'd like to offer to the Clerk
to be part of the record of these proceedings. I've made a
copy for each of the Commissioners and the Mayor so these
can be distributed. There are several sections of the
manual that would apply to his testifying here today. I
think that if you consider these and have an opportunity to
review them, you'll appreciate our concern about the
repercussions that his testifying here today could have on
his retirement from the Police Department. I would
specifically direct your attention to the following
provisions, page 10-3, Section. 3.35.13.23, which involves
public criticism of the Chief, Superior Officers, or City
Officials. I think, based upon the questions we've heard so
far, that there are questions that have been addressed today
that could involve public criticism of his superiors, City
Officials, and so forth, and this could be used by the
department in subsequent action_ of disciplinary nature.
Also, 3.63.99 involving derogatory remarks regarding
superior officers and officials; Section 3.65.3 involving
criticism of orders of Superior Officers; Section 3.69.1
involving activities of members of the Police Department,
which prevents them from making, getting involved in
political discussions and some of the things here today may
be construed by the Department as having an aura of
political discussion_; Section. 3.53.3 regarding confidential
# information., official business of the department under that
J regulation is considered as confidential information_;
without approval of his Commanding Officer, he is not
permitted to divulge confidential information. So that
would again be a matter for sanctions. Also, information of
a confidential nature requires the approval of the Chief.
Finally, speeches made or presentations on behalf of the
department, could also be considered as being a matter for
future reprisals against Captain Cosgrove. Again., we
reiterate that if we car receive an assurance from this
Commission_, from the City Manager, and from the Chief, or
the record that anything Captain Cosgrove says here today
will not be used against him as a vehicle for harassment or
affect his 20 year retirement, he'd be perfectly happy to
answer all questions.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lance, I will ask both the Manager and the
Chief that question_ specifically, but just so that we car
get this properly cleared, as of the 12th of October, as I
understand, Michael Cosgrove will have reached the date in
which, as I understand, he will no longer be employed by the
City.
Mr. Lyons: It's the 15th,
15th.
Mayor Ferre: October 15th.
gl
but that is correct, October
38 September 21, 1984
Mr. Lyons: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Subsequent to that, obviously there's no way,
since he will then, be vested, that anybody can fire him.
Mr. Lyons: Absolutely.
Mayor Ferre: So, if we are unable to get the assurance from
the Manager, the Chief, or their attorneys, on this issue,
if you were to be invited on the 16th of October, there
would be no reason why at that time, you could not make
whatever statements you warted. Is that correct?
Mr. Lyons: Absolutely.
Mayor Ferre: I would just like to, on the record, state
that if by any charce, you are rot allowed to speak today, I
will invite you back after the 15th of October.
Mr. Lyons: We appreciate the invitation.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, to you or through you to the
Chief, as you wish, is Captain. Cosgrove allowed to speak his
mind at this time?
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I'd like for attorney Peter Hurtgen to
respond to that question_.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, before he does, if I could make a
brief statement.
Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead.
Mr. Carollo: Having gone over the areas that the attorney
has mentioned, based on this, I would have to say that if
the Administration of this City were to enforce these rules
and regulations, then already the Chief of Police, the
Assistant Chief of Police have been in violation_ of them,
and any other member of the Police Department that would
testify, would be in violation_ of it.
Mayor Ferre: The question., nevertheless, would be whether
or not Michael Cosgrove is able to speak today. Mr.
Hurtgen, who is your cliert?
Mr. Peter Hurtgen: My name is Peter Hurtgen, your Honor,
the City, the City Manager, and the Chief of Police in the
law suits that Captain Cosgrove has filed.
Mayor Ferre: Individually or...
Mr. Hurtgen: In their official capacities.
Mayor Ferre: Now, my question is this. You stand up today
representing the City of Miami?
Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Are you representing the Police Chief
directly?
Mr. Hurtger.: There are three deferdants in. the case, your
Hor_or, the City, the Manager, and the Chief. I am
representing all three.
Mayor Ferre:
representation, of
official capacity.
And there is no conflict it your
the City and the individuals in their
gl 39 September 21, 1984
}
Al
Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct, your Honor. The law suit
that counsel has characterized does exist. It is against
the City, the City Manager, and the Chief. It complains,
among other things, about treatment that Captain Cosgrove
claims to have received since his reduction to the position_
of Captain. I think it would be inappropriate for the
Commission to respond in any way, shape, or form in this
board of inquiry fashion to statements that counsel seeks or
tries to elicit from the Commission and specifically from _
the Manager or from the Chief. I think it would be
inopportune or importune to say the least, to comment about
what is charged as harassment or intimidation. I think
beyond that, there is legal question with regard to this
Commission_ as sitting as a board of inquiry may or may not
do with regard to rules and regulations of the City
promulgated pursuant to the Manager and the Chief of Police in the ordinary and necessary course of the operation..
Mayor Ferre: The specific question., Mr. Hurtgen., is whether
or not this board of inquiry can ask questions of Michael
Cosgrove dealing with a specific case of Michael Johnson.. Mr. Hurtgen.: I think this board can, your Honor. I would
simply....
Mayor Ferre: I don't intend to get into anything else but
that. If it goes off into other directions, I think we will
have to stop and reassess. I will be guided by your counsel
on this matter. I wart you to feel free, since you are
representing the City, to stay at that microphor_e and stop
me or stop Cosgrove any time that you feel that in any way
it infringes upon the pending law suit.
Mr. Hurtgen: That is fine.
Mayor Ferre: With that then established as a procedure, is
there any objection for my asking the Manager and through
him the Chief to answer the question. that Mr. Lyons, as
attorney for Cosgrove, asked?
Mr. Hurtgen.: That is the specific thing that got me on my
feet, your Honor. I think that question_ shouldn't be
answered. I don't think that the Manager or the Chief
should respond to that question,, both as to the way it was
posed and to the substance contained within it.
Mayor Ferre: So, in, other words, what you are saying is
that then as counsel, you are recommending that they not
answer that.
Mr. Hurtgen.: That is correct, your Honor.
Mayor Ferre: Then., I think we will see you then after the
15th.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I can't help but feel that while
the counselor said there is no conflict in his part
representing the City, the Chief, and the Manager, it
certainly appears to me that there is a conflict because
right now, this Commission is holding public hearings in a
very important case that is here before us, a case that
involves a great injustice to an individual. Counselor is
trying to represent mainly and above so two clients instead
of the Commission.. Maybe I'm not seeing the same type of
logic that he is, but the type of logic that I've learned is
that it certainly appears to be a conflict of interest.
Mayor Ferre: There are ethics and lawyers have legal ethics
that they are involved in. I'm sure that Mr. Hurtgen_ and
Lucia Allen, our City Attorney, have in the past and I'm
gl
40 September 21, 1984
a
a
3
i
e
sure will in the future discuss this. I would like a
specific answer to the question_ that you don't have to do it
row from both Lucia Allen and Mr. Hurtgen on this particular
issue.
Mr. Hurtgen: I'm prepared to do it now, your Honor.
Mr. Carollo: To cut through all the legal jargon, be very
direct. I guess the Chief of Police and the Manager are
sayirg through their attorney that if Mr. Cosgrove speaks
here today, that anything that he can say can and might be
used against him at a later time by the department.
Mr. Hurtgen: I'm just saying that Captain_ Cosgrove should
feel free to speak today in response to the invitation from
the Commission. I'm not encouraging him not to do that or
to do it. But I am saying that as anybody who speaks today,
should be responsible for what they say, you shouldn't tell
Captain_ Cosgrove that he is not responsible for what he says
today.
Mayor Ferre: But you know and I know, Counselor, after the
statement made by Mr. Cosgrove's attorney, Mr. Lyons, that
they would in no way allow him to speak here today unless of
course cr the record, the Manager and the Chief stated that
they would rot in any way reprimand him or fire him, which
is what he is really worried about, between_ now and the 15th
for anything he were to say here.
Mr. Hurtger: See, your Honor, it's a game that is being
played here. He's not worried necessarily about being fired
for what he says here or reprimanded for what he says here.
He's seeking through counsel to gain a platform on a forum
to make statements without regard to what he is saying it
his law suit.
Mayor Ferre: Counselor, the problem is solved by time.
After the 15th, he doesn't have that problem and I assure
you that we will continue on this.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, but Mr. Mayor, the point being, let's
forget about Michael Cosgrove for a second. The point being
that by the statements that the Manager and the Police Chief
just made through their attorney, they just sent the message
out to any police officer of this City, that if they come
before this board, their reeks can roll.
Mayor Ferre: I don't want to disagree with you, Joe, but
this is dealing with a specific law suit, and Mr. Cosgrove
and the City of Miami engaged in.. He's the attorney, so I
don't think it necessarily follows. This was a statement
made by the attorney for the City. I don't think that
necessarily follows. Let me make this point. Now, Mr.
Hurtgen, since Kenneth Harms is no longer an employee under
active duty, but has a contractual arrangement, and since
the law suit between Mr. Harms and the City of Miami has
been settled, and you were a party to that settlement, then
there would be no problem with Kenneth Harms testifying. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Then., in that case, let me advise you that I
have here a letter from Mr. Harms' attorney to that point.
I would like to at this time... You can stick around for a
bit, because I just wart to relate this to that, then get
back to you. I'd like to now refer, if I may, to a letter,
Mr. Hurtgen written by you on July 2, 1984 to Morgan Lewis
and Bacheus, which I will give you in a second, addressed to
Robert Josefsberg, Esq. and accepted by him. Actually, it
.s
gl 41 September 21, 1984
is accepted by Mr. Falk. He says, "Accepted by Falk for
Robert Josefsberg." The pertinent part is the third
paragraph. It says, "The purpose of the amendm(:nt... " Or
maybe I should read the whole letter:
"Dear Bob, At the City Commission meeting of June
28, 1984, the executed settlement agreement was
approved as presented with one clarifying proviso,
which the Commission insisted be added to the
second sentence on paragraph four or page sever.,
as follows. Provided, however, that in no evert
shall the City be liable to Kenneth I. Harms for
any deflamatory statement made by Howard V. Gary,
personally or individually or at his personal
direction.. The purpose of the amendment was only
to make clear that if there should be a breach of
the covenant against defamation_ against Howard
Gary or someore at his special direction., which
does not arise out of the course of his employment
as the City Manager, that the liability for such
breach would be Howard Gary personally, rot the
City. In my opinion, the proviso does not charge
the intent of the agreement, which would require
the payment of $10,000 by the City or by Mr. Gary,
depending upon_ the facts and circumstances of the
breach as found by an arbitrator in accordance
with principles of Master Servant Principle Agent
Employer/Employee. Moreover, I believe and I know
you do also, that there will be no statements made
which can be construed as violations of the
agreement. There will, therefore, be no monitory
penalty paid by any party."
Madam City Attorney, you have the minutes of the June 28th
meeting wherein I made a specific statement into the record
about the legislative intert. I would appreciate if you
would read the pertinent section..
Mrs. Lucia A. Dougherty: Let me just say for the record, so
-_ we understand each other, my personal position., as I told
--�.g you, Peter, is that I wart you to put it on the record, is
that nothing that we are voting for here should at any time
be construed as a waiver on our part. Because first of all,
constitutionally, we carrot waiver. Secondly, we carrot
waive it because of State law, and thirdly, we carrot waive
it because of our own Charter. So if Kenneth Harms, at any
time, comes under investigation, for whatever reason with
s the City of Miami, there is no way that we can assure or
guarantee that his name will be mentioned. I just wart the
legislative ir_ter_t clearly expressed here that the City of
Miami and the Commission., in voting for this document, in no
way, abrogates its sworn_ duty to uphold the constitution of
the Florida laws and the Charter of the City of Miami, that
in any way we are agreeing to the fact that the name Kenneth
Harms will never come out from public document in the City.
Now, whatever investigations may or may not be occurring now
or may occur subsequent to now ... That was it.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, in other statements during
that, it was clearly expressed when we voted that the City
was in ro way and it would rot in any way be liable for
that. Now, I have here before me a letter dated September
21st, which after I read it, I'll get copies of and pass
from Mr. Glens. P. Falk and Robert C. Josefsberg. It reads:
"September 21st
RE: Ker_r.eth I. Harms v. The City of Miami; our
file No. 00320.
Dear Mayor Ferre, As you know, we represent
Kenneth Harms as his personal attorney. The City
of Miami sent a certified letter to Kenneth Harms
which he received at 11:05 a.m. this morning."
-19
This morning being the 21st.
"That certified letter invited him to attend
City Commission_ meeting at 11:00 a.m. this
morning. Mr. Harms was also sent a telegram,
which he received this morning, inviting him '.o
appear at 3:00 p.m."
This is not in the letter. I sent that telegram because it
had come to my attention that although I had giver. a list of
people that were to be invited, that as of last right, Mr.
Harms had not received that invitation, so I sent the
telegram. Back to the letter:
"As I indicated to you in our conference, it was
absolutely impossible for Mr. Harms to accept this
invitation due to the late notice. You have
indicated that you would be willing to have a
Commission meeting at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. It
is our understanding that the purpose of this
Commission. meeting is to investigate an alleged
cover --up arising out of an incident which occurred
during the 1980 Miami riots.
'We also urderstard that Mr. Harms has been
cleared not only by the Internal Security Division_
of the City of Miami Police Department, but also
by the State Attorney's Office, of any involvement
in this alleged matter. However, ever, in light of
this, Mr. Harms really has no objection_ to
speaking to the Commission.
'The problem that Mr. Harms faces, however, is
that a Stipulation of Settlement was entered into
by Kenneth I. Harms, the City of Miami and Howard
Gary, concerning any public statements he might
make. That Stipulation_ provides that he will make
no adverse statements regarding The City of Miami,
the City of Miami Police Department, or its
administration, officers, men and women. This
further provides that Kenneth I. Harms agrees to
make no negative or critical statements about Mr.
Gary, personally.
'As you well know, contained within_ this
Stipulation for Settlement is a penalty provision
which provides that, by violation of this
agreement, Mr. Harms could be subject to a
$10,000.00 fire. Certainly any statements he
might make in fror_t of the Commission_ might be
interpreted as a violation of this agreement. Mr.
Harms could be subject to a $10,000.00 fire. If
the City of Miami ar_d Mr. Gary would be willing to
enter into ar addendum that would allow him to
speak to the Commission_ without fear of reprisal
or fires or any attempt by the parties to the
agreement to argue that Mr. Harms had breached
said agreement, then he would be willing to
respond to the Commission. inquiry.
'Further, Florida Statute 112.533 provides the
only means by which investigation of a complaint
against a police agency may be corducted. We
_ enclose a copy of that statute for your
convenience and review."
This is not in- the letter, but they did not send us a copy
of that. Lucia, I would appreciate it if you could get that
for us, if possible, by the end of the evening. Back to
thee letter:
"Therefore, we accept your invitation to appear as
soon as there is an agreement by the City
Commission and Mr. Gary that Mr. Harms will not be
in violation, of the Stipulation for Settlement and
that pursuant to Florida Statute 112.533, he has
beer - advised that this investigation has become a
matter of public record so that we will not be in
violation_ of any law in making statements in
public.
gl 43 September 21, 1984
r
'We wish to point out that Mr. Harms is ready,
willing and eager to testify as soon as the above
conditions are met. Please contact me at home if
you can agree to the above and if there is enough
time, we will have Mr. Harms here tomorrow."
This was in reference to a telephone call that I received
this morrin.g from Mr. Falk or this matter. He specifically
told me that he warted me to know that Mr. Harms was willing
to come, provided we got this legal matter cleared up. I
told him that I didn't know what the Commission would do,
but I couldn't speak for the Commission_; I would bring the
subject up for discussion_. If the majority of this
Commission wished to waive that portion for this particular
portion., that it was the Commission who spoke for the City
of Miami. However, I could not, of course, nor could the
Commission speak for Mr. Gary, and that was Mr. Gary's
personal decision or this particular matter. They would
have to be governed accordingly. I have two questions for
you. Since your July 2rd letter was subsequent to the
legislative intent, as expressed at the June 28th meeting, I
am confused by these two paragraphs, which imply that the
City of Miami, ever_ though the legislative intent on voting
for this was very clear. I don't know vhether you were
speaking for the Commission_ for the City of 1:iami. If so,
what we stated as the legislative intent was legally
impossible, why, if you represent the City of Miami, didn't
you clarify that for the Commission.? If indeed, in your
opinion, the proviso does not charge the intent of the
agreement, which would require the payment of $10,000.00 by
the City or by Mr. Gary, depending upon facts and
circumstances of the breach, as found by an arbitrator in
accordance with the principles of master servant principle
agent employer/employee. I wish to tell you or the record
that if I had known, unless you clarify what that statement
specifically means, if I had known that you were going to
write this to Mr. Josefsberg, I certainly would not at any
time have voted for the settlement.
Mr. Hurtger.: I'd like to clarify that, your Honor, I don't
think there is any inconsistency in that statement in the
letter and the portion_ of the legislative intent that Lucia
has just read. The statement in the letter says, depends on
the facts as to whether or not the City would be liable for
the statements of Mr. Gary. That was the discussion we had
here that day or the approval or not of the settlement
agreement also. The specific amer.dmer.t to the settlement
agreement is set forth in quotes in that letter to Mr.
Josefsberg. It is true, as I said then at the City
Commission hearing and I said in that letter, it doesn't
charge the intent that which party is liable depends upon
the circumstances of the breach. Your legislative ir_ter.t
about rot waiving immunity for the Commission is perfectly
correct and not inconsistent with anything in my letter.
Mayor Ferre: Then., so as to satisfy the position as
presented to us in this letter dated today from Glenn. P.
Falk and Robert C. Josefsberg, I would imagine it would
require an action by the Commission. Is that correct?
Mr. Hurtger: It would require the Commission determining
that it does wart to provide an assurance to Captain. Harms
that statements he may make in response to this inquiry do
not subject him to liability.
Mayor Ferre: Now let me ask you the next question_. We're
going to take a recess in a moment, so that you can talk to
Mr. Gary specifically about this subject. If there is a
difference in the answer between. the City of Miami
Commission for the City and the position that Mr. Gary
wishes to take, then_ would there then be conflict between
your two clients?
gl 44 September 21, 1984
Mr. Hurtger: Yes, there would be.
