HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #31 - Discussion Itemi , ditV bIr MiAM s ftL601bA
1 iro. ROWA" V, OARY DAtE .fund 105
City Manager sUBJECI Lpq out tequeSt for
on' Ttanteript of
Agenda 1teti ivo, 1 -tmftisgloner foe
Carailo`s $ackgtound Check.
f Ph OMATTY IMA1 REFERE4CE5
Assistant City Clerk
ENCLOSURES
This Office is in receipt of a memorandum from you dated June 4th, which curiously
enough, has just now been received by our office (June 10th).
In your memorandum, you request that we furnish you with the transcript of the
discussion during the May 28 City Commission Meeting in connection with the abovef
captioned matter, so that it could be forwarded to the Dade County State Attorney s
Office.
Please be informed that the transcript you request was completed and hand -delivered
to your office 5 days ago, on June 5th, with a cover memo signed by me, a copy
of which is attached hereto for your ready reference.
If you have any questions, please call.
Mdb
cc: Honorable Members of the City Commission
Encl. a/s
I
Cl" fib' MIAMI, PWORIbA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
,
ta. HCWAkb V, GAM
Ci Manager
TTY HlMl
thb"' Assistant City Clerk
6Att: .dune 5, 1081
PlLt-
subitct trans ri t_.._ r6M._M&Y,._M__- .8i_M it-
inre! Discussion regarding Cemissiwner
Carolic"s tackgrcund Cheek for Appbint-
went .as
R��'tF2ENC�5.
tNCL65UAt5:
Enclosed herein please find an excerpt from the Minutes of the City Commission
Meeting of May 28th, in connection with the above -captioned matter.
Pursuant to direction from the City Commission, this transcript, as well as all
other pertinent documents and/or information, was to be sent to the State
Attorney's Office in order that they might further review this issue.
Inasmuch as the Clerkwas never furnished the background paperwork on this matter,
this transcript is being sent to your office in order that you may send the
complete package to the State Attorney's Office.
if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
MHsmm
Encl.a/s
cc: Honorable Members of the
City Commission
George F. Knox, Esq., City Attorney
... ., -, ...-.,.:. .........:::i'-=.'-:::3{-�;+r.Nr'"tiY.'x::ft':.:.61f.!:b.-d'.�:.�M:✓�.5.'i :�.. ;a•tr:R;#^.�.x.. ... 4:�e,... r4. � ..- ..t- � ,. -.. ._...._. .1 .v: S, .f ... R. +b.: .... h...x. �e s... x.�. u...�......�...._.uaw.x-m ----._._-.-_.-..—_._. a-_._._
I
CITY OF NIJASAi. FLfPIDA
INTER-OFFIC EE ME_-100 RANDUM
TO Ralph G, Gngie
'City Clerk
Howard V, Gary
City Manager
June 4, 1981
Agenda Item No, 13
commissioner doe Carollo's
Background Check
At the conclusion of discussion of the subject item, it was
requested by the City Commission that all material pertinent
thereto be forwarded at once to the bade County State
Attorney's Office, to addition to the material submitted by
this office to the City Commission, a transcript of the dis-
cussion is to be sent to the State Attorney.
It is therefore requested that the transcript of this matter
be transmitted to this office for inclusion in a single
package.
cc: Mayor and Members of
The City Commission
"` _b iNt�l ids MEMORANOU
Howard V, Oary MAY 2 7 1901 ►��rr
City . Manager
Ilusre�t: synopsis of sty oosition `�f, .1.1 -1��,..
j Background issue
+� Kenneth L Harm cl r ,f
Chief of Pollee
�NtLCSUtiit: ,��
During the past several months, numerous allegations pronounced by Commissioner
Joseph Carollo have been directed to both me and the Miami Police Department,
lte.cognizing that open debate between public figures is too often a disruptive
influence in a community, I have chosen to assume a restrained posture with the
hope that any differences between Mr. Carollo and me could be resolved in a
dignified and respectful manner. Because Mr. Carollo has chosen to pursue this
issue in a relentless monologue of accusations, it is most appropriate that I publicly
clarify the details of this matter at this time.
