HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #01 