Mayor Ferre: Then at that time, you would have to represent
one or the other.
Mr. Hurtger: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: And I think you would have to discuss that
with Mr. Gary and then let me know who it is that you will
be representing.
Mr. Hurtger.: That is correct.
Mr. Carollo: For the record, Mr. Mayor, isn't that the same
case that just happened just a few minutes ago? He took a
position_ in defending his two clients.
Mayor Ferre: Up until row he doesn't have a conflict. What
he said row is that if this goes forward, he may have a
conflict. Then he has to make a decision as to who his
client is and so advise the Commission_. Then we can deal
with the issue because I will be asking Mr. Gary what his
position_ would be on this and I will be then asking the
Commiaaiv:_ wiid( the City's position is or. this. Then_ we
will take it from there.
Mr. Hurtger: I have one thought. If the Commission_ is
going to, or Mr. Gary, or both, consider the request of
Captair Harms through his attorney with regard to statements
he may make at this board of inquiry, you may wart to
consider limiting the nor -recourse, in effect, that you
provide to him, so long as it relates solely to the matters
about which this inquiry has been convened.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I think that is reasonable. I
certainly have no objections to doing that, so that there is
no misinterpretation as to what our intent is on this.
Mr. Lyons: Mr. Mayor, if I may, before you take your
recess, I feel constrained and take exception. with Mr.
Hurtger_'s comment that Captair. Cosgrove, to be Mister in
fifteen_ days, is here to seek a platform. He is here in
response to your invitation. He's here as Captain_ Harms
will be here to eagerly answer honestly any and all
questions which this panel should pose to him. He's going
to try his case in court. He's rot going to try his case
here. He's going to answer questions here, purely and
simply. He just does not wart to be a victim of selective
enforcement of the manual, as he has been. I'm rot going to
cite the litany of selective enforcement as we cited in our
complaint, but we don't wart this to provide another vehicle
for selective enforcement of the rules and regulations. If
we can have a guarantee, as the other people have spoken
freely here today, Captair. Cosgrove can speak freely here
today without fear of reprisal, he'd be happy to do so. If
we can't have that assurance, then we'll come back on. the
16th.
Mayor Ferre: I understand, Mr. Lyons. I thank you for your
statement. We row have a legal and technical problem with
regards to Michael Cosgrove. We may have a problem with
regards to Ker Harms. I think we reed to find out whether
we do or we don't. So we will now recess for a few minutes.
Is ten minutes sufficient?
Mr. Hurtger.: I think so, your Honor?
Mr. Lyons: Before you recess, is Mr. Hurtger, going to
reconsider his position on Captair. Cosgrove? If not, we'll
go ahead and come back on the 16th and leave now.
gl 45 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: I think, Mr. Hurtger_, that all that they are
asking is for the same privilege that Chief Breslow and
Assistant Chief Warshaw have had, nothing more, nothing
less.
Mr. Lyons: Precisely.
Mr. Hurtgen: I interpret their request much beyond that,
Commissioner, frankly. I think it is more than that.
Mr. Lyons: Well, then you misinterpret the request. We
just don't wart any reprisals for anything that he says here
today by way of answering questions from this Commission.
Mr. Carollo: Let me ask you this. I can't understand how
when a high ranking official of the Miami Police Department
is one of the few people that comes or an invitation from
this Commission when the vast majority of the others did not
wart to come anywhere rear here; an individual that has a
record that most police officers in this country would like
to have. I cannot understand how the individuals that you
represent would take a position that he is not to have the
same rights that they have themselves been giver. here.
Mr. Hurtgen.: I'm sure, Commissioner, they wouldn't take a
contrary position_; but the reason, that I am advising what I
have advised, is that this police officer, Captain_ Cosgrove,
is suing the City over some of the very matters that he, or
his attorney has put forth this evening as things they are
concerned about. He's asking for representations from the
City, through its Commission and its Manager and its Chief
of Police, as to what or might not happen., and I think
that's in providence.
Mr. Carollo: Sir, frankly, before this whole process is
over, there might be some that might wart to sue me. It's
not going to prevent me from speaking any further.
Mr. Hurtgen: Well, I might advise you to.
Mr. Carollo: Well, let me say this to you. I would help
the case, this way we could subpoena certain_ files that the
F.B.I. and the D.E.A. have and clear up some things ever.
more.
Mayor Ferre: We will now take a five minute....
Mr. Lyons: I understand there is not going to be any
reconsideration of Mr. Hurtgen's position.. We are free to
leave then_ and come back on the 16th. Is that correct, Mr.
Hurtgen?
Mayor Ferre: You are free to leave any time you want.
Mr. Lyons: No, I meant....
Mayor Ferre: This is a completely voluntary thing. Nobody
is forcing anybody to do anything.
Mr. Hurtgen: We are all friends here.
Mr. Lyons: Mike has been waiting for three and a half hours
and would be delighted to testify and answer any and all
your questions, but if he's not going to be given....
Mr. Carollo: I should think, Mr. Mayor, it's a real shame
that a hearing has been called solely for the purpose of
getting to the bottom of facts, facts that are trying to do
a right when there was an injustice, I don't take it too
gl 46 September 21, 1984
lightly when an individual was shot by our Police
Department, shot roundly and for some reason or another,
files are flying back and forth and people are running back
and forth for over four years, nobody wants to take the
responsibility for what happened, the left hard doesn't know
what the right hard is doing, then we get to a hearii_- r.uch
as this, trying to get to the bottom of the situation.,
trying to find out just what the heck is happening in. our
Police Department, and trying to prevent future injustice
like this from happening. I'm just seeing such a Berlin,
Wall that's being planted to prevent an individual from
testifying. What are we scared of here? Just what the hell
are we scared of here?
Mayor Ferre: We'll take a five minute r`cess and we'll come
back. Mr. Dunlap, I would appreciate if you would not
leave, because I have some further questions.
WHEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO
A RECESS AT 6:40 P.M., RECONVENING AT
7:00 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT
Mr. Carollo: Okay, so the normal process would have been
this should have been channeled to another agency, either
State or Federal.
2. DISCUSSION AND CONTINUANCE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR
INCREASED HATES AT ON STREET METERS AHD OFF STREET
LOTS.
Mayor Ferre: You have that before us now, the parking
ordinance? The reason we didn't vote on this yesterday is
because we didn't have it — this is an ordinance that amends
the code and establishes rates at certain offstreet parking
meters and offstreet lots; establishes rates at municipal
parking garages and it sets the effective date as October 1, t
1984. Is there a motion on this ordinance? I've called this
Special Commission meeting for this purpose.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, in the interest of fairness, this
was the great concern of Commissioner Carollo, and I think
he should be present before any motion is made or offered on
this item.
Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problem with that. His
concern, as I recall was not rates, it was the location..
Mr. Plummer: I think it was in reference to ...
Mr. Roger Carlton: J. L., there he is.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Carollo, we have before us the
ordinance on off-street parking rates. We did not do this
yesterday.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity that
my colleagues sent for me, waiting for me. I had rot had
the opportunity to meet with Roger Carlton., not because it
has been his fault. He has tried. I have been -out of town
and just the little time that I have been here, I have not
been able to meet with him. I am not going to get in the
way of holding this us any longer.
gl
47 September 21, 1984
4
Mayor Ferre: This would be a First Reading?
i
Mr. Carollo: Second Reading.
Mayor Ferre: Second Reading - well, what do you want to do?
Mr. Carollo: This is going to be the increase of what
again., Roger?
Mayor Ferre: This sets the rates, that what the issue is
before us.
Mr. Carollo: For the parking garages?
Mr. Carlton_: This is for the parking garages, the surface
lots and the meters.
Mayor Ferre: You are going to be increasing the meters on
the streets?
Mr. Carlton.: Approximately 25% of the meters are being
increased. The bulk of those increases are within_ certain
areas downtown and the Civic Center. There is no ...
Mayor Ferre: Are any of the rates going to be increased in
the so-called commercial areas outside of the downtown core?
f, s Specifically, any place in Coconut Grove, Little Havana,
Allapattah, or Liberty City?
Mr. Carlton.: There is Coconut Grove, Little Havana, Garment
Center, Allapattah, all of those remain the same. There is
no change in those areas in, the meters.
i
Mr. Carollo: The only increase will be in the downtown. or
�. Civic Center areas?
Mr. Carlton: And Jackson. Memorial, yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: And Jackson Memorial. Okay, I will go with
that. I will make the motion for you, Roger.
Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a ...
Mr. Perez: What is the average increase, 25%?
t
Mr. Carlton.: In. those areas, some of the rates in. downtown_ �
have gore up from 25 cents to 50 cents an hour; some from 60
cents to $1.00, so in terms of percentage, it is large, but p;
in terms of how rates increase every three or five years, 1`
that is how it works.
Mr. Carollo: Did you say up to $1.00 for an. hour?
Mr. Carlton.: Most of the meters today in downtown are
already a $1.00 an, hour except ...
Mr. Carollo: That is getting even worse than the darn
parking garages! At least there, if you stay all day, it
costs you $6.00.
Mr. Plummer: No, not any more!
Mr. Carollo: With you it would be $24.001
Mr. Plummer: No, it is now $2.00 an hour.
Mr, Carlton.: Yes, sir, the garage is the lowest garage rate
that we have today.
Id 48 September 21, 1984
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me say this to you. I will go along
with the garage rates, as there I think we are in the
ballpark with private enterprise, but I am not voting to
increase one additional penny in the parking meters, based
upon what you are telling me. I was not aware that it was
up to $1.00 in some areas already.
Mr. Carlton: Commissioner, the rates in approximately 70%
of the meters downtown. - the only place it is $1.00 is
downtown - have been $1.00 an hour for two to three years.
l They have already been much.
Mr. Carollo: Roger, and people wonder why we don't have
citizens going to downtown to shop anymore?
Mr. Carlton: I don't wart to be argumen.tive, but the or
street meter is the cheapest place to park today. The
garages are 75 cents a half-hour, or $1 .50 an. hour, so the
' garages are more expensive.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor I'd like to amend m motion_ to
include everything but the y
y g parking meters
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion that we approve
the ordinance on everything but parking meters. Is there a
second?
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Second by Commissioner Perez, is there further
discussion.?
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I think they wart that on an
emergency basis.
Mayor Ferre: No, no. It is Second Reading.
Mr. Plummer: No, they wart to eliminate the 30 day wait.
Mr. Carlton_: That is a separate issue. That has to do with
the month ...
Mr. Plummer: So they can implement by October 1st.
Mr. Carlton: What we have here is an ordinance or. Second
Reading, which is being amended by deletion_ of the increase
in that portion which is surface meters. Are we ready to
read that and vote on it, Madam City Attorney?
Mr. Carlton: May I make one comment before that vote, Mr.
Mayor?
Mr. Perez: How much are they paying now? The increase you
say is 50 cents? How much are they paying now?
Mr. Carlton_: The bulk of the meters on 8th Street if I
remember, are 60 cents an. hour. May I make one comment on
Mr. Perez: I would like that you clarify me. I don't wart
you to charge to another issue. How much do they pay in
Little Havana at this time?
Mr. Carlton.: 50 cents per hour.
Mr. Perez: How much did they pay in the last budget?
Mr. Carlton: Last year, I think it went up from 25 cents to
50 cents, and it is staying at 50 cents this year.
ld 49 September 21, 1984
9�_
Mr. Perez: But at the last budget it was 50 cents? At this
time they pay 50 cents?
i
1 Mr. Carlton.: Per hour, yes, your honor, on S. W. 8th
Street. On. Commissioner Carollo's comment, I wart to make
ore thing clear. This budget has been reviewed entirely,
including the raise, by the Advisory Committee comprised of
members of the Downtown Merchant's Business Association, and
they have approved it. I know the Commissioner is
concerned, but the merchant's group has reviewed and
approved these rates.
3
Mayor Ferre: The merchants in. Little Havana?
Mr. Carlton: No, I am talking about in downtown. This is
nothing that the merchants are opposing at all sir, because
they know that these revenues are being used in their
neighborhood.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Carlton., you have Commissioner Carollo who
made a motion_. If he wishes to charge that motion., he is
entitled to do that. In. the meantime, I have on emergency
basis, a motion., and it is being seconded by Commissioner
Perez, so I assume he is going to vote for it, without any
increase in the surface meters anywhere. That was the
motion that was made.
Mr. Perez: I would like, if it is possible to defer to the
next Commission meeting, and to have the opportunity to then
meet with each member of this Commission_, because I think
that we have to giver, an explanation to these people,
especially in our reighborhoods. How would you explain that
they have to pay $1.00 per hour for a parking meter? I
would like to discuss that one personally.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion that this item be continued.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, we have always extended the
courtesy to any colleague that has asked for one deferment.
He has asked for it first, and I will second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on being continued? Call
the roll or. the continuance.
MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM, AFTER BEING DULY
MADE AND SECONDED WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Perez: I vote yes, and I would like Mr. Carlton to try
to make contact with us to discuss this issue before the
next Commission_ meeting.
ld 50 September 21, 1984
It
3. RESCHEDULING OF OCTOBER 11 MEETING TO OCTOBER 10, 1984.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, could it be included in your call
that the meeting of October 11th be moved up to October
10th? May I make a motion in this form, Mr. Mayor, that if
nobody has any conflicts of October 10th instead of 11th,
that it be approved? I need to be out of town on the 11th
of October. I am asking the meeting be moved up one day to
the 10th. Mr. Mayor, I am your delegate to the Florida
League of Cities Convention or. October 11th, 12th and 13th
and the resolutions committee which will be handling the
issue relating to cable television. will be coming up on
Thursday, and I think it is very important to this
Commission_ that I be there.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion that the meeting of the 11th
be charged to October 10th, unless by Monday at 5:00 P.M.
any member of this Commission has any problem with that
date.
Mr. Plummer: I accept that.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, is there a second?
Mr. Carollo: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion., call the roll.
The following resolution_ was introduced by Commissioner
Plummer, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-1081
A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 11,
1984 TO TAKE PLACE ON OCTOBER 10, 1984
AT 9:00 A.M.
(Here follows body of resolution.,
omitted here and on file in the Office
of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the
resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
4. CONTINUE LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY: MOTION OF INTENT
REGARDING FORMER CHIEF HARMS SPEAKING FREELY; AUTHORIZE
RETENTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ON RECOMMENDATION OF CITY
ATTORNEY; DECLARE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
FROM MIKE COSGROVE.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Hurtgen.
ld
51 September 21, 1984
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I will respond to the issue since it is
addressed to Howard Gary. Pursuant to Section. 14 of the
Charter, Mr. Mayor, this City Commission has invited Mr.
Harms to come and testify. Mr. Harms has the right and come
and testify, and just like anybody else, and if Mr. Harms is
going to come before this body and testify in a responsible
fashion_, he should not reed any conditions that would allow
him to do such. To put the onus on the City Manager for
decisions and responsibilities of Mr. Harms or anybody is
unfair, so therefore, I would rot give him any conditions.
Mayor Ferre: All right now, wait a minute ...
Mr. Carollo: Does that statement apply to Capt. Cosgrove
i al so?
1 Mr. Gary: Mr. Hurtgen.s has responded to you with regard to
1 Mr. Cosgrove and that is the position of the City Manager
and the Chief.
i
1 Mr. Carollo: Okay, Mr. Mayor, the Manager has stated his
position. on Mike Cosgrove. What I would like to do now, to
resolve this apparent legal conflict of interest that we
have.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, please. Let me do this, Joe,
because ... now we have ... there is rot conflict at this
point. There might be in a moment. There is a request
here by Mr. Falk and Josephberg to have his client - that
the City of Miami specifically waive - I will read it again:
"that the City of Miami would be willing to enter into an
addendum, that would allow him (Harms) to speak to the
Commission without fear of reprisal or fines or any attempts
by the parties to the agreement to argue that Mr. Harms has
breached set agreement." Is there a motion to that effect?
Mr. Carollo: So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded. Now, Mr.
Hurtgens, this is a motion of intent, which of course, tr-
City, with your counsel will have to put it in the proper
legal language.
Mr. Hurtgen_ : Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Is there any discussion on the motion_?
Mr. P]ummer: I would like to ask the opinion of the City
Attor,ey if it creates any problems for this Commission.,
othe- than what you have stipulated in your earlier memo?
Mrs. Dougherty: I would assume that there is a measure of
reciprocity that Mr. Harms would also stipulate that the
City would not be held liable.
Mayor Ferre: Of course.
Mrs. Dougherty: And in which case, I am sure that I car
come to some sort of a stipulation..
Mayor Ferre: And let the record reflect, and I would like
to ask the maker of the motion, Mr. Carollo, and the
seconder, Mr. Perez, if there motion includes a reciprocal
agreement on. Harm's part.
Mr. Carollo: Certainly.
Mayor Ferre: Do you agree with that, Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? All right, call the roll.
ld September 21, 1984
52-53
The following motion_ was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 84-1082
A MOTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY
COMMISSION CONCERNING A POSSIBLE
ADDENDUM TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY MANAGER HOWARD GARY AND
FORMER POLICE CHIEF KENNETH HARMS
STIPULATING THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEDES
TO REQUEST KENNETH HARMS TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT A SPECIAL
COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ONGOING INQUIRY INTO
MATTERS CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IF BOTH KENNETH HARMS AND HOWARD GARY
WOULD STIPULATE RECIPROCALLY NOT TO
HARASS ONE ANOTHER.
Upon_ being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
motion was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: Understanding that it is limited to the scope
of this investigation which we are speaking to, I vote
"yes".
Mayor Ferre: I want to make sure that we understand that as
we ask questions of Mr. Harms, if issues that are related to
the general subject of the Police Department come up,
because I don't wart to be under the constraint if it was
rot previously stipulated that we carat get into that. I
wart to make it abundantly clear that the legislative intent
is to waive, as the letter said, to get an addendum that
would allow Mr. Harms and this Commission_ to speak freely.
I vote "yes".
Mr. Plummer : Mr. Mayor, then for the record, let me ask -
Madam City Attorney, it is my understanding by the motion_
just passed that this Commissior, and only this Commission
has waived that portion of the settlement. It has not been
waived by Mr. Gary, or Chief Breslow, is that correct?