In November of 1980, Mr. Carollo made application with the Miami' Police
Department to be appointed a Special Police Officer. According to the code of the
City of Miami, Special Police Officers are individuals appointed by the Chief of
Police who are empowered with limited arrest authority and the right to bear a
concealed firearm within the City limits. The ordinance is quite specific that the
granting of such status is solely contingent on the evaluation of the Chief of Police
pursuant to the results of a thorough background check, the minimum elements of
which are clearly outlined in the ordinance itself. This privilege should in no way
be confused with a concealed firearm permit which by law, can only be issued by
Metropolitan Dade County.
At the time Mr. Carollo submitted his application to me, it was apparent that there
was an expectation on his part, that his request would be immediately granted. In
light of the fact that Mr. Carollo's status was that of any other private citizen, the
Department was mandated to treat his application accordingly.
Mr. Carollo's application was processed routinely with the investigative officer
devoting only that time allowed by his other, more primary responsibilities. On
December 15, 1980, Mr. Carollo withdrew his application citing primarily his belief
that the forty-six days time lapse was indicative of a perceived attempt, by the
police department to discredit him. In no way did this time duration reflect the
police department's interest in Mr. Carollo's application. As is the case with many
public agencies, the processing of routine forms, permits or other applications
rarely meet the time needs of the interested party. While as an administrator, 1
recognize that this is an area that should be addressed and remedied, I am still of
the belief that unless Mr. Carollo was of the feeling that his public position
afforded his application special attention, the eight to ten hours dedicated to Mr.
Carollo were neither excessive or abusive.
During the course of the background investigation, certain individuals who had
supervised Mr. Carollo in his previous work experiences were interviewed. These
persons made certain statements regarding Mr. Carollo.
M
At the time the Commissioner withdrew his appli6ation, the personal notes taken
by the investigator were sealed. At the insistence of Mr. Carollo, these
handwritten notes were released to the public.
Mora resent correspondenee from the supervisors of these individuals eonfliated
with the sentiment of these original statements. Since these original statements
were rendered with an expectation of anonymity, recent denials in the media by
those persons intereviewed have Imph-dations which are both obvious and
understandable. Nonetheless, the investigator stands by the validity of these initial
utteranees.
Several allegations have been made by Mr. Carollo that the scope of the
background investigation involved either persons or facts not relevant to the
special officer application. This charge has been allowed to gain some credibility
in the media due, to a large extent, tomy previous posture of issuing minimal public
statements on this entire matter. The Miami Police Department denies such
charges.
In the course of gathering material intended to verify information provided on the
application by Mr. Carollo, various public records were checked.. Certain pieces of
information were written on pieces of scrap paper by the investigator. In one
instance the name of a relative was included in these notes. This occurred during
the Police Department's attempts to verify the address of the applicant where the
residence listed by Mr. Carollo was not in the recently published 1981 Bresser's
Address_ Manual. For anyone to represent this as an investigation of Mr. Carollo's
family is to me, an obvious attempt to perpetuate the notoriety this issue has
received. Had Mr. Carollo not insisted on public revelation of these personal notes
they would have been discarded since the information contained in them would
ultimately not have been, included in a final report. The December 16, 1980
summary report, prepared after the Commissioner withdrew his application is a
good example, as it included none of this material.
A review of this file will clearly indicate that there is no succeeding information
on any family member, absolutely no broadening of scope on any of these
individuals, a fact which has not been articulated by the media; -a--?act which
refutes any contention that the Department was investigating such persons.
Another matter which has been the subject of public attention has been the
Department's inquiry with the Florida Secretary of State's Office to determine, as
had been reported in the media, if Mr. Carollo had in fact opened a private security
business. Since the Florida State Ethics Commission had ruled that it can be a
conflict of interest for a police officer to be involved in a private security
business, Mr. Carollo's status as a Special Police officer would have, we believe
umbrellered him under this decision. Additionally, it would be inappropriate for
the Chief of Police to grant a citizen an alternative method of becoming an armed
private security specialist when the state has already prescribed a stringent
process for attaining such status. The brief mention in the file of two other
individuals came about as a result of determining any conflict of interest issues on
the part of Mr. Carollo.
Charges that a police Officer made derrogatory comments to a representative of
the Secretary of State's office were investigated by the Internal security Unit of
the Department► In a sworn statement the investigator has denied these
allegations,
Several weeks agof Mr, Carollo trade public charges that members of the pollee
Department Were surveilling his activities. In a fashion unprecedented in the
history of the police Department, the former City Manager and a member of his
staff conducted an early Saturday morning interrogation of personnel of this
Department, With total disregard for the employees' contractual rights, these
officers were subject to scrutiny and innuendo without my knowledge or input.
Additionally on that same Saturday, a supervisor in the Department's Homicide
Retail was questioned in City Hall as to his knowledge of an internal investigation.
The questioning was, conducted by that same member of the City Manager's staff
but also, a member of the Mayor's staff. The unusual nature of this action raises
some serious questions as to the propriety of this individual's involvement or that
of her superior, the Mayor.
The timing of this occurrence, = just immediately before a scheduled attempt to
choose a permanent City Manager should be of utmost concern to the commission
and this community and consequently warrants further examination.
On several occasions during the last few months, I have met with Mr. Carollo with
the hopes of resolving this issue. As a result of his personal feelings towards me,
Mr. Carollo has admitted to me delaying appropriations of important funding for
police equipment, and keeping me away from my duties at the police department
by insisting I sit through entire fourteen hour commission meetings. He has
become enthralled in internal police department policies which are normally not
consistent with the involvement of an individual of such public position. He has
harassed my officers in the street and has spoken abusively to members of my
family when I have not been available at home to respond to his interests. His
persistent charges of "hatchet jobs" are baseless.
A review of the file will indicate the following: On March 27, 1981) I responded to
Mr. Fosmoen's directive to bring to him the background file. At that time, I
advised him of my serious concerns that the sensitive nature of the information
could be used to embarrass Commissioner Carollo. Furthermore, in a March 26th
phone call to me, Commissioner Carollo indicated that he had not solicited the
Manager's assistance in gaining access to the material Taking into mind these two
considerations, I presented to Mr. Fosmoen a comprehensive memorandum outlining
my concerns about :..:proper dissemination of the material. Upon reading the
memorandum in my presence, Mr. Fosmoen refused to accept it and gave me back
both the memorandum and the background file.
On April 3, 19810 Mr. Fosmoen called my office, in my absence, and demanded that
the background file be delivered to him. The file was again accompanied by a
memorandum, this time signed by Acting Chief Breslow. This memorandum
reiterated the Department's concerns that the inconclusive nature of the
information made its contents subject too much to interpretation. This was the
only copy of the background file that was not returned.
11
a 4 a
On April io, 10% I again aeoompanied at Mr. I+o§moenfs direction, a eapy of the
background file to the Managers offiaea Attached to this eopy was yet another
Memorandum in whieh I voleed by eoneern to Mr. Posmoen that the information
should not be treated lightly and must not be disseminated indiscriminately. As he
had on March 27th, Mr. Posmoen refused aeeeptanee of the memorandum; an
oeourrenee I duly noted on the bottom of the document. I left his office with both
the memorandum and the background file. v
The point to be made here is this,. Those amongst us, the media ineluded, who have
oriented themselves to believe that there is position to be gained or news to be
read by representing this issue as an abusive police Department discrediting an
eleeted official, will likely attempt to seek out innuendoes to perpetuate the
emotion and disruption of this drama.