Mrs. Dougherty: That is my understanding.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me make it doubly clear that I think
it is the clear legislative intent that we carrot speak for
anybody but the City of Miami. We obviously carat speak for
either Chief Breslow or Manager Howard Gary on this
particular issue, because that is a personal matter. Now ..
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. The only reason. I bring
that up - it is my understanding, basically, that that
agreement and that particular section did not refer to the
Commission, it referred to the two individuals.
Mayor Ferre: I understand.
ld 54 September 21, 1984
k Al
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
Mayor Ferre: But the question is, if there is a liability.
which may or may not be clear, and it certainly not clear to
me, and specifically the attorney for Harms has asked for a
specific addendum so that he can come and testify, so that
is what we are doing here. Now, Mr. Hurtgen., previous to
our breaking up for your discussion., I asked you if you had
if you would have a conflict when you reached this point,
and we have, I assume, reached this point, so at this point
now, you have to represent ...
Mr. Hurtger_: I cannot represent both the Commission_ and the
Board of Inquiry and the Administratior. ...
Mayor Ferre: You can't represent the City of Miami.
Mr. Hurtgen.: I am sorry - the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, and the individuals, so then you will
have to tell us who you are now ...
Mr. Carollo: Can't dance the devil and God at the same
time.
Mayor Ferre: You have to tell us who you are representing
now.
Mr. Hurtgen.s: Well, normally the client picks, but Mr. Gary
has asked that I represent him, as it relates to the Harms
settlement.
Mayor Ferre: I think it would have to be, Mr. Hurtgen.s,
either you represent the City, or you don't, and I think it
has to be ... I don't think that we can have a situation
where you would represent the City on some things and not on
the other, so you have to represent the City or you have to
represent Mr. Gary. That it is something that you have to
decide. Whatever you decide is fire.
Mr. Hurtgen.: I am not understanding your question, your
Honor. Are you talking about with regards to the issues
relating to this addendum that is sought by Mr. Harm's
attorney - that settlement?
Mayor Ferre: Oh, no, I am going much further than. that.
Mr. Hurtger_: You are talking about any and all actions or
legal matters?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, well that decision_ is something that the
City Commission has to decide.
Mr. Hurtgen.: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: In. other words, we decide who represents the
City.
Mr. Hurtgen.: That is correct, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And that is something that we can talk about
later on., but at this time, as far as this particular issue,
you would be representing Mr. Gary.
Mr. Hurtgen: He has asked that I do so.
Mayor Ferre: All right, he is entitled to do that. You are
entitled to represent him. I assume that the same thing is
true of the Chief?
ld 55 September 21, 1984
Mr. Hurtgens: I don't think the Chief is involved in this
issue. _
Mayor Ferre: Chief is not involved? Okay. Now, so
therefore the City ... you no longer represent the City in
this particular matter. —.
Mr. Hurtgens: That is right.
Mayor Ferre: I am limiting it just for this matter for now.
Mr. Hurtgens: Right, that is correct, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Then., on that basis, I think we reed a motion
that the City retain special counsel or this matter and on
the matter of the continuing this Board of Inquiry. I would
like to point out that there is precedent in our country for
this, that legislative bodies, in the past, when they get _
into inquiries and matters, I mentioned a couple of hours
ago the most dramatic case of course being Watergate, where
a ... and by the way, ever. though I know that the common
call for this is Motorgate, I think that is a very
inappropriate name for this whole matter. There is no _
clear indication at this point that there is any kind of a
pattern similar to Watergate in this case. There has beer a
coverup which has been alleged and concluded by the Police
Department, but I don't think it can be in any way be called
a Watergate, but there have been cases legislative bodies
have appointed in Boards of Inquiries, special counsel. I
think in this case we are going to have to do that. I am
not at this time prepared to name anybody in particular, but
I would like the advice of our City Attorney in this matter,
and I think when we next meet, we can discuss the issue and
appoint a special attorney. We reed a motion if that ...
Mr. Carollo: I am in full agreement with ,you. I will make
the motion., Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second?
Mr. Perez: I think it is fair, the motion and the
recommendation. - of course I second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption_:
MOTION NO. 84=1083
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH AND RECOMMEND
TO THE COMMISSION THE NAME OF A SPECIAL
COUNSEL TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ONGOING ISSUE OF THE
COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO MATTER
PERTAINING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
motion was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ld 56 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, where do we stand as far as hearing
Kerr.eth Harms?
Mayor Ferre: I think Lucia, you will have to now call, if
you would, Mr. Falk and/or Mr. Josephberg and inform them of
what has transpired here and we have to go up and get an
answer from them, and if Mr. Harms find that to be
acceptable, then_ we will meet. He says he can only be here
during the weekend, so we will meet tomorrow, and if he
doesn't find it acceptable, then that is the end of the
issue.
Mrs. Dougherty: Do you wart to wait to ...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I would like to go on the record to
state that I will. not be here tomorrow, I have already made
a previous arrangement and I don't intend to break it.
Mr. Carollo: We can understand that, Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I spoke to you. Would you respond?
Mayor Ferre: I accept that and I ...
Mr. Dawkins: If the Vice -Mayor would like to
respond ... (INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion on this issue.
We have already voted on this.
Mr. Carollo: You mad at me about something, Miller?
Mayor Ferre: What?
Mr. Carollo: You mad at me about something?
Mayor Ferre: The only question. that I have left, and then. I
think we reed to conclude this for now, is Mr. Dunlap, let
me get you back here so I can ask you questions. I
previously asked you if you had any knowledge of any
specific offer that there was an attempt by the City, or by
agents of the City to make an offer to negotiate and whether
in review of all those files there were any indication of
coverup. As I recall, you ar_swered you knew of no such
thing, but you have only had knowledge of this just
recently. There period we defined that is 1984. Now, you
are still under oath. My question to you, sir is, since the
suit was entered in August 18th of 1983, you did not know
anything about this suit.. This was not brought to your
attention, or to Mr. Garcia' s attention.. You did not
discuss this with him, or with anybody in the
Administration.
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir, I did not say I did not know anything
about the suit prior to 1984. If I did, please forgive me
for misleading you. I have approximately 1800 files over in..
the office that are active and current. This is one of
them. When we do an analysis for budget projection., when
we do forecasting - we did an insurance policy, we go back,
we review. We had a file we inherited from the City
Attorney's office when the investigative function was moved
over. I did review the file. You asked me
Mayor Ferre: You did review the file?
Mr. Dunlap: Yes, sir.
ld
57 September 21, 1984
l
Mayor Ferre: Before 19849
Mr. Dunlap: I would believe so. I don't know when. I first
saw it. I carat recall it.
Mayor Ferre: When you reviewed the files, did you find in
that file any discussion or any implication directly or
indirectly dealing with the coverup?
Mr. Dunlap: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: So you had no knowledge, directly/ or
indirectly? Who in the Law Department did you discuss, this
matter with after the filing of the August lawsuit? Did an
attorney from the Law Department call you up?
Mr. Dunlap: I would imagine I talked to several attorneys.
Mayor Ferre: Do you remember any specific attorney that you
discussed?
j Mr. Dunlap: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Do you know who handled the
Mr. Dunlap: Excuse me, let me charge that. I discussed all
large files with Mr. Clark vher we go over that for closure.
We discussed open files. My investigative routine inquiry
in the Law Department says the file is still open.. We have
a current reserve or this, is it adequate, any charges, can
we close our files, that type of thing. I may have talked to
an attorney. It may have been anyone who litigated, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Let me get the name on the record. Mrs.
Dougherty, what was the name of t•he attorney who is handling
this case in August of 1983 ...
Mrs. Dougherty: Richard Graddack.
Mayor Ferre: Graddack. Did you discuss this at any time
with Mr. Richard Graddack?
Mr . Dunlap: Most likely, sir. I can't recall any specific
conversation.
Mayor Ferre: When you discussed it with Mr. Graddack, at
any time, did you discuss the issue of a potential coverup?
-'' Mr. Dunlap: I can't recall the specifics of any
conversation with Mr. Graddack or. it.
Mayor Ferre: Did Mr. Graddack ever tell you that he was
going to try to make an offer to settle it? Did he discuss
with you the range and the price of the settlement?
Mr. Dunlap: He could have, sir. I don't recall the
conversation if he did.
Mayor Ferre: Well, would you think that a settlement in
excess of $500,000 is something that should perk up your
ears?
Mr. Dunlap: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: How many times do you discuss settlements of
that magnitude during a year?
Mr. Dunlap: Usually sir, I wind up figuring out how to pay
for them.
ld 58 September 21, 1984
Mr. Dunlap: No, I am sorry, sir...
Mayor Ferre: The question to you, sir, is how many times
during the course of the year do you discuss settlements of
that kind of a magnitude? Once, a hundred?
Mr. Dunlap: We discuss potential claims at least once a
year at closing time.
Mayor Ferre: My question, to you again, Mr. Dunlap is, how
many times during the course of an average year do you
discuss with a City Attorney a settlement in excess of
$500,000? Is that ... does it happen all the time?
Mr. Dunlap: No, no, I hope not!
Mayor Ferre: Is it a rare occasion_? Is it rare to discuss
a settlement of $500,000 or more?
Mr. Dunlap: Sir, the City Attorney, when, claims are in that
range, the case is going to be in. litigation.. The file
doesn't belong to us at that point, it belongs to the City
Attorney and they handle it completely. We do discuss it,
and we do assist them in. investigation. Our investigators
are available to them.
Mayor Ferre: Now answer my question_, Mr. Dunlap.
Mr. Dunlap: I would say very infrequently, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Very infrequently, all right. So, if a case
of that magnitude were discussed with you, it seems to me
that probably you would have some recollection., since it has
been within a year - a year, 13 months to be exact. So now
my question again is, when you discussed this with Mr.
Graddack within the last thirteen months, was there any
discussion_ at any time in your mind as to a coverup?
Mr. Dunlap: Sir, as I said before, I don't recall any
specific discussions on the case with Mr. Graddack. I am
sure we may have had some, I just don't recall them, I am
sorry.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you Mr. Dunlap.
Mr. Dunlap: Very good, thank you.
Mr. Carollo: Before we get into a couple of other areas
here, and I don't want him to wait all right, I don't think
it would be fair for him - if I could ask Assistant Chief
Warshaw to come back up again_. Mr. Clerk, would he be
construed as still being under oath or would we have to
swear him in again, if he would like to?
Mr. On.gie: If he agrees that he is, yes.
Mr. Carollo: Chief Warshaw, since you have been in. charge
' of Internal Security or Internal Affairs, how many times do
you recall having directed an investigation or over -ruled
the findings, or conclusions of an. Internal Security
investigation.?
Chief Warshaw: I really wouldn't recall the numbers.
Traditionally, that doesn't occur. I am fairly satisfied
that we have competent people in In.tern.al Security and I
have been generally satisfied with that work product.
ld 59 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: All right, in this particular case, did you it
any way, shape, or form direct anything having to do with
the investigation, or help direct any conclusions that
Internal Security came to?
Chief 4arshaw: Conclusions? No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: How about directing of the investigation?
Chief Warshaw: Generally, no, but I am sure in the course
of an investigation_ of that length, I am sure I did impart
my thoughts on one element or the other. I can't
particularly equate to something specifically.
Mr. Carollo: But, you recollect enough that you are saying
that you feel that you did give some input as to the
direction_ of the investigation?
Chief. Warshaw: I am sure I did, sure.
Mr. Carollo: Do you recollect what areas you gave that
input to, to direct the investigation which way?
Chief. Warshaw: Not specifically, but certainly in the
directiorof the truth.
Mr. Carollo: Did you receive any informatior during the
first part of this year, or the later part of last year as
to there being any witness, confidential informants, that
had giver information_ to the Miami Police Department on vice
on political corruption in the City of Miami government,
whether elected, or appointed?
Chief. Warshaw: Not that I can recall, sir.
Mr. Carollo: You don't recall receiving any kind of
hk information relating to some informants or witnesses that
had giver information to the Miami Police Department or vice
and of political corruption. in City government?
Chief. Warshaw: That is a very broad area and certainly in
my business we hear a lot of things, but at this time it is
not ringing in terms of something specific, no, sir.
Mr. Carollo: It doesn't ring in anything specific?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Were you ever asked by a superior to bring any
ir_foT-mation to another agency, namely, Florida Department of
Law Enforcement, dealing with information., on vice on
political corruption., this year or late last year?
Chief Warshaw: I think I know what you are referring to now,
Commissioner, and what you are referring to is something
that yes, I recommended be brought to the attention_ of the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Mr. Carollo: Let me recollect your memory. This is Page
18, Number 11 of a memorandum that was dated February 13,
1984 from Kenneth Harms. It states:
"I now have reason for concern that you were
informed as to the status of an on—g�irg
investigation on vice and political corruption and
privy to information. that I ir_structed one of my
assistants, Warshaw, to ask the Florida Department
of Law Enforcemert to initiate ar. investigation.
I believe you also may have been fully aware that
Warshaw delayed many weeks in contacting the
ld 60 September 21, 1984
Florida Departmert of Law Enforcement, and that
not long before you fired me, I gave him an
ultimatum to carry out my orders. Warshaw was not
privy to all of my information. Now, however, you
have access to my files, rotes and memos. This
gives not only the names of at least two
confidential informants with a great deal to lose,
with an outline of the direction_ this
investigation has taken."
Did you ever happen_ to read this before, or hear about this?
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: okay, what is this all about, Assistant Chief
Warshaw?
Chief Warshaw: Then. Chief Harms discussed a matter with me,
not in any detail. To this day, quite frankly, sir, I am
not certain_ as to what he was talking about . He seemed to
have something very determined on his mind. I suggested to
him because of his uncertainty, because he was certainly not
being comprehensive about it, that perhaps we would want to
bring that to the attention of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. That was my suggestion_. As a result of that
suggestion, I directly called the Director of Criminal
Investigations from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement and advised him that it was then, Chief Harm's
request that the next time that he was in town., that we
would sit down and discuss a matter, the details of which I
was not certain_ then_, and not certain now, and that was the
end of it, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Did you come into possession of the names of
any witness relating to this information?
Chief Warshaw: Witnesses? No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Confidential informants?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Were you at any time during this past year
informed, either by witness, cor.fider_tial informants, or
your superiors, informed as to whether there were people in
this City Administration_ that were receiving kickbacks for
loan sharking and kickbacks for illegal gambling going on in
the City?
Mr. Warshaw: I've never heard that, sir.
Mr. Carollo: You have never heard that?
Chief Warshaw: Never.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, the information. that I just read here,
on vice and political corruption_, the allegations that
former Chief Harms made, are you aware of who they involved?
Chief Warshaw: No. In_ my discussions with Chief Harms, he
mentioned one name to me, not a member of this Commission.,
not a member of this Administration_. I don't even know who
this person. is. I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.
Mr. Carollo: But, at no time at all were you given the
name, or names of anyone from this Commission, or this City
Administration?
Chief Warshaw: No, sir.
Id 61 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: I think what is here is vice and political
corruption. For it to state political corruption has to
mean. ... and you are a smart fellow, to jump from regular
police officer to assistant chief over right without having
come through the ranks, you can't be too dumb Bob. I think
you understand that that means people in politics and rot
lay people, and outside of the members of the Commission,,
and the Manager and some people on his staff, there aren't a
hell of a lot of other people in this City government that
car_ be construed as being politicians. During the course of
1979 to the present course of your duties, first as a police
officer, then_ as an. Assistant Police Chief that if any time
you received any information., either From confidential
informants, witnesses, your superiors, other law enforcement
agencies, or any other member of the Miami Police
Department, that there was illegal drug usage by any member
of this Commission, or this Administration?
Chief Warshaw: Again., as a matter of principle, if I may say
this, Commissioner, it is difficult to answer these kinds of
questions, because I would hate, as a law enforcement
official in the future to be placed in that position_, if in
fact, we were running an investigation, but for the purposes
of this investigation.,
Mrs. Dougherty: Commissioner Carollo, if I car interrupt
you for just one minute, it would be illegal for him to
comment on any pending investigations, and for that
reason...
Mr. Carollo: Well, I am well aware of that, City Attorney,
but see what is happening in this Commission for the last
few years is that every time that you start getting close to
the skeletons in the closet, people start throwing this
Berlin Wall. You can't touch it, because the State
Attorney's office is investigating it, or there is an
official investigation going on.. Then_ what happens?
Everything is tucked very nicely and neat under the rug, and
nothing is ever done. That is why people in law enforcement,
people, including inside that State Attorney's office have
come to me out of frustration of the kind of coverups that
are going on in this town.. Now, since there is no on -going
investigation in. the City of Miami Police Department, nor by
the State Attorney's office; in fact those would be the last
two places that you would have an investigation coming from.
It shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately, it is. I don't
think that the Assistant Police Chief is in any jeopardy of
violating Florida law by answering my questions. Now, I
could understand if he has very bad memory and can't
recollect.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Has it been established that
there is an ongoing investigation?
Mr. Carollo: No, there is none.
Mayor Ferre: Well then. I don't understand why, Lucia, just
explain that to me. You said that he carat answer that,
because there is an. investigation. Are you privy to an.
investigation.?
Mrs. Dougherty: No, I said if there was an. on -going ...
Mayor Ferre: If there were.
Mrs. Dougherty: Then he couldn't answer it.
Mayor Ferre: Is there an, investigation going or_?
Mrs. Dougherty: He can't admit it if there was.
ld
62 September 21, 1984
R
i
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see. In other words, if there were, he
cannot admit it. So, can he answer the questions?
Mr. Carollo: If there are or. -going investigations, there is
nothing in Florida law that states that statements can't
made that there are investigations. There is, however, a
stipulation in the law that you can't talk about them. Am I
correct or not, Madam Attorney?
j Mrs. Dougherty: Just a minute, Commissioner Carollo.
Chapter 112.533 provides that any person_ who willfully
i discloses or permits to be disclosed his intention to file a
j complaint, or the existence of a complaint, which has been
filed with any agency, which before it becomes a public
record, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Mr. Carollo: That is a complaint,
an
correct? ... that has to be filed b someone.
official complaint,
y oney questions
are .. .
Mrs. Dougherty: Or any documents, actions, proceedings, in
connection with the cor.fider.tial ir_terr.al investigation of
an agency.
i
Mr. Carollo: Can you read that again., Madam City Attorney.
If you could speak into the microphone.
Mrs. Dougherty: "Any person who willfully discloses or
permits to be disclosed his intention to file a complaint,
the existence of a complaint, which been filed, or any
document, action., proceeding, in connection with any
confidential internal investigation of any agency, before
such complaints, documents, actions, proceedings become
public record as provided herein, is guilty of a
misdemeanor".
Mr. Carollo: If you got a copy of that, I would like to go
over it again_, please.
Mrs. Dougherty: You would like me to read it again.?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, because what you are telling me is so
then. ...
Mrs. Dougherty: It is Number 3.
Mr. Carollo: I've seer it here. As the Assistant Chief, by
talking about the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
everything we discussed might have been a borderline case of
this. I can't understand if he discussed the other why he
didn't get into this one.
Chief Warshaw: Mr. Mayor, if I may, let me just clarify,
because the Commissioner is asking a legitimate question. anal
I am sincerely rot trying to evade answering it. What I am
concerned about is, being as I am sure anyone from the
Police Department would be, being in a position of
confirming or denying the existence of what was, and
providing an answer to the positive, or to the affirmative,
and then at some future point, if in fact, it was a sincere
and legitimate law enforcement reason not to acknowledge, I
am concerned about the precedent of doing that. It is just
within the field of law enforcement that is just not the
best way to proceed, so it is not that I am trying to evade
your answer, Commissioner.
Mr. Carollo: I am sure that is not the case Bob. You see,
this talks of what has beer_. We are rot talking about the
present, Madam City Attorney, ai.J I think, by reading this
ld 63 September 21, 1984
4
carefully, I am within order in asking the question that I
did -- what was.
Mrs. Dougherty: I concur with you. We are dealing with
what was investigative and is no longer pending
investigation.. All I want you to be aware of, is if it was
pending, he could not answer it, that is all.
Mr. Carollo: Bob, let's go over that again..
Chief Warshaw: Okay, let's.
Mr. Carollo: We are talking about nor=pen_din.g
investigations.
Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Have you, in the past, received any
information_ relating to the usage of narcotics, whether it
marijuana, cocaine, or other illegal drugs, by any member of
this Commission., the City Administration. Did you receive
any kind of information from anyone within. the Miami Police
Department, his superiors, confidential informants,
witnesses?
Chief Breslow: To the best of my recollection., no.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, now, let's go back to that best part of
your recollection. again.. Have you had any information that
in the past years anyone that has been arrested, lawfully
arrested through the use of political influence, has been
able to call individuals in. the Miami Police Department so
that before that individual or individuals that were legally
and lawfully arrested, before they could be transferred to
Dade County jail, and it become official, that they had been
able to use political influence to get friends unarrested.
Do you know of any instance such as this, that this has
happened? That is a simple question_, Bob.
Chief Breslow: I have no specific recollection_ of that, no,
sir.
Mr. Carollo: You have no specific recollection_ that at any
time, anyone that has been arrested, after being brought to
Miami P.D. headquarters, they were ur_arrested after the
husband of the person. in question was able to call some
political influence in this City government, to get them
ur_arrested.
Chief Breslow: I just cannot relate to that, no.
Mr. Carollo: No recollection at all.
Chief Breslow: I cannot think of that now, no, sir.
Mr. Carollo: All right, then., I have no further questions
at this time. Thank you, sir.
Chief Breslow: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I have one last question., and then. I am going
to ask if other people have more questions. You know that
there were a group of people who were invited here today.
How many people were there in. the restaurant? 259 30?
Other than. Chief and yourself and Captain. Glover and Don.
Dunlap and Mike Cosgrove, none of the others have shown up
today. Now, did you, at any time in, the past few days or
weeks, tell any of these people, directly, or indirectly,
not to show up?
ld 64 September 21, 1984
3
Chief Breslow: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did you at any time advise them of their
rights that they didn't have to show up?
Chief Breslow: I'm not sure that anyone who I have had
dialogue with is on that list.
Mayor Ferre: You would not have told anyone that they need
rot show up, directly, or indirectly. You did not advise
them of their rights?
Chief Breslow: Correct.
a
Mayor Ferre: Wally, why don't you come up and answer that
question for me and I don't reed you under oath, I just wart
i it on the record.
Sgt. Walter Rodak: Walter Rodak, President of the Miami
{ Fraternal Order of Police. Did I advise members not to show
up? Yes, I did. I most certainly did. That was my
j position yesterday, today, and that will be my position
1 tomorrow.
i
Mayor Ferre: Did you discuss that at any time with Chief
Warshaw that you were going to do this?
Sgt. Rodak: No, I did not.
Mayor Ferre: You did not discuss this at any time with any
member of the police administration?
Sgt. Rodak: No, I did not.
Mayor Ferre: At any time?
Sgt. Rodak: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Mr. Eads, you do rot have to go
under oath on this. I just wart to know, did you, at any
time instruct or tell anybody not to come to the Commission.
today?
Mr. Jack Eads: Anyone who was invited, not to come to this
meeting? No, sir, I did not.
Mayor Ferre: Directly, or indirectly.
Mr. Eads: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Did you discuss at any time with any member of
the Police Department, or any employee to tell people not to
show up?
Mr. Eads: No, sir, I did rot.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Eads, since you are up already, I was
going to be asking this question to you later or in some of
the meetings, but since you are up, I have just got one very
brief question_ for you. I dor_'t know if you would mind
going under oath or not ...
Mr. Eads: If that is what you wish, I have no objections.
Mr. Carollo: I wart to make sure that it is stipulated on
the record that you are doing it of your own free will, that
you are not being coerced, forced, or pushed into it.
ld 65 September 21, 1984
.'
Mr. Eads: Yes, sir.
Mr. Orgie: Raise your right hard, please. Do you solemnly
swear that the evidence you are about to give in connection
with this matter is the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Eads: I do.
i
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Eads, in the course of the past mor_ths,
between. January of this year and June of this year, did, at
any time when, some citizens ar.d residents of the City of
Miami come to you out of beir_g outraged that in their
' neighborhoods there was a fortress going up with all kinds
of zonirg violations, that the owner of the piece of real
estate was an ir_dividual that has prior arrest record for
allegations of beirg involved in narcotics, major narcotics,
and they were involved in a very publicized rarcotics it
this town_? Did at any time, when one of these individuals
came to you to complain to you about the zoning violations
in this particular place, did you advise them, or say to
them, in any way, shape or form, that they best, or should
shut up, or not get involved, because these people will kill
? them?
Mr. Eads: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: At no time did you make any statement that
ever_ came close to that?
Mr. Eads: No, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, thank you very much, then..
Mayor Ferre: Anything else?
fir. Carollo: Not at this point in time, but this is getting
interesting.
Mayor Ferre: All right, any other questions of anybody else
on this Board of Inquiry? If not, it is recessed until we
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, Captain_ Glover, I don't know if he
has indicated, or rot if he warted to make any statements?
Mayor Ferre: I asked Capt. Glover, and he decided that he
did not.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, last but not least, I just wart to
establish for the record, and if I may, I would like to do
it in the form of a motion, so there will not be any
miscorceptiors whatsoever. I would like to make a motion
that this Commissicr. would like to hear from Michael
Cosgrove. The reason. I wart to establish this on the record
so that later or., there is no miscor_ception of what we
warted to do or not, or there was a conflict of interest or
not, with other attorneys. My motion is that this
Commission_ would like to hear, in fact, would like to hear
today from Michael Cosgrove. For the record, he is present
here. He has come out of his own free will, and has been
willing to testify before this Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to that motior_? Further
discussion?
Mr. Orgie: Who seconded it?
Mayor Ferre: Perez seconded it.
Id 66 September 21, 1984
ry1\
The following motion_ was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption.:
MOTION NO. 84-1084
A MOTION DECLARING THE DESIRE OF THE
CITY COMMISSION TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM
CAPT. MICHAEL COSGROVE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ONGOING INQUIRY INTO MATTERS
PERTAINING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
motion_ was passed and adopted by the following vote- —
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. -
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. -
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else row?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I think that we have to set a time
for tomorrow's meeting to hear Ken. Harms.
Mayor Ferre: If Mr. Harms is willing to come and testify
tomorrow and answer questions after what has occurred here
today, I will call a Special Commission meeting at 1:00
P.M., Saturday, tomorrow, on the 22rd of September. My
guess is that Ken Harms is not going to be here tomorrow for
that purpose, because of what his attorney specifically
stated, but if it occurs that he decides to come, then we
will met at 1:00 P.M. and we will so inform you, if you will
leave the Clerk your telephone number where you can be
reached in the morning. I will so inform you and we will
post it at the outside here of City Hall, so that the press
will be informed. We will try to reach the major television
and radio channels and newspapers so that they will be
informed, but we will also post it outside of City Hall.
All right, is there anything else?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would only ask sir, that if your
assumption is correct, and there is to be no meeting, that
you would advise the Commission as soon as you became aware
of it, so those of us that have plans ...
Mayor Ferre: J. L., because of the seriousness of this, I
asked of Lucia, and I think Mr. Clark is gore, to call the
attorney to see what the answer is so that we can have it
this evening and not to be worried about it for tomorrow.
But, if we can't get ar answer from the attorney, then. ...
are you ready? Did you call? You have an answer?
Mrs. Dougherty: I have a number on the answering service on
one phone on one lawyer and the other lawyer is on his way
home and his wife took the message to call here.
Mayor Ferre: Well, as soon as we know, if we get an answer
this evening, we will announce it, and if it rot, I am not
going to be calling you to tell you that there is no
meeting. I will, or staff will be calling to tell you there
is a meeting. Otherwise, if there is no meeting, there is
no reed to talk. All right, so we have now concluded. We
now are going to get into the budget.
r
F
ld 67 September 21, 1.984
r
THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO A BRIEF
recess at 8:00 P.M., reconvening at 8:19 P.M. with
all the members of the Commission found to be
present.
1
4_A RESUME PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER TWO ON FY 1984-85 BUDGET.
i-------------------------------------------------------------
S
Mayor Ferre: Okay, we are now into the budget. All right,
Mr. Manager, where did we leave off? Moro, where are we?
Mr. Mor_ohar Surana: We are on Item Number" C", sir.
Mayor Ferre: Item Number "C" deals with the amendment by the
Commission on the budget.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask of the City —
Attorney - Madam City Attorney, as you know, one of my main
problems that I have with budget is relating to the D.D.A.,
which not of their own making, were forced into the General
Budget this year. Madam City Attorney, is it possible that
those things referred to as special taxing district, which
is my understanding, out of the 10 mill cap, is that a
possible thing if it were to be applied to the D.D.A. in
downtown? Ir_ other words, it is my understanding, for
example, in the County that if a giver neighborhood goes --
together, they can create (ard they have many of them)
special taxing districts for, for example, street lighting.
They agree to tax themselves if the County will put in the
street lighting and the County will maintain the street
lighting, they then receive a separate bill just for that
taxing district. Now, my question to you, I don't know the
legislation of the State, but I am asking, is that an
alternative to create in the same boundaries, or somewhat
the same boundaries, a special taxing district for that area
for the purposes of keeping it out of the general mainstream
of the budget. Now, I realize that what I am asking is
somewhat skirting the intent of what the Legislature tried
to do, but it is also my understanding from the Mayor that
there are many people who are going to try and charge that
this coming year, so I am asking is that possible, a special
taxing district?
w
Mrs. Dougherty: That is a very interesting question.. I've
never thought of it, but that is exactly what the
legislation in the first place did, and they have reached
the maximum amount of millage, so what you are asking,
whether or not you car, go back and have another special
taxing district on top of the one they have, and that of
course, would have to go through the County as all special
taxing districts do now, and would have to be approved by a
majority of the people in the district.
Mr. Plummer: Which is the same way with D.D.A.
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you research that legally and give
us an opinion. ...
Mrs. Dougherty: I will do that.
Mayor Ferre: ... because that may be a solution for this
whole D.D.A. problem.
Mrs. Dougherty: That is an interesting question_.
Mayor Ferre: If that is legal, we would have to then go ask
the County and if they were to accept it, ther we could
establish a special taxing district.
ld 68 September 21, 1984
M
Mr. Plummer: You know, we are only doing it if in fact
those people of that district, they can set whatever millage
they wart, but it would not be under the 10 mill cap. That
is where I have the big problem. That is the only question
I have, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I think it is very important that the
Commission look at the September 213t memorandum by Moro
Surana, Director of the Department of Management and Budget,
which basically says that the State of Florida, specifically
the Jeff Binkley, the State Department of Revenue strongly
advises that we adopt a final millage budget at the hearing
scheduled tonight. If the City fails to adopt its millage
and budget tonight, then we must advertise again for our
second public hearing. In addition to advertising again,
the State will review our millage and budget adoption
procedures to determine compliance with Section. 20O.065, and
if the State determines that we failed to comply with the
aforementioned section., we stand to lose both our State
revenue sharing and a half cent sales tax fund, which would
be a loss of 21.7 million_ dollars of our budget. If you
think you got problems row, wait until we find ourselves
without 21.7 million. dollars. All right, we row are in
Section "C". What is the will of this Commission.? Section.
"C" of the budget. Do you mean_ Section "C" of one?
Mr. Surana: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I think meant Section. "D".
Mfr. Surana: "D".
Mayor Ferre: "D", okay. Are there any amendments to the
tentative budget? Are there any amendments to the tentative
budget? Hearing none, then is there a motion. that the
tentative budget be adopted?
Mr. Perez: Well, Mayor, I think that at the last Commission.
meeting, Commissioner Dawkins called the attention of the
Administration in order that the office of the City Manager
try to make contacts with each member of this Commissior in
order to provide more information and more details about the
Possible suggestions. I think that is what he stated in his
motion as was expressed by Commissioner Dawkins it that
Commissiot meeting, but I have not received any more
recommendations about what I suggested, and personally, I
don't think that I am prepared to vote tonight for this
budget.
Mayor Ferre: I wish to reiterate to you that the State of
Florida specifically has ...
Mr. Perez: Yes, but we can reschedule it to another second
meeting.
Mayor Ferre: ... Mr. Binkley has specifically stated, I wart
to read it again into the record that the State of Florida
will review our millage and budget adoption process to
determine compliance with Section. 200.065. Mr. Hinkley has
some serious questions as to whether or not we are row in.
compliance. Mr. Hinkley acknowledged the fact that the
State will try to amend Section. 200.065 to clarify what has
occurred here it the City of Miami. In the meantime, we are
advised that unless we ... strong recommendation that we
adopt a budget and the millage tonight. Now, I think that
would be the height of irresponsibility on our part
collectively to jeopardize in any way 21.7 million dollars.
ld 69 September 21, 1984
r
I would suggest that we can always, as we go along, amend
the budget. If you are not satisfied with the distribution
of the money within the budget - at any time that any member
of this Commission_, during the budget year wishes to amend
the budget of any department, we have the authority to so
do. Is that correct, Moro?
Mr. Surar.a: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: At any time that you wish to redistribute the
monies that are allocated under this budget, that car_ be
done. I therefore would recommend, so as not to jeopardize
State funds that we adopt the budget as recommended by the
Manager. Any time in the future - next week, next month, or
two months from now, if you wish to charge the budget, this
Commission can always charge the budget for what is
remaining, obviously, of the fiscal year. You carat change
the budget for the past, you can only charge the budget of
the future. Is that right, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Gary: That is correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Perez: It is not a final reading of the budget?
Mayor Terre: It is final adoption of the budget,
Commissioner Perez, but at any time, any member of this
Commission_ can ask for a rehearing of any section_ of the
budget and three members of this Commission in their
majority can vote for a charge of any budget item that has
been previously voted upon, so you are free to charge the
budget anytime during the year, for what is left of the
budget year. Obviously, if you do it at the eleventh month,
you can only change eleven -twelfths of the budget. If you
do it on the second month, when you have got ten months
left, you can change ten/twelfths of the budget.
Mr. Perez: Can we approve only one -twelfth of the budget?
Mayor Ferre: You can no longer, on the laws of Florida,
approve one -twelfth of the budget like we used to do. When
we used to get into these impasses, Plummer and I and the
rest of this Commission would go into these one -twelfth
budgets and sometimes, as I remember, we went as deep as
December.
Mr. Plummer: And I can also remember sometime we went on a
weekly budget.
Mayor Ferre: That is right, we passed a budget one week to
another, and then. I think I remember one time we even went
as deep as December. We can no longer do that under the
law. So, I would strongly urge that we adopt this budget
tonight, and that if you wish to charge it, that we ca
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification., let me ask
of the Administration or whoever can answer, I was told that
the deadline was October 9th. Are we now saying that that
is in fact not true?
Mayor Ferre: I will tell you what, J. L. It is so
important, that I would like to read this whole thing in its
entirety into the record so that we all clearly understand,
and Moro, you are putting us right behind the eight -ball,
and you had better answer.
ld 70 September 21, 1984
"In. an effort to obtain clarification as to
whether or not the City must adopt a final and
millage budget at its scheduled second public
hearing, I asked Renee S. Jones of my staff to
pose this question to Jeff Binkley, State
Department of Revenue, Division of Ad Valorum Tax.
Per Mr. Birkley, Sections 200.065 requires that
you adopt a final millage and budget at the second
hearing. It was brought to Mr. Bin.kley' s
attention_ that the statutes do not address how to
handle the hearings if the City Commission_ cannot
make a final decision_ on its millage and budget.
Mr. Binkley acknowledged the fact that the State
will try to amend Section. 200.065 to clarify this
issue. Upon. informing Mr. Bir.kley that the City
of Miami continued its second public hearing, he
strongly advised that we adopt a final millage and
budget at the hearing scheduled for tonight. If
the City fails to adopt its millage and budget
tonight, then_ we must advertise again for our
second public hearing, in addition to advertising
again, the State will review our millage and
budget adoption process to determine compliance
with Section. 200.065. If the State determines
that we failed to comply with the aforementioned
section., we stand to lose our State revenue
sharing and the one-half cent sales tax fund of
21.7 million. dollars. The State will call the
Department of Management and Budget or Monday,
September 24th to find out what actio•!, i P u==v was
taken by the City Commission to right, September
21, 1984."