However, those who inspect this material with objectivity must conclude that my
position has been totally inconsistent with that of a person determined to
embarrass or bring harm to Mr. Carollo. Yet understanding the flair for the
sensational and the needs of some to pit one public figure against the other, I am
not surprised that this story has been portrayed as it has. Mr. Carollo's own
persistence in this regard is a matter over which I have no control.
Had Mr. Carollo allowed the background investigation to proceed, his application
would have been approved upon the presentation of the material only recently
received. Mr. Carolio's April Oth refusal to give me these more positive
recommendations is a fact I can neither explain nor understand.
several issues must be addressed to resolve this matter. None the least of these
must be a commitment on the part of the leaders of this community to accept the
truth as the final determinant.
I have responded to inquiries from two City Managers and both have expressed
their satisfaction with myresponses. I have answered, by memorandum, questions
posed by Mayor Ferre, Commissioner Carollo and the commission as a body.
Yet through all these communications the issue is still with us, - dividing us and
occupying our valuable time. I can only conclude from this that there are those
among us who have chosen to persevere with the hope that personal position or gain
will be attained as a result.
KIH:sbb
INTERsariNelt MEM014ANBUM
Howard V. Gary dAfii, May 26, 1981
City manager buliket: Your Memo of 21 May 1981
etio.A tp do.�,W.6
Kenneth I. Harms
Chief Of Police
With regard to your moo of 21 May 1981, the following rtprtSehtt the
questions posed and my responses to game,
Question #1 = Did Commissioner Latasa. at any time or in any Way*
suggest or discuss the possibility of investi-
gating Commissioner Carollo?
Answer Commissioner Lacata did not at any time or in any
way suggest or discuss the possibility of investi-
gating Commissioner Carollo with mt.
Question #2 - bid Commissioner Plummer, in any way, have any,
direct or indirect responsibility with reference
to Commissioner Carollo's background check?
Answer Commissioner Plummer did not in any way have any
direct or indirect responsibility with reference
to Commissioner Carollo's background check.
I know of no issue or individual who in any way has affected the course
of the police department's actions as they relate to Commissioner Carollo
in his request to be considered as a special officer with the City of
Miami Police Department, other than the Commissioner himself.
KI H: mm
I
9
•
oa'or� x
1
111" Op MIAMI, FLORIBA
INTER-OPI=ICt MEMORANbUM
Xthheth 1. Harts
Chief of Police
040kom Howard V, cary
City Manager
Chief s►i riiI -
i�1aft, �l 4-rel-
`_ MAY 2 2 190fittt,
R5- CEIV
s+ �NtlC+Sugts.
21, 1981 PRA:
At the May 15, 1981 City Commission Meeting, Commissioners bacasa
Y. and Plummer requested that you provide them with a statement
that addresses the following questions:
1, bid Commissioner Lacasa, at any time or in any
way, suggest or discuss the possibility of in-
vestigating Commissioner Carollo?
2. bid Commissioner Plummer, in any way, have any
direct or indirect responsibility with reference
to Commissioner Carollo's background check?
Please provide me with a written response to these questions by
Wednesday, May 27, 1981.
3
ttLOR10A DEPARNENT OF STA"M
George ritestone
Svctcta' of State
Ron Levitt
Assistant Secretary Of State
May 26, 1981
To: Howard V. Gary
City of Miami Manager
FROM: Ralph Gisbert
Regional Representative
RE: Letter of May 21, 1981
Dear ;Ir. Gary:
Please be advised that I will attend your City Commission meeting
scheduled for May 28# 1981 at 10:00 a.m.
I will not be able to attend the meeting you requested prior to
the Commission meeting. My supervisors are of the opinion that
this meeting would be inappropriate.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.
sinc el er
Ralph Gisbert
Regional Representative
RG: ks
ELP81QA__-% dia 4Le qftlig Arts
The Capitol -Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - (904) 488-3680