Now, what that means, in clear English, as far as I am
concerned, is that we are ... this is a very dangerous
position to be in and that we should adopt this budget
tonight. I would strongly recommend that we do so, as
recommended by the Manager, and that we can address any
charges in the future wherever any member of the Commission
wishes to, upon_ the vote of three members or more of this
Commission..
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I once again ask my question, and
ask for an. answer.
Mr. Surar.a: The answer to your question., Commissioner, is
that government has to follow the set rules of the
schedule, what they say is the rule is that within_ 100 days
of the receiving the tax roll the local government must
submit a final millage to property appraisar office and the
100 days is October 9th, but to adopt the budget and the
millage, you must follow another set of rules that says that
you have got to have the first public hearing on such and
— such days; second public hearing on such and such day.
Mr. Plummer: You see, I am reading very carefully here and
I am also reading that which you underlined. Ir_ fact by
- this memo you have put us on notice tonight, we are in
serious jeopardy tonight, whether we do anything - if we had
not met this evening, because ...
Mayor Ferre: We will be in further jeopardy, worse jeopardy
tomorrow!
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, this memo, if in fact has
teeth to it, and the wording scheduled is underlined - I am
assuming that is the emphasis placed upon. it. The seconded
scheduled hearing was on Tuesday.
Mayor Ferre: But we continued it.
ld 71 September 21, 1984
Mr. Plummer: We continued it, but if I am reading here,
that means that we are in the jeopardy from last Tuesday
night, because that was the schedule.
Mayor Ferre: That is right.
Mr. Suran.a: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: But I think, what I also read in this is that
if we continue this, you know, the question_ of jeopardy
M becomes ever more serious. In_ other words, what I think the
State is telling us is look, we are or the border lire.
Okay, so let me specify what, to make sure that we
ur_derstar_d. See, what we are talking about is State revenue
sharing and the half -cent sales tax fund, so it doesn't ...I
mean., for those cities that don't wart to share in the sale
and the ore -half cent sales tax fund, and don't wart to
share State revenues, then_ there is no problem. So, that is
the only thing that is really involved in, this. I mean_, it
is only 21.7 million. dollars!
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, let me put it this way. I
saved the City at the last budget hearing how many million
dollars by my motion?
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you save us some more money?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think maybe somebody else should have
the opportun.ityl
------------------------------------------o__---------------
5. DISCUSSION OF GARBAGE FEES, CURBSIDE PICKUPS AND
FAILURE OF FIRST ATTEMPT TO PASS MILLAGE ORDINANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------a-
Mayor Ferre: I will be happy to do so, sirl I pass the
gavel on to you, Commissioner Perez and I move that the City
of Miami adopt a budget as presented by the City Manager.
Mr. Gary: You are adopting the amount of millage.
Mayor Ferre: It says here 11D.111, amend and adopt ...
Mr. Gary: No, you are on. "D.3".
Mayor Ferre: Adopt the final millage rate. Okay, I am
sorry, I stand corrected. I am now going to make a motion
for an. ordinance ... right? This is ordinance what, Moro?
Mr. Suran.a: I've got Number 4.
Mr. Gary: 4, right in your backup package, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: An ordinance defining and designating the
terretorial. I move Item Number 4. Now, this is the
f millage.
Mr. Dawkins: I am going to second it for discussion.. That
doesn't necessarily mean I am going to vote for it.
Mr. Perez: There is a motion and a second. Further
discussion.?
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary and Mr. Moro, you have done the same
thing to me as you did to the voters. When you put that
curbside pickup in there, you worded it so that people
couldn't say no. Now, you bring me a memo and put the
t
ld 72 September 21, 1984
monkey on my back that I am going to cost the city 21
million_ dollars if I do not vote for your budget. Although
ever since we started budget hearings, I constantly told you
things that I was rot going to vote with, and you constantly
told me it was that or rothirg! So, I don't see where I
jeopardized the budget. I see where you jeopardized the
budget by us rot compromising, but yet tonight, nobody is
saying that Mr. Gary refused to negotiate - he said "Hell,
this is it or nothing". So now, I still think that I see r_o
need for ro $60 increase in garbage, and I still say that,
and I am not saying it because of these fellows out here. I
± am saying it because I don't wart to pay the $601 Ard I
feel that there are other residents in the City who do not
want to pay $60, so I am going to, if ... you smile pretty
over there, that let's me know that you agree, but if you
rear back in your chair and look ugly, that means you don't
agree, so what I am going to say to you is, I am going to
pass your budget, I am goirg to pass whatever we have to
pass with one stipulation. - that's between now and January,
I think the garbage rate is put or people's taxes twice a
year, is that right or wrong?
Mr. Gary: That is correct.
Mr. Dawkins: So I am going to pass this with the
understar_dirg hoping that in Jar_uary, you will come back to
me, to this Commission and demonstrate to me that you don't
have anything left over and that you really and truly had to
use that $60 - $30, if we are going to do it in two
increments.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: And also at that time, you must show me how we
retained backyard pickup, but this is what it cost us, and
therefore, Commissiorer Dawkins, this is why we will have to
go another way.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: If you can do that, and next year, Mr. Mayor,
if I am re-elected I will be here for the budget, but I am
going to tell the Manager and Mr. Moro, if we do not get
together before the eleventh hour, it will rot be me row,
who is irresponsible and making the City lose money. It
will be all of us. I am ready to vote.
Mayor Ferre: Well, just so, Commissioner Dawkins that you
don't feel that you are alone on this thing, you can add my
name to your statement tor_ight, all right? What you said
goes for two people on this Commission.. Out of respect for
you, you can court on my support when this matter comes up
again.. I am sayir_g it on the record now.
Mr. Gary: Let me understand for the record, Commissioner
Dawkins, you are saying that there is to be no curbside and
that before the Manager would implement this second $30
increase in January, or whatever the month is, he would have
to come back before this Commission and justify, is that
correct?
Mr. Dawkins: That is right, sir.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Manager, would you explain_ for the record
how the new budget and the new tax millage will affect the
homeowner and the residents of the City of Miami?
Mr. Gary: The average home, of $62,159, with a $25,000
homestead, presently for the General Fund, which is the
3
operating budget, they are paying $350 per year. For 1985,
3
ld 73 September 21, 1984
{0001000110,
they will be paying $367 a year, which is an increase of
$17. For debt service, which is to repay back bonds which
the voters paid for ...
Mr. Perez: You say an increase of $17?
Mr. Gary: $17.
Mr. Perez: That is for the resider_ts? Did you combine the
residential and the commercial, or just the residential?
Mr. Gary: The residential homes, sir.
Mr. Perez: If you combined the residential and the
commercial, how much would it be?
Mr. Gary: We haven't done the commercial.
Mr. Plummer: He is saying combined? I am not..(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Gary: Yes, we did it on the average home, it did not
include the commercial. We will try to compute that for
you.
Mr. Dawkins: Give me the total, Mr. Gary. You just gave me
$17, now what is the others.
Mr; Gary: For debt service, which is to pay off the bonds
that were approved by the voters at a referendum, the
current tax on that average home is $57 per year, for 1985
it is $76 per year for an increase of $19, so for the
average home, you are talking about a $36 increase per year.
Mr. Dawkins: $77 and ...
Mr. Gary: $17 and $19: that is the increase amount.
Mr. Dawkins: $17 and $19?
Mr. Gary Yes, sir, that is $36.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay now, where does that put us in relation.
to Dade County's raise in taxes?
Mr. Gary: Let me get that for you. Miami Beach I know
increased theirs by 26%. Let me get Dade County for you.
Mr. Plummer: 12.2%, I don't know what that is in dollars.
Mr. Gary: In response to your question$ Commissioner Perez,
for the average home, it is $36 increase per year, but if
you combine commercial, it goes up by another $6 - to $42,
to combine the two together.
Mr. Perez: $42?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Perez: In other words, that means that if we approve
this budget and the new tax millage, it would represent an
increase to the average property owner of 1.he City of Miami
an increase of $42?
Mr. Gary: That is for all property, the average of all
property, $42 per year.
Mr. Perez: Okay, we are increasing the budget how much,
$20,000,000, no? How much is the increase from last year?
ld 74 September 21, 1984
d
A I -
I.
1
f -
1
Mr. Gary: Last year we had $170,000,000, and this year we
have $186,000,000 in the general fund, so that is a '-
$16,000,000 increase.'.
Mr. Perez: Yes, but the total budget, it was $207,000,000
last year, and now $221,000,000.
Mr. Gary: $221,000,000. It includes debt service.
Mayor Ferre: What percentage is that?
Mr. Dawkins: Commissioner Perez, don't forget now, that is
$30 for the garbage fee, so $30 and $40 is $70.
Mr. Perez: That is right. That is one part, but there we
are including the increasing the garbage fees in 60%.
Mr. Gary: That's included in it, yes.
Mr. Perez: That is included in this budget?
Mr. Gary: Yes. That is included in the increase.
Mr. Perez: Yes, but that is another increase for the
taxpayers?
Mr. Gary: Exactly.
Mr. Perez: Yes, but it is included in the budget ...
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Perez, excuse the interruption
for a moment, please, but evidently Commissioner Plummer's
Secretary may have broken her arm. All right, Commissioner
Perez, go ahead and conclude your questions so we can bring
this matter to a vote.
Mr. Perez: Okay, what I wart to have, Mr. Manager, to have
very clear for the record, and before the people, because
the last time that we approved in principle that millage, we
had misunderstand irg in this community, especially in the
radio information, I wart to make very clear, that the new
budget will represent an increase of $42 to the average
homeowner of the City of Miami, and also an increase of 60%
in the annual garbage fee. That is what it means. Okay,
personally I think that we will have to take action_ without
any layoffs to the people, because I have received a lot of
calls in my office, several employees from the City of Miami
that are very concerned, because they received calls from
the Department Directors, or from the Supervisors that they
are going to cut 20 positions or 40 positions in each
Department. I think personally I am completely against any
cuts or any layoffs in the City of Miami due to reduction in
the budget. I wart to make that very clear. That have
misunderstandings. I think that the Administration_ have
requested several recommendations from the Department
Directors, but again,, they have requests, but I don't have
any of those recommendations, and I think it was very bad
publicity inside the City of Miami. I will like to have the
opportunity to discuss some of the options that we have.
Ore of the options in order to out the increase in the
garbage fee is the curbside. Okay, I would like to ask you
some questions about the curbside. The information that you
gave me the first, the curbside doesn't represent any
layoffs in the City of Miami, no?
Mr. Gary: What we have proposed is that if the City
Commission agrees to go to curbside, that we would rot
recommend a reduction of savings through layoffs, but
savings through attrition. Basically what that would mean
is that the excess staff that would exist as a result of
ld 75 September 21, 1984
going to more mechanizing and modern form of picking up
garbage, would be a savings in the first year of only
$400,000, and the reason the savings is so low is because we
would not be scheduling layoffs. That would increase to the
next year about 2.2 million dollars and really over a five
year period, you are talking about a savings of almost 14
million dollars and that is all through attrition..
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Gary, have Mr. Patterson come to the mike,
please. Mr. Patterson., of your total labor force, could you
give me a percentage as to the number of Blacks and Latins
and Whites?
Mr. Clarence Patterson.: I have it here.
Mr. Dawkins: Any rumors that you have got anything else
other than Whites, Latins, or Blacks, since everybody is ...
Mr. Patterson_: I am sorry, what was the question.?
Mr. Dawkins: Any rumors that you have got anything else
other than. Latin., Blacks and White?
Mr. Patterson.: I don't ;hink so.
Mr. DawKl!=s: ukay, go ahead. (LAUGHTER)
Mr. Patterson.: Commissioner, to answer your question, you
have a total of 402 positions, and 93.9% of those are
minorities.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, a Latin is a minority, a Black is a
minority, and a lady is a minority, so you are not telling
me nothing, Mr. Patterson.! Okay, let me say what I am
trying to say. Everybody keeps saying that I am fighting
for jobs for Blacks, okay? I am fighting for the Sanitation.
Department, which is made up of Blacks, Latins, and Whites,
and I am trying to get you to confirm that there are all
types of individuals ir_ this department. That is all I
wart t
Mr. Patterson.: In the category, Commissioner, of operating
personnel, there is a total of 428 employees representing 26
anglos, which is 6.1% and 39 Latins which is 9.1%.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, I am going to tell you like I tell
everybody else when they don't have no Blacks, to get some,
okay? Increase your Latin_ participation. there. That is
all, thank you. That is all, Mr. Gary.
Mayor Ferre: As I recall, Mr. Gary, the Department is under
mandate to do that with the Consent Decree. Am I correct?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: I bet if I ask him how many are latins, you
see all of them.
Mr. Perez: We have a motion_ on the floor. We have your
initial motion_ about the budget. Would it be possible to
present another motion., or do we have to finish with this
ore? We have your motion on the floor.
Mayor Ferre: We have a motion on the floor. Technically,
you can make a substitute motion, but it would have to be on
the relevant issue. It would have to be on Item 4.
Mr. Plummer: What was the substitute motion., may I ask?
Mayor Ferre: He hasn't made any.
ld 76 September 21, 1984
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I am sorry.
Mayor Ferre: He didn't make it yet. There is a motion which
I made and it was seconded by Miller for discussion.. I was
about to call the question. Commissioner Perez is asking _
whether or rot he can make a substitute motion.. You would -_
have to pass the gavel to Plummer, I think, and then make
your motion.. To make a substitute motion., it would have to
be dealing with Item 4.
{ Mr. Perez: It depends on how
i p you understand. The motion is
to approve the curbside system in principle in the City of {
Miami. In. order to present a resolution approving in
principle the City's introduction_ of companies pickup for
garbage and trash as an alternative to paying increased cost
for maintaining backyard collection_ of garbage. In. this
way, we don't have to increase the 60% in the garbage fee.
That is my motion..
Mr. Plummer: Is there a second to the motion.?
Mr. Carollo: A motion to approve curbside pickup?
Mr. Plummer: Approve curbside. Is there a second to the
motion.?
Mr. Carollo: If I could make a substitute motion,.
Mr. Plummer:
No, you carrot yet.
Mayor Ferre:
Wait, you cannot. There is a motion_ on the
floor.
4'.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Mayor, I appreciate it. I am running the
meeting.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Chairman., will you recognize me?
' Mr. Plummer:
Point of Order. Mr. Mayor ...
Mr. Carollo:
Wait a minute, Plummer! You wart to be Mayor,
t you run_ for Mayor.
That's the Mayor.
Mr. Plummer:
No, sir. He gave up that position to give the
gavel to Demetrio, who gave it up to give it to me.
Mayor Ferre:
All right, Mr. Chairman., if I could be
recognized?
Mr. Plummer:
You are so recognized, sir.
Mr. Carollo:
Just like being a cop, you will never be one!
You will also
never be Mayor.
t
Mayor Ferre:
All right, let me ... r
Mr. Plummer:
You might as well put that on a recording. It
will save him
his breath. ;
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Chairman, I wart to understand the
situation.. I
would like to respectfully submit, sir, that
the substitute
motion is out of order. It is out of order
because it does not deal with the issue that is being dealt i.;
with in Item 4
of this ordinance. It is therefore ... �
Mr. Carollo:
seconded.
It is out of order because the motion wasn't
Id 77 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre. No, because I would be nappy to second that
motion, after this passes, because it doesn't deal with this
issue itself.
Mr. Plummer: Are you ready for a ruling of the Chair?
Mayor Ferre: I've a commitment. What?
Mr. Plummer: Are you ready for a ruling from the Chair?
You are correct. His motion does not speak to millage. His
motion speaks to budget, and as such, as Chairman, I rule it
out of order. It would be appropriate as a motion attached
to budget, but not to the millage.
Mr. Perez: Okay, after the millage, I move the second
motion..
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Chairman. I ...
Mr. Plummer: I assume I give the gavel back to him. If you
want to be Mayor, you run. for Mayor!
Mr. Perez: Okay, we have a motion_ and a second. Do we have
any other discussion about the budget?
Mr. Plummer: No, not adopting the budget, about the
millage!
Mr. Carollo: Well, Plummer, he's got a better chancel
Mayor Ferre: I call the question., Mr. Chairman.. (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: Cuts off discussion_.
Mr. Perez: We don't have any questions? Call the roll.
Mr. Ongie: Read the ordinance.
(TAPE 13)
(AT THIS POINT CITY ATTORNEY READS ORDINANCE INTO PUBLIC
RECORD)
ORDINANCE FAILED. Ordinance pertaining to millage and
territorial limits failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
ABSENT: None
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I didn't hear Commissioner Carollo's vote.
Mr. Ongie: He said "yes".
Mr. Plummer: I vote "ro".
Mr. Carollo: "Yes" for what?
Mr. Plummer: I asked what was your vote?
Mr. Carollo: No, wait a minute. This is the mike. This is
where you say "yes" or "no".
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I asked the Clerk what was Mr.
Carollo's vote, and would you repeat?
ld 78
September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: I think the Clerk is beginning to speak the
kind of English you are speaking now, Undertaker. Mr.
Clerk, I didn't know that ... I know it is the millage, it
is the new millage. It is an increase in the millage,
therefore I vote "r-o" because I am against the increase in
the millage. I don't think we have to raise the millage.
Mr. Ongie: Motion. fails.
6. SECOND READING ORDINANCE; TERRITORIAL LIMITS AND FIX
MILLAGE.
Mayor Ferre: We are row or. Item Number 4. Is there any
motion on the millage?
Mr. Plummer: On the budget.
Mayor Ferre: No, I am going to move that the millage be as
it is.
Mr. Carollo: I second that motion., Mr. Mayor, that the
millage stay as it has been for the last year.
Mayor Ferre: What?
Mr. Orgie: 1983-84.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Plummer, let's talk this one out here
publicly. What is your problem with the millage the way it
is recommended by the Manager?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there are number of areas. As you
know, I have been very much above on the record of my
concern to the D.D.A. and the matter of it coming from the
General Fund, $772,000.
Mayor Ferre: You can deal with that in the budget.
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I carat because you have already
passed a motion of three votes of this Commission., assuring
full funding of the D.D.A. Now, had you rot done that in
advance, you could have got me into it.
Mayor Ferre: That still could be the case that we vote for
a millage as lasts year's millage.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that, sir. I am well aware of
that sir, but that is my objection. My objection, would be
whether it is proposed millage, or last year's, that if that
is being funded from the General Fund, then my vote is "no",
sir.
f Mayor Ferre: J. L., but you see, look, let me tell you
where that puts me, so you understand. I am putting all of
my cards or top of the table.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, may I continue?
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you know, at the beginning of this
meeting asked about the possibility of a special taxing
district to take it out of the General Fund, and we got
really no answer. I have tried every way. I have asked a
i
3
- f
'w ld 79 September 21, 1984
4
.. ,. . . 77
I
number of people if there was possibly a compromise of not
taking that full amount out of of the General Fund. We are
looking right now, as you know, for $250,000 to fund social
programs. We are looking for money - I won't stipulate the
number, to try to help the retired employees. I also have
areas, Mr. Mayor, which are minor, they are not major, in.
the Police Department. I have a real problem with 42 zones
established by the Police Department, and the average has
been running 34 or 35 police cars, which means we don't have
sufficient police in patrol, to cover just this zones that
we have.
Mr. Carollo: Well, if stopped all the watch orders for
certain people, we would have more police to be free.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that would be of course a determination
by the Department, not by me or by you. My concern_ is that
they have specialized units that I question_ whether or not
they are, really that necessary under priorities.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, with regards to your main concern_,
which is the D.D.A., if the law permits it, which obviously
we are not going to know tonight, and if the County
Commission agrees to a special tax district in the downtown
area, then obviously, that would be a solution_ and I commit
to you that I would vote along with you on that. I cannot,
arbitrarily, tonight, vote to eliminate the monies from the
D.D.A. because that would kill it. Now, you have my
commitment on the record that I would vote for a special
taxing district if that legally solves our problem and if
the County Commission were to pass it.
Mr. Plummer: Do I also have your pledge on the record, Mr.
Mayor, that as you indicated the other day, that you would
possibly try and seek funds from the private sector, as it
is in a lot of other cities.
Mayor Ferre: I would so pledge, provided however, that it
is clearly understood that it is not binding if we are not
able to raise the monies for the private sector; that we
would not, on that basis, then_ settle the effort of
strengthening our downtown. area. In. other words, I would
certainly go along with the attempt - I would further go
along with an attempt to lower the expenditures should this
fail and we would be stuck with having to fund it out of the
General Fund.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I have a few minutes to talk to
Mr. Gary?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, technically and legally the
winning side must make the motion..
Mr. Plummer: You dirty rats (LAUGHTER!)
Mayor Ferre: I'll second your motion.!
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC
RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Car we get those other two Commissioners in
here so we can get out of here soon? All right, the Chair
will accept a motion_ to reconsider.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there are a number of reasons that
I am going to offer the same motion_ that you did and I wart
to say why. Mr. Mayor, I don't believe, as I did not
believe the other right that we can take a chance in
putting this City in. jeopardy. I have to understand that is
a possibility. If I were to reduce the budget to last
ld 80 September 21, 1984
year's millage, I think it is the loss of about $8,000,000,
$9,000,0009 is that correct?
Mr. Surana: The budget or the millage?
Mr. Plummer: The budget.
Mr. Surana: 16 million.
Mr. Plummer: All right, it doesn't equate to what we have
f in jeopardy of losing, is the point I was trying to make.
Mr. Carollo: Excuse me. What was told to us the last time
is that we would leave the same millage as last year, it
would only be 2.6 mills.
Mr. Surana: His question is about budget - increasing
General Fund budget from last year.
Mr. Plummer: That is because of the assessment, Joe. It is
a difference in assessment. The millage is one question..
The assessment - up in assessment. Mr. Mayor, I expressed
to you, and I have your personal commitment that you will
try to find an alternative funding for the D.D.A., and I
accept that, because you are a man of your word. You have
always kept your word to me. I also have a commitment, I
want to tell you, from a number of the members of the D.D.A.
who have expressed to me that they realize the burden that
it placed on the budget by State law - nothing they had to
do with, and they had pledged to me that they, members of
the Authority will in fact, also try and find in next year's
budget, if not charged in the Legislature, that they will
try to find private sources or other funding than. General
Fund. I also accept your word that the budget that is
passed for D.D.A. does not necessarily reflect that is what
is going to be spent, if you will promise to us that you
will go through that and massage it, and if possible, reduce
it. I have the negotiation, potential with Mr. Gary and
some other minor areas of concern.. He has giver_ me every
assurance that he will be in an open mind and can be charged
in the coming months and I have to say to you, I cannot take
the chance of placing this City in jeopardy of losing 21.7
million. dollars. I am also very much in favor of remaining
' at the backyard pickup. I think Commissioner Dawkins
mandate that before Mr. Gary can instigate the fee a second
time, that he must come before this Commission and justify
it. I don't like raising taxes. I don't like raising taxes
when people say to me, "Why did you raise my taxes?" I wart
to say to them, I didn't like raising my own_. My taxes this
year have increased, in what I pay taxes on, some $6,000,
and I don't like it. I don't like it at all! But, I have
to look at reality, and I have to think that the increase in
this year's budget, as I recall, Moro, is 4 point what
percent?
Mr. Surana: Mill is 4.5%
Mr. Plummer: 4.5% increase this year over last year, and
then. I have to think that inflation has gore up between. 8%
' and 10% in the last year, so then. I have to equate in my
mind that even though things have gore up, had the budget
gone up the same as the inflation rate, which we are all
subjected to, the potential would double the amount that is
being proposed. The only thing that I ask of Mr. Gary, was
that he would be flexible, that he would not do again
without consulting with this Commission., as he has done as
my colleague Dawkins said "You didn't ask us about curbside,
you just put it in the budget". So, with those promises,Mr.
Mayor, I have to tell you that if I had my choice, I don't
wart to, but I carrot take the risk of putting this City in
ld 81 September 21, 1984
danger of losing this amount of money, and as such, Mr.
Mayor, I will approve the approval of the millage as
proposed.
Mayor Ferre: All right, your motion., I think, is that you
move Item 4?
Mr. Plummer: If that is ...
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion_ and a second.
Under discussion., let me say for the record once again.,
Commissioner Plummer, that I understand your philosophical
difference and I think you are correct in the premise that
you exposed philosophically. My approach is pragmatic. I
recognize the injustice as you point out. I do think that
pragmatically I just cannot vote for the elimination of the
D.D.A., which in effect would occur if they were not funded
as proposed in the budget. Now, I have committed to you and
I will repeat that if Lucia Allen., our City Attorney comes
back with a statement that it is legal for us to create a
taxing districting then. I will along with you will lobby
before Metropolitan. Dade County so that the Metro Commission_
will auwyu a 6ax district plan and at that point relieve us
of taking those monies from the General Fund, whatever
monies are left after that is adopted formally and becomes
law. Secondly, if that does not work for any reason., that I
am committed at the legislative session., that is to begin if
not at the November session_, than certain, by the regular
session_, to try to amend the State law so as to have not
have the D.D.A. millage as part of the general cap millage.
Thirdly, that if those two things fail, that we will
honestly attempt, to have the private sector take over all or
as much as possible of that burden., and therefore relieve
the ad valorum taxpayers of the burden.. Fourthly, that we
will sincerely try to reduce the budget as much as is
feasible within reason without impairing the operation of
the D.D.A., even though curtailing to so reflect. 1 think
that covers it.
Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion., I too, have a difference
with the D.D.A. My difference is not the funding. My
difference is that the D.D.A. does not consider a certain
portion. of Overtown, as downtown. When they say the Downtown.
Development Authority, they eliminate certain parts of
Overtown which is downtown.. The D.D.A. also eliminates a
certain part of Park West that is downtown., anal ' Mr. Kenzie,
the D.D.A. has not done all it can do on. Flagler Street, so
that is my concern_. It is not that I was against the D.D.A.
I am against it in principle in what it is doing, so I would
hope that next year I can sit up here and be able to point
with pride with some of the things the D.D.A. has done to
Flagler to enhance Flagler so that the hotels we have down
there, the tourists who come in car.walk around and spend
their money with the merchants down there and maybe, instead
of Overtown coming alive, it will be all downtown. and
Overtown coming alive. Thank you!
Mayor Ferre: Lucia, I hate to do this to you, but you have
got to read it all over again..
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, there was one other
area, and I wart to put it on the record that I asked Mr .
Gary to work toward, in. the Police Department, that there
would be at least the number of patrol cars as there were
sections on a daily basis. I wart that on the record.
Mayor Ferre: Hey, J. L., we are going to be talking about
the budget in a moment, and I have a whole bunch of things,
ld 82 September 21, 1984
but I am not going to take them up tonight, but I am going _
to reserve that right and I am sure we all do. All right,
are we ready?
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, I have ready the ordinance
already. I don't think we reed to hear it again. It is
exactly the same ordinance as we read the first time. This
is just the second vote on the same ordinance. —
Mayor Ferre: It is a reconsideration_, right? —
Mrs. Dougherty: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Do we have to vote to reconsider first, and
i then vote on the motion.?
Mrs. Dougherty: Properly, that would be the way to do it.
Mayor Ferre: This is a motion., Plummer, to reconsider the
previous motion..
Mr. Plummer: I make a motion to reconsider the previous
motion.. That way I don't have to make the same motion.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, call the roll or the reconsideration.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER. UPON MOTION DULY MADE
by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Com-
missioner Dawkins, Motion to reconsider
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferre: Now we have before us the main motion, that you
did read, so therefore you don't have to read over again..
And I made motion, and Dawkins seconded it. You have to call
the roll.
Mr. Perez: Do we have any discussion.? If not call the
roll.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND DESIGNATING
THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION;
FIXING THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING TAXES IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 19849
AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 309 1985;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
SETTING FORTH THE PERCENTAGE BY WHICH
SAID MILLAGE RATE EXCEEDS THE "ROLL-
BACK" RATE AND THE METHOD OF CALCULATING
THE LATTER RATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami estimates that the rorexempt
valuation of taxable property, both real and personal in the
City of Miami, Florida, for the year beginning October 1,
1984, and ending September 30, 1985 is $8.894,728,375; and
Id 83 September 21, 1984
WHEREAS, at an election_ held September 2, 1925, the
City of Miami did annex certain_ territory unincorporated at
the time of such election; and did annex certain other
territory incorporated at the time of such election.; and
WHEREAS, from time to time other territory has been
included in the corporate limits of the City of Miami by
legislative acts;
j NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section. 1. For the purpose of this ordinance the "City
of Miami" is defined to be, includes and designated the City
of Miami as it now exists with its extended territorial
limits as set forth in the paragraphs prefatory hereto.
Section. 2. There shall be and hereby are levied upon
the ror.exempt assessed value of all property, both real and
personal, in the City of Miami as described in, Section 1
hereof, taxes at the rate shown below for the fiscal year
beginning October 1, 1984, and ending September 30, 1985,
for the following purposes;
(a) A tax of 9.8571 mills on the dollar for the
General Fund.
(b) A tax of 2.0520 mills or the dollar to provide
for the payment of maturing principal and
interest, and charges and requirements related
thereto, of irdebtr_ess incurred subsequent to
the adoption of the Homestead Exemption.
Amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Florida, and subject to the terms thereof.
Section. 3. This proposed millage rate herein adopted
by the governing body exceeds the "roll -back" rate by 4.5%.
This rate is determined by calculating the percentage
increase between. the FY 184 rolled back revenue and the FY
185 estimated revenue for the City of Miami.
Section. 4. If any section., part of section., paragraph,
clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance shall be held to
be unconstitutional or void, the remair.ir_g provisions of
this ordinance shall nevertheless, remain in full force and
effect.
Passed or its first reading by title at the meeting of
September 13, 1984, was taker up for its second and final
reading by title and adoption.. On motion of Commissioner
Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinarce was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and
passed and adopted by the following vote
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
ABSENT: Nore .
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9900.
The City Attorney had previously read the ordirarce
into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the
public.
ld 84 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Now we are on Item Number 5, which is an
ordinance that makes the appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30th, containing a repealer.
Mr. Dawkins: That is the budget.
Mayor Ferre: It makes the appropriations. That is the
budget, isn't it?
-------------------------------- ---------------------------
7.FAILED NOTION TO GO TO CURBSIDE PICKUP OF TRASH AND
GARBAGE.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I wart to present again a resolution
approving in, principle the City introducing of residential
curbside pickup of garbage and trash as an alternative to
paying increased cost for maintaining backyard collection of
garbage.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, this is curbside?
Mr. Perez: That is curbside, and with the spirit that it is
going to prevent any layoffs in. the City of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: Let me understand, now, and I am not trying to
play semantics here. What your proposing is curbside of
both, in the same container as it was proposed before? Ir_
other words, you would put your trash and your garbage in
the same container and put it at curbside? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr. Perez: Put your trash in the front of the house instead
of the back of the house.
Mr. Plummer: But I am saying, that in the container would
be both garbage and trash?
Mayor Ferre: Garbage and trash.
Mr. Perez: No, garbage is something and the trash is the
same system. I think that if you wart a better explanation_,
you have ...
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you why I am asking, okay?
One of these before, the Sanitation Director came forth with
his huge 82 gallon container, in which it was proposed at
that time to go to curbside in both trash and garbage would
be put into this container and put at curbside. Now, what I
am asking of you, are you indicating by your motion., which
is rot clear to me, that that is what you are proposing?
Or, are you proposing that only garbage be put at curbside
and trash would be as it is row? I ask for the
clarification..
Mr. Perez: I would like that the City Manager or Mr.
Patterson explain the whole issue.
Mr. Patterson.: Combined curbside collection_ of garbage and
trash, is both the garbage and the trash is picked up, the
same piece of equipment. You may put it in the same
container, but it is a larger, less conventional containers.
It is rot the mechanical device which Coral Gables is row
proposing, Commissioner.
Id 85 September 21, 1984
Mr. Plummer: As you understand the motion presented, do you
have the alternative of still placir_g the trash at the curb
as you do presently, separate, and independently of the
I' garbage? That is not what they proposed before.
Mr. Patterson.: No, before Commissioner, you were talking
about a combined collection of garbage and trash. You would
pick it all up by the same equipment, same vehicles, same
time, twice a week. Anything that could go into the regular
garbage can, or be bundled or bailed, it would be picked up
1 along with the same crew. That proposal that you recalled
before talked about bulky waste pickup as being a separate
item, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Patterson., I am asking about this which
has been presented here this evening. What is your
understanding as the Director of Sanitation? If this motion
were to pass, do I still have the alternative of putting my
garbage in the can at curbside, but putting the trash as
separate?
Mr. Patterson.: Yes, but it will be picked up at the same
time.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, but now, let me ask a question., sir.
Mr. Gary, through you, to Mr. Patterson.. If you are going
to put garbage and rubbish in the same can, what the hell
are you going to do with the men now picking up the rubbish?
Mr. Patterson_: I think the Manager pointed out before that
there would be no layoffs whatsoever under the program that
is planned.
Mr. Gary: Let me answer the question_, as it was directed to
me.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no. I've got one for you! I'm going to
give you one that you car. answer. Remember, Mr. Gary, last
year when the Mayor, or when I made a motion and Mr. Carollo
or the Mayor seconded it, that for every policeman you hire,
you hire a garbageman, okay? How many new policemen did you
put or last year?
Mr. Gary: Ter.
Mr. Dawkins: Ten new policemen.? You were supposed to put
on ter. garbagemer_, but you have been through attrition and
what are the other reasons that you don't hire nobody -
attrition. and what have you. Where are the ter, people you
were going to hire? Now, you promised me that when you
promised ...
Mr. Carollo: Do you know what they call that, Dawkirs?
Insubordination)
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, now where are those ...
Mr. Carollo: You guys agreeing with me?
Mr. Dawkins: Where are those ten men_, sir, since you wart
to answer something.
Mr. Carollo: Insubord ir_ atior. l
Mr. Dawkins: Where are the ter. men.?
Mr. Gary: If I car respond to you. I want to respond to
those questions you asked me. If you recall, we agreed on
ten.
1d 86 September 21, 1984
I
i
Mr. Dawkins: On twenty-five.
Mr. Gary No ...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary, we agreed or fifty policemen when
the folks from downtown were sitting out there - no, no, the
Chamber. We agreed or fifty policemen_ with the Chamber, and
then. I made the motion, and one of us here seconded it, that
we add twenty-five new garbagemen, and that was ...
Mayor Ferre: The agreement was that it be kept on a parity.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, T'm for parity.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, but that is the whole thing. You keep
telling the man something, he does as he pleases! Now,
Peter, I would like to get you up here.
Mr. Gary: Can I respond to you, Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Carollo: Well, fire, after I'd like to lister, to Pete,
if you dor_' t mind.
Mr. Gary Yes, you reed an. answer.
Mr. Carollo: What is the official position of the union of
the rank and file Sanitation employees? Do you want to do
what the Manager is saying? ... go to curbside?
Mr. Peter Joffre: No, sior.
Mr. Carollo: Is what the Manager is saying correct? Should
I believe what the Manager is telling me, that there is not
going to be any layoffs in the Sanitation employees?
Mr. Peter Joffre: There is going to have to be layoffs
automatically. We have some n_ir_ety-nine standby laborers
that we use that will be automatically cut off. You are
talking about eighty people. Eighty people will lose their
jobs right off the bat.
Mr. Carollo: Eighty people! Then why in the heck is this
man telling me that there is not going to be any layoffs?
Mr. Gary: I have a name.
Mr. Carollo: I ask all of you here that are Sar,itatior
employees and you all endorsed me the last election., I
listened to you. You have that right, and even more so than
some other people. Should I lister. to what Mr. Gary is
telling me and believe him or not?
Unidentified Speakers From Audience: Not .. (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Carollo: What is happening is that, he, you know, with
his Brooks Brothers suits, very finely is playing a media
game, and he is trying to make it look like we are the bad
guys. We don't wart to go with his plan., because there is
not going to be any layoffs! ... when he knows that you are
going to be laid offt
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS)
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond to Commissioner
Dawkins' question now that Commissioner Carollo has stopped
playing games
Id 87 September 21, 1984
Mr. Dawkins: On twenty-five.
Mr. Gary No ...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary, we agreed or fifty policemen when
the folks from downtown were sitting out there - no, no, the
Chamber. We agreed or fifty policemen_ with the Chamber, and
then. I made the motion, and one of us here seconded it, that
we add twenty-five new garbagemen, and that was ...
Mayor Ferre: The agreement was that it be kept on a parity.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, T'm for parity.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, but that is the whole thing. You keep
telling the man something, he does as he pleases! Now,
Peter, I would like to get you up here.
Mr. Gary: Can I respond to you, Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Carollo: Well, fire, after I'd like to lister, to Pete,
if you dor_' t mind.
Mr. Gary Yes, you reed an. answer.
Mr. Carollo: What is the official position of the union of
the rank and file Sanitation employees? Do you want to do
what the Manager is saying? ... go to curbside?
Mr. Peter Joffre: No, sior.
Mr. Carollo: Is what the Manager is saying correct? Should
I believe what the Manager is telling me, that there is not
going to be any layoffs in the Sanitation employees?
Mr. Peter Joffre: There is going to have to be layoffs
automatically. We have some n_ir_ety-nine standby laborers
that we use that will be automatically cut off. You are
talking about eighty people. Eighty people will lose their
jobs right off the bat.
Mr. Carollo: Eighty people! Then why in the heck is this
man telling me that there is not going to be any layoffs?
Mr. Gary: I have a name.
Mr. Carollo: I ask all of you here that are Sar,itatior
employees and you all endorsed me the last election., I
listened to you. You have that right, and even more so than
some other people. Should I lister. to what Mr. Gary is
telling me and believe him or not?
Unidentified Speakers From Audience: Not .. (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Carollo: What is happening is that, he, you know, with
his Brooks Brothers suits, very finely is playing a media
game, and he is trying to make it look like we are the bad
guys. We don't wart to go with his plan., because there is
not going to be any layoffs! ... when he knows that you are
going to be laid offt
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS)
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond to Commissioner
Dawkins' question now that Commissioner Carollo has stopped
playing games
Id 87 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager... would you clarify the position
and answer. There are several questions that have been
asked over the last ten minutes of you.
Mr. Gary: Now, that we have finished playing games, Mr.
Mayor, and if the person at the fifth seat down and
Commission read the budget proposal, it basically, says that
this City will have a budget short fall and we can play or
the emotions of people, but if you read the document it's
j not an emotional document. It is an, administrative document
that is responsible, that takes into consideration all the
citizens of Miami and rot political games. What it says,
basically, is that we have a budget short fall and that if
one alternative for the Commission to consider and that
alternative which we proposed is that the City could go to
curb side or it could increase the fee. We have recommended
increasing the fee and we think this is a responsible budget
it view of maintair.in_g the strides that we have with regard
to maintaining of fiscal health and simultaneously
maintaining a balance services for the citizens of Miami.
Under no circumstances does this budget in the budget
message itself, regardless of what people say, they are rot
going to be able to find it. Does it recommend laying off
saritation. works. If you read the plan and this is not a
new plan_, the plan_ which if you didn't increase the garbage
by sixty dollars, basically, says we have not maintained the
cleanliness of this city to the degree that we should have.
This city admiristration has always proffered a balance
service. This City Administration has never said that we
should hire more police at the expense of sanitation or any
other department. This admiristratior only recommends
budget. We do rot vote or the budget. This
administration's plan says that if you go to curb side the
additioral men will utilized to clear up all the dirt that
now exist under the expressway, all the trash that now exist
under the expressway, to begin_ to sweep more streets that we
are not able to do now and that was the plan for the
utilization_ of those additional men.. Under no circumstance
will we recommend the lay off and I don't think it's fair to
say that that's what we were trying to do.
Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Manager, I think that...
Mr. Perez: Mr. Manager, that's not the recommendation that
you make in the past and that's rot what appeared in this
editorial of the Miami Herald August 15, 1984. When it say
Miami City Manager Howard Gary insist the arrual garbage
collection fees will rise by sixty percent and it's
mentioned in your recommendation. I think that you have
recommended in the past in favor of the curb side system.
You were very strong.
Mr. Gary: I dor't know if you heard me...
Mr. Plummer: He is now.
Mr. Perez: Yes. But I think that it's important to
emphasize... you mentioned now that you have more than one
alternative, but you recommend the increase in the fees, not
the curb side, that's what you tried to emphasize, but I
thin that you have...
Mr. Gary: Commissioner Perez, you did not hear what I said.
What I said Commissioner Perez, was that I recommended curb
side and as an alternative we go with the increase of fees
or vice versa. I am supportive of curb side as I have been
all along, that we increase the fees or we go to curb side.
There is no difference. I have not changed my position_ and
that's what I said earlier.
Id 88 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: You know how fairy tales begin.? Once upon_ a
time.
Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote now?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, I understand
the motionand I think I understand even the vote of this
Commission and I received many calls and I want to put on
the record that if this motion were to pass Mr. Gary, there
I is a provision in this for the people who are certified that
are handicapped, who are ill, who for one reason or, another
physically could not put their things, their garbage at curb
I side, that there is a provision in this that would allow
them to remain as is.
Mr. Gary: That was the case, sir.
Mr. Plummer: All right, sir. I just wart that on the
record because I... you know, I never know the way the vote
is going to go here.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Chairman., you have a motion made by
Commissioner Perez and I'm seconding that motion.
Mr. Plummer: All right, further discussion on the motion_,
Commissioner Carollo.
Mr. Carollo: We are still under discussion.. You know, it's
very easily to right away say politics. Well, it's kind of
funny that the bif3gest politician_ in this city is going to
accuse others of playing politics, but how can you say
politics when you are talking about the livelihood of eighty
families. You know, I can speak this way because everything
that I have, I worked my behind very hard for it. You hear
people talking about how hard they had it when they grew up.
Well, you know, I grew up in the ghettos of Chicago before
moving to Miami in 1970 everything that I have today is self
made. Nobody put it before me in a silver platter nor did I
sell my soul playing politics to get to where I am today.
You know, it's very easy when you are making in salary and
benefits, sitting downin a rice air conditioned room may be
working thirty hours a day, may be and your rice fancy
Brooks Brothers suits and of course, a Mercedes Benz and
what have you, the City pays for too, do not give a damn
about eighty families. Very, very easily to do that, but
_ you know, if I may quote Uncle Charlie. You guys know what
an oreo cookie is? You know, all Black outside and all
white inside. You see, Uncle Charlie told me what an oreo
cookie was and it very easily when you wart to talk Black
then_ live white. Very easily and I think you all know what
I'm talking about. Very, very easily. You know, when the
time comes that his two hundred thousand dollars is in,
jeopardy, well, you know, all of the sudden you know we
change our tunes. But when the time comes that your
livelihood is in danger it's a whole different story. Then_
you know, well, no no lay offs. No this, no that, but you
y know, you just got cut off in the middle of a political
deal, you know and there is eighty of you or seventy or
ninety or whatever that going to be out of jobs, well you
know, you are expendable as long as the king is protected.
Now, there is another man in history that thought that a lot
of people were expendable before he finally became
expendable himself, it's a guy by the name of "Adi Amin_"
Keep that in. mind.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I would like to since you are the
Chair of this Commission....
ld 89 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Well, right now at the present time there is a
motion on the floor Mr. Manager, that Commissioner Perez
made and I seconded...
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if he wants to respond to me, he
car_. See, I'm not like one of those little thin, boards that
doesn't move and doesn't pick back.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
+ Mr. Plummer: Is there any further discussion_ on the motion.?
Mr. Carollo: If he likes, he could bring his friend Ray
Corona and translate.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion_, on the motion.? Call
the roll.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Perez: I vote "yes" and I wish to explain_ first that I
consider that this is the only answer to the people of Miami
in order to don't increase the garbage fee in sixty dollars.
I think when I vote "yes" I shall what the... more than the
sixty percent of the people of Miami vote in the last straw
ballot, but that reason I would like to make clear my
position, against any kind of layoffs. I think that the
administration, has a commitment with this Commission, and I
think that all the members of the department will have that
kind of protection., but I vote "yes".
Mayor Ferre: I vote "yes" for the same reasons as expressed
by Commissioner Perez. I would like to also state into the
record that this at all times by a majority of three always
has control over the budget of each department and the
policy that is administered and I have full confidence
should this motion pass that there would be no lay offs and
that there would be three votes or. this Commission to
guarantee and assure that there would be no lay offs. I
vote "yes".
Mr. Dawkins: It's difficult to sit here and fathom
sometimes what's happening. My colleague, Commissioner
Perez says he is against raising taxes. He refused to vote
for a budget that raised taxes, but yet he warts to add
sixty dollars to the garbage which is raising taxes. So,
you can't have your cake gentlemen, and eat it too. Now,
you were told... I was told at the request of Commissioner
Carollo, after listening to the director of Sanitation say
that this resolution will put both rubbish and garbage in
the same container. If you do that, then everything will be
picked up by those individuals who are or, solid waste or
garbage. There will be no need for the crane operators...
Now, you guys can sit out there and be gul7.ible if you wart
to. There will be no need for the truck d► +err who pick up
the rubbish. There will be no need fnr t.. guy who walk
around with the broom to sweep the rubbish so it can be
picked up. So, even though someone tells me that it's best
to pass this resolution., I cannot in good faith vote for
this resolution.. Therefore, I vote "no".
Mr. Carollo: Seem like Commissioner Dawkins is beginning to
learn how fairy tales start, once upon a time. Let me tell
you why I'm going to be voting the way that I am. I am sick
and tired of sitting here month after month hearing the best
paid individual in any city in these United States
constantly lie to me. I carrot in good conscience believe a
man that time after time has lied. A mar. that I •better than
anybody knows how he got in that chair. Could see, the so-
called deals that begun in. my Florida Room gentlemen and I
gl 90 September 21, 1984
created the monster that now warts to eat me up. But that's
all right you learn in life ar_d ever though they think that
they have me behind the eight ball, I got news for them, I'm
like a cat, you know. What happens when you throw a cat up?
It always lards on all four. Now, just in case they thirk
that that might not happen_, then. I suggest they read the
story of Samson., how the whole roof came caving in or
everybody, but I give a hoot about the eighty families that
aren't goirg to have a roof over their heads or food or.
their tables if the family heads lose their jobs. And what
Miller Dawkins said, now you can get a kindergarten_ kid to
figure out that how can there not be any lay offs if there
is no need for the crane operators, the drivers, you know,
it don't take mach mathematics to figure that out, that's
why ladies and gentlemen I vote "no".
Mr. Plummer: Obviously, my vote doesn't court. I'm trying
to figure out what the opposite of an oreo is.
Mayor Ferre: What do you mean it doesn't court? It's two
to two right now.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, it's two to two. That's right. Let me in.
voting...
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I wart to make for the record three
things. First of all we are only raising at this particular
time the garbage tax thirty dollars, because the Manager has
to come back before the 2n_d, thirty dollars is implied ar_d
justified to this Commission and I think when we keep in
mind for service not as good as what we received, if I lived
in the County I would have to pay two hundred eleven.
dollars. Fifty one more dollars than what the people of
this Community would be or eighty—one dollars predicated on
we are only raising it a half at this time. People speak to
the beauty of a community and I don't think anybody is going
to speak that garage ever_ in bags, which are broken
sometimes by dogs beautify this community. Ard when you
stop and think that if that were to be the case five out of
five days you will be looking at those bags. You put it out
the right before, they pick it up the next day and you take
your garbage cars back in. Five out of five days you would
be looking at that situation. I realize that the biggest
problems created for the administration is not the cost of
labor, but the cost that was imposed upon us after we gave
to Metropolitan. Dade County to build a transfer station.. We
are now having to turn around and pay those people five
million, dollars to transfer it from 2Oth Street to the dump.
My suggestion has to be that they immediately instigate a
spur, because Metrorail runs along 20th Street and 12th
Avenue to 58th Street and may be Metrorail might be a
success to transport nothing but garbage to the dump. I am
opposed to curb side pick up. I don't wart a fee, but if
that's the cost of doing business, then that's what I will
have to pay and I vote "no" on the motion_.
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION was introduced by
Commissioner Perez and seconded by Mayor Ferre and defeated
by the following vote:
AYES: Vice —Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissiorer
Commissioner
Commissioner
Miller J. Dawkins
Joe Carollo
J. L. Plummer, Jr.
gl 91 September 21, 1984
8. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1984-85
------------------------------------------------------------ =b
Mayor Ferre: We are row on Item #5, an ordinance making
appropriations for the fiscal year. Is there a motion_?
Mr. Plummer: So, move.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Plummer moves.
Mr. Plummer: You feel a little too confident there, Mr.
Mayor. What was the motior_?
Mayor Ferre: It's for the budget.
Mr. Dawkins: I second it, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Dawkins seconded. All right,
read the ordinance. All right, this the ordinance that
deals with the proposed budget. Let the record reflect that
in the future there can be amendments to the budget and I =
assure you there will be and I know of five diffrent _
budgets that five different members of this Commission would
like to see adopted and I'm sure we will be getting and
dealing with that as we go along. Is there further ==
discussion? I assume that the other two Commissioners will
be voting "no" and without any objections I will permit them
to record their votes when they come back into the record.
Is that without objections by the other members of the
Commission?
Mr. Dawkins: None whatsoever, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: It's illegal.
Mayor Ferre: It is not illegal.
Ms. Dougherty: If they are in the room they can vote.
Mayor Ferre: They are not in the room. Legislative
procedure as I remember it permits with the full consent of
the people in the legislative body would permit them to
record their vote without objections.
Ms. Dougherty: That's true in a legislature which doesn't
have to abide by the Sunshine.
Mr. Plummer: Did you say Sunshine?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, you have to have public meetings and
people have to record their votes in public.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
Ms. Dougherty: What's the ordinance?
Mr. Ongie: The appropriation. ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: This is the budget.
Mr. Plummer: Budget.
Mayor Ferre: The vote is now two to two. I mean_, two. I'm
sorry. Plummer and Dawkins voted "yes", Perez has voted
It ro" . It's your vote now.
gl 92 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: Well, you wart to vote first.
- Mayor Ferre: I will vote "yes".
Mr. Carollo: I still vote "no".
Mayor Ferre: I vote "yes".
AN ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
1985; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION;
AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of
September 13, 1984, was taken up for its second and final
reading by title and adoption.. On motion. of Commissioner
Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was
thereupon_ given its second and final reading by title and
passed and adopted by the following vote —
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo -==
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
ABSENT: None. _
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9901.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public
record and announced that copies were available to the
members of the City Commission_ and to the public.
9. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: DESIGNATED TERRITORIAL LIMITS
OF D.D.A. AND FIX MILLAGE
--------------------------------------------- -------
7k'�5
Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 6, which is an ordinance
defining and designating the territorial limits of the
Downtown Development District. Item 6. This is on second
44
reading. Is there a motion_? This is for the Downtown.
Development Authority.
Mr. Carollo: Downtown. Development to approve their... move.
Mayor Ferre: Moved, is there a second?
Mr. Carollo: That's Roy Kenzie, right?
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: I second it for purposes of discussion..
That's legal. Mr. Manager, what happens if this motion_
doesn't pass?
i
Mr. Gary: If this motion doesn't pass, then. DDA doesn't
have a budget other than... They will be short the amount of
money they get from their millage.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, they would be short from the millage or
they don't have a budget?
gl 93 September 21, 1984
Mr. Gary: If you don't adopt the millage, they will be
short of their millage, .3 mills.
Mr. Plummer: Do we have to adopt their budget?
Mr. Gary: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Is that a separate item?
I Mr. Gary: Yes, that's three.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, God knows I wart to adopt their mill,
because that contributes to the ...
Mr. Gary: Right.
Mr. Plummer: So, I have got to vote for that. I don't have
to vote for the budget.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, you do. The mill is the budget.
Mr. Plummer: No, I don't. No, no, no, that's two separate
items.
Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion, call the roll.
Mr. Dawkins: What is the motion?
Mr. Plummer: The motion is to approve... wait a minute,
tell them that you don't understand the motion.
Mr. Dawkins: I don't understand the motion..
Mayor Ferre: Explain the motion_?
Mr. Ongie: It's VI isn't it Moro?
Mr. Surar_a: Yvs. That's the millage ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: All right, read the ordinance. Ok, are we
ready to vote on the millage? Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND DESIGNATING
THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAXATION, FIXING THE MILLAGE
AND LEVYING TAXES IN THE DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LOCATED WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
OCTOBER 1, 1984, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER
309 19859 FIXING THE MILLAGE AT ONE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE
TEN THOUSANDTHS (.1429) MILLS ON THE
DOLLAR OF THE NONEXEMPT ASSESSED VALUE
OF ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
SAID DISTRICT AND PROVIDING THAT THE
SAID MILLAGE AND THE TAXES LEVIED HEREIN
SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE FIXING OF
THE MILLAGE AND THE LEVING OF TAXES
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE
GENERAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE
AFORESAID FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY
gl 94 September 21, 1984
SECTION 30 OF THE CITY CHARTER;
PROVIDING THAT THE FIXING OF THE MILLAGE
AND LEVYING OF TAXES HEREIN SHALL BE IN
ADDITION TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IMPOSED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI WITHIN
THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF n
MIAMI; PROVIDED THAT THIS ORDINANCE
SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AS REPEALING OR
AMENDING ANY OTHER ORDINANCE FIXING
MILLAGE OR LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1984 AND
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1985, BUT SHALL BE
DEEMED SUPPLEMENTAL AND IN ADDITION,
HERETO; AND PROVIDING THAT IF ANY
SECTION, CLAUSE OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT
AFFECT THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of
September 13, 1984, was taken up for its second and final
reading by title and adoption. On motion. of Commissioner
Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was —
thereupon giver_ its second and final reading by title and
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9902.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public
record and announced that copies were available to the
members of the City Commission_ and to the public.
----------------------------------------------------------
10. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPROPRIATIONS FOR D.D.A.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now what's next?
Mr. Surara: Adopt the budget.
Mr. Gary: This is the budget.
Mayor Ferre: The budget. Is there a motion.
Mr. Plummer: Is it in order for that to be continued? Can
that be done?
Mr. Surana: No.
Mayor Ferre: The same thing is true, J. L.
Mr. Surara: The same thing applies.
Mr. Gary: The Same thing applies, you can't do it.
gl 95 September 21, 1984
PA
Mayor Ferre: ...that Moro wrote about ---what's his name?
Pickir_s?
Mr. Surana: Blir_kley.
Mr. Gary: The same rule applies.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves.
Mr. Plummer: No, no.
Mayor Ferre: No, no. Who moves.
Mr. Dawkins: Move it?
Mayor Ferre: Dawkins moves, Perez seconds,
discussion, read the ordinance. Call the roll.
ON ROLL CALL:
further
Mr. Plummer: Let my "no" vote reflect the commitment made
by the Mayor to try and massage and reduce to send a
message. That is the negative vote.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1985; AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECTOR OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO INVITE OR ADVERTISE FOR
BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANY MATERIAL,
EQUIPMENT OR SERVICE EMBRACED IN THE
SAID APPROPRIATIONS FOR WHICH FORMAL
BIDDING MAY BE REQUIRED PROVIDING THAT
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTAL AND
IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE OR
SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT
THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of
September 13, 1984, was taker up for its second and final
reading by title and adoption.. On, motion. of Commissioner
Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was
thereupon. giver its second and final reading by title and
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
THE ORDINANCE WhS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9903.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public
record and announced that copies were available to the
members of the City Commission and to the public:
gl
96 September 21, 1984
11. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; INCREASE WASTE COLLECTION FEES
------------------------------------------------------------
j Mayor Ferre: We are now on 8. Mr. Manager,...
Mr. Dawkins: I move 8 with the stipulation that we already
discussed a moment ago.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Dawkins moves as stipulated
previously that it be for only half of the year and that
before the other thirty dollars, that the Manager come back
and so on. Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Plummer seconds. Read the
ordinance. Call the roll.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: You have got to have Carollo on this.
Mayor Ferre: No, Carollo is voting "no" on this.
Mr. Plummer: This is for curb side?
Mr. Gary: No, this is for the fee.
Mayor Ferre: This is the increase. This is the increase of
the fee to thirty dollars.
Mr. Plummer : For the thirty dollar increase and
justification..
Mr. Gary: No, you can't vote it for thirty.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, I'm not going to vote it no other way
now.
Mayor Ferre: He has a commitment and you got to vote it as
it is with the commitment that he won't implement the other
half.
Mr. Plummer: He cannot implement the other half until he
comes back and justifies before this Commission..
Mr. Gary: That's correct. But you have to vote it this way
because you would be in violation of the State Law having an
unbalanced budget.
Mr. Plummer: Ir_ affect what we are doing is limiting to
thirty and he has got to justify any other thirty.
Mr. Gary: That was it.
Mayor Ferre: We car reverse anytime and you have my
commitment that I will vote with you to reverse...
Mr. Plummer: Sure, we can reduce it.
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Carollo, we are on the garbage fee.
g.l 97 September 21, 1984
�£s
Mr. Carollo: To increase the garbage fee? I don't know.
What's the Manager recommending. I vote "no".
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- _
v
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22,
ENTITLED "GARBAGE AND TRASH" OF THE CITY
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED BY AMENDING SECTION 22-12, WASTE
FEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER; AN INCREASE
IN THE ANNUAL WASTE FEE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FROM $100.00 TO
$160.00 FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, FROM
$50.00 TO $80.00 FOR DWELLING UNITS IN
AN APARTMENT BUILDING, FROM $195.00 TO
$310.00 FOR ALL BUSINESS NOT SERVICED BY
PRIVATE SANITATION COMPANIES; CONTAINING
A REPEALER PROVISION, AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins ar.d seconded by
Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by
title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public
record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City
Commission_ and that copies were available to the public.
12. FREEZE 183 VACANT POSITIONS IN CITY GOVERNNENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Ferre: All right, row what else do we have, Mr.
Manager?
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I have another motion. that I wouia
like to introduce.
Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead.
Mr. Perez: As you know we have a hundred eighty-three
vacant positions in the budget of the City of Miami.
Mr. Carollo: How many?
Mr. Perez: One hundred eighty-three vacant positions.
Those positions represent that 3.7 million dollars in salary
savings if we freeze those positions. I would like to move
a motion to request a freeze in all the hundred eighty-three
vacant positions in the City of Miami. That ir. order to
fill ar.y of those positions, that the City administration_
will have to request the authorization of this Commission.
That's what I would like.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion...
gl
98 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: I second that.
Mayor Ferre: ... and there is a second. All right,... Hey,
Plummer, you better lister_ to this now.
Mr. Dawkins: Explain_ it again_.
Mayor Ferre: There is a hundred eighty-three vacancies and
what he is doing is he is freezing them and he can't fill
them without the approval of this Commission..
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, ok. So, that means I can get my ten
garbage men, that I will do?
Mr. Carollo: Oh, sure. It just comes before the Commission
and we approve it, but the Manager just can't do it without
a Commission. approval.
Mayor Ferre: A resolution identifying the amount of forty-
two dollars and eighty cents identifying the amount of
forty-two dollars eighty cents. No, that's not... Oh, yes,
I see.
Mr. Perez: That's what is represented.
Mayor Ferre: As the savings to be achieved on each average
taxable parcel of property in the City of Miami, as a
resolution of not filling the existing hundred eighty-three
vacant positions in the City's work force doing the 1984-85
fiscal year. Furthermore, expressing the intent of the City
Commission that none of the said hundred eighty-three
vacancies be filled by the Manager without the expressed
advance approval of the City Commission.. Ms. Dougherty,
since you approved this as the form and correctness legally,
Section. 1, does rot by and in and of itself imply anything
does it?
Ms. Dougherty: I don't have a copy with me.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I see... I think...
Ms. Dougherty: No, you are right.
Mayor Ferre: In. other words it just makes a statement of
fact?
Ms. Dougherty: Right.
Mayor Ferre: In. other words, there is nothing contained
herein that we are returning $42.88 right.
Ms. Dougherty: Nov that's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, I see.
Mr. Perez: That's a saving.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, I'm ready to vote on it.
Mr. Carollo: Are you ready to vote?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Carollo: Yes or ro?
Mayor Ferre: I wart to vote with it.
gl
99 September 21, 1984
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner
Perez, who moved its adoption_:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-1085
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF
$42.80 AS THE SAVINGS TO BE ACHIEVED ON
EACH AVERAGE TAXABLE PARCEL OF PROPERTY
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI AS A RESULT OF NOT
FILLING THE EXISTING 183 VACANT
POSITIONS IN THE CITY'S WORK FORCE
DURING THE 1984-1985 FISCAL YEAR;
FURTHER EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE
CITY COMMISSION THAT NONE OF THE SAID
183 VACANCIES BE FILLED BY THE CITY
MANAGER WITHOUT THE EXPRESS ADVANCE
APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
(Here follows body of resolution., omitted here
and on file in. the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the
resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
13. MOTION REGARDING FORMER CHIEF HARMS APPEARANCE BEFORE
THE COMMISSION IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY=ALLOCATING $109000
FOR ONE SINGLE BREACH OF EXISTING CONTRACT ETC.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have a motion_ to make and I think
that the hearing that we held...
Mayor Ferre: What?
Mr. Carollo: The hearing that we held earlier this
afternoon. . It's felt by the majority of this Commission: to
be of the utmost importance for the City. I think the
t1iings that we were discussing are very very serious.
That's why I carrot comprehend how one of the mair
individuals, if not the main., that car. contribute
information_ that this Commission reeds is going to be
prevented from speaking before this Commission, by a Berlin
wall made of dollars, ten_ thousand dollars, which is what
Mr. Harms is being threatens with if he comes and speaks
before this Commission.. Mr. Mayor, I would like to make the
motion that this Commission. takes a position that hearing
testimony from Mr. Harms on this matter is of such
importance to this investigation that if at any time after
ar. Harms appears and speak before this Commission if the
Manager wants to sue him for the contract that they have
that stipulates ter thousand dollars to be paid by either
party if one speaks evil of the other, that this Commission
puts the ter thousand dollars up if reed be. If you will
recall when we were discussing this, that's one of the key
areas that I kept hammering away at. What would happer_ in
the future if something like this would happen. So, Mr.
I W_
gl 100
September 21, 1984
Mayor, my motion is so this way there is nothing to prelude
Harms from coming as of the Commission pass a resolution
that if after Mr. Harms comes and appears before this
Commission_, Mr. Gary feels that anything that Harms said
deserves him retaliating and suing him for ten thousand
dollars, that the Commission would put aside ten thousand
dollars to pay that if reed be.
Mayor Ferre: You mean should the suit be successful.
Mr. Carollo: Oh, exactly.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion_ on the floor, is
there a second?
Mayor Ferre: Ok, under discussion.. I'm sure Mr. Herkin is
now gone. So, we will have to ask you, Ms. Dougherty, with
relations to the contract that exist now. Is the potential
liability of this ten thousand per mention_ or is it...
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, it is .
Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, if he mentions the name in
one breath ten times, it would be ter, times ter..
Ms. Dougherty: No, no, for saying anything critical or
disparaging. Just the word "critical" is sufficient.
Mayor Ferre: If somebody says you are a no good, lying and
uses five other adjectives, is it ten thousand per
adjective?
14s. Dougherty: Yes. Now, a court of law may find that to be
unreasonable under the circumstances, but that's what the
contract says.
Mayor Ferre: All right.
Mr. Plummer : My ur_derst3r_dir_g of the contract and what I
voted on was that if either party spoke either slanderous or
in anyway defame the other, that application would apply.
Ms. Dougherty: This is the portion_ that deals with the
City. The portion that deals between_ the two of them even
just mentions the word "cannot be critical of each other".
Mr. Carollo: And they say that we live in. America here.
Mayor Ferre: I think I would vote with the motion provided
that it is understood and that you will clarify it before we
get into it or Mr. Herkir, will, that legally we are talking
about and on, ore occasion rather than per adjective,
because... I mean we could erG up getting into something
that just could go on..
Ms. Dougherty: Well, it talks about exact languages.
Kenneth Harms and Howard Gary in their individual capacities
agree to make no negative of critical statements about each
other personally. The mutual covenants set forth are
consider essential in continued operation of the stipulated
settlement accordingly. A breach of those provisions by Ken_
Harms or Howard Gary will be remedy by the payment of ter_
thousand dollars per breach.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but see in this question of whether a
breach is if the man_ comes and testifies and testifies
during one afternoon.. Is that one or will it be more than
one breach.
gl 101 September 21, 1984
Mr. Carollo: That's one breach, came one time. He didn't
come twenty times. See this is why we need a special
counselor, Mr. Mayor, that...
Mayor Ferre: Well, based on that I would vote with it on
that premise, but not on an open. premise.
Mr. Carollo: Well, what my motion_ stated was ten thousand
dollars, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I see, limited to that. I'm ready to vote.
Anybody else wart to make a comment?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will be voting against the motion
and I would be voting against it for two reasons. The
-
first, it could be conceivably a check written without an
amount. That's conceivable. That's number ore.
Mayor Ferre: No, he is limiting it to ten thousand dollars.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but excuse me. The immediate question.,
"
then has to be asked if there are two breaches or three,
that means that beyond the first one.
Mayor Ferre: That's right, we are not... nobody is covered.
—
Mr. Carollo: That means he would have to come back to
--
a
another meeting, Plummer.
-
Mr. Plummer: No, not necessarily. You can breach... from
what I understand you could breach it two or three times in
one afternoon by different statements.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, you didn't follow the statement
Plummer. The statement is that this is limited to ten
thousand dollars period.
Mr. Plummer: But I am asking for an understanding, Mr.
_
Mayor.
Mr. Carollo: The problem is Gary forgot to include...
Mr. Plummer: The City's liability is ter..
Mr. Carollo: Gary forgot to include ten thousand if Plummer
were shot too. Otherwise, he would be safe.
Mr. Plummer: The second reason. Mr. Mayor, I don't interpret
�
_
that contract ever_ as it relates between. Mr. Gary and Mr.
=`
Harms as being restrictive for answer questions in a non -
slanderous and non...
= s
Mayor Ferre: It isn't. That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: He can come here and answer questions and that
-;,
only applies if he makes a slanderous statement or a
},
defaming statement.
-!
Mayor Ferre: That's is correct.
Carollo: Yes, but you know, Plummer, , it's like
S
everything alive.
x
Mr. Plummer: And he is too smart for that.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I'm sure if somebody would have called
Ali Baba a thief, he would have said it was slander too.
•
_«*ter
Mayor Ferre: All right,...
`
r
gl 102 September 21, 1984
Mti. Dawkins: Madam City Attorney, you have read the
agreement, in fact, I think you are looking at it. Is what
we are doing row legal? Can we legally say charge the
wording where it says that we will only recognize one breech
and if we do that what happens to the other ores that happen_
during that time?
Ms. Dougherty: I think by your motion you are only
underwriting one breach, however that's defined. I believe
that you can have more than one breech at any given hearing,
i but you are only going to underwrite breach.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, what happens to the others?
Mr. Plummer: Well, but you could have a breach on every
question, asked.
Mayor Ferre: That's between them.
Mr. Dawkins: And so, what happens to the other ores? The
other breeches? Where will that ter. thousand dollars come
from?
i
Mr. Carollo: The judge is going to laugh it out of court.
Ms. Dougherty: He is not going to... Mr. Gary, is not going
to waive the rights for the other...
Mr. Dawkins: Hold it. I don't wart to personalize it. Ok.
It could be either of the gentlemen_. Ok. I don't want to
personalize it. But all I wart to know it, can we legally
and that's all I'm asking you, say that we are only liable
for one breech?
Mr. Plummer: That's what's been said.
Mayor Ferre: I will tell you... Mr. Carollo, to make it
totally fair, I think it would have to be a two way
situation., because if you are offering that two thousand
dollar protect for one, I think we reed to do it for the
other to be total balanced on it.
i
Mr. Carollo: No, Mr. Mayor, because Harms could have the
right to waive anything that Gary warts to say. See and I'm
i sure that Mr. Harms would be willing to do that, but the
problem being is that for whatever reasons we have a City
Manager that's petrified to hear from Ken. Harms and Mike
Cosgrove for whatever the reasons are and you know, I could
only imagine that before October 15th comes when. Cosgrove is
to leave, I'm sure they will try to work the same kind of
deal, you know, that we will let you retire. However, do
not speak a word about me. You know, this is getting to the
4 point that it's sick. You can't have a pity run anymore by
blackmail, by intimidation., by just plain. gutter.
Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready to vote or. this? I
would assume that Mr. Harms, would waive his right to claim
the ten thousand dollars in the same way. So, are we ready
to vote? How about the maker of the motion.. I think you
should make it subject to this.
Mr. Carollo: Subject to what?
Mayor Ferre: Subject to Harms agreeing that his position_ is
the same. In other words, that he is not going to go after
Mr. Gary up to ter_ thousand dollars for a breach up to ten
thousand...
Mr. Carollo: Sure, I will include it in the motion., but see
what gets me is that this man has got the gall to sit
y there...
gl 103 September 21, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Well, Joe let's...
Mr. Carollo: No, it's a point Mr. Mayor. Hell, I'm rot
intimidated by this guy. This is getting to the point that
it's just sickening. Who is running this city? Who are
real people that are making the decisions in this city? It -
sure as hell ain't this Commission any longer. You get up _
j here and the majority of us tell him to do things. It's not
done. Have you received yet the full amount of hours that
we requested quite a few meetings ago in the amount of
police protection? I requested this January of this year,
you requested it since the last fiscal year in uniformed
police protection.. Well, what we received was the same
thing that we received the time before. Now, if that's not
insubordination., I don't know what you call it. You make
requests, he laughs in our faces, does whatever he pleases.
Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready to vote?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, I'm ready to vote, but I tell you, you
know, either let's make up our minds if we are going to be a
Mayor or be Commissioner or let's just stay home and let him
make the decisions.
Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by
Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption,:
MOTION NO. 84-1086
A MOTION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION
DECLARES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER
CHIEF OF POLICE KENNETH HARMS IS OF SUCH
IMPORTANCE TO THIS INVESTIGATION OF
MATTERS RELATING TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT THAT ANY TIME AFTER Mr. HARMS
APPEARS TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION,
IF THE CITY MANAGER DECIDES TO SUE Mr.
HARMS FOR ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE
EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM, THE
CITY COMMISSION AGREES TO PAY UP TO
$10,000 REPRESENTING A SINGLE BREACH
UNDER THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT SHOULD
THE AFORESAID LAWSUIT BE SUCCESSFUL;
FURTHER STATING THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO
A SIMILAR AGREEMENT ON KENNETH HARM'S
PART.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion_
} was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else to come before this
Commission? Ms. Dougherty or Mr. Clark, when you talk to
attorney Falk or attorney Josephberg, so inform them of the
action of the Commission..
gl 104 September 21, 1984
Mr, Plummer: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Ralph Parks, I promised =
him that I would bring up this evening. Mr. Manager, the
question is of you. The Commission asked you at the last
meeting to look into your coffers and see if there was
anything that you could do, have you had the opportunity to
see what you car. do for the retirees? When car - we expect
and answer on that?
Mr. Gary: (COMMENTS INAUDIBLE).
Mr. Plummer: All right, as soon as possible.
Mayor Ferre: All right, that concludes our meeting.
i —
i
THERE BEING SO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:32 0•Clock P.M.
Maurice A. Ferre
M A Y 0 R
ATTEST:
Ralph G. Ongie
CITY CLERK
Natty Hirai
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
a�
i too
IsoC®oil RATE
gl
105 September 21, 1984
pW -
I
.% rr
r+i y
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 211, 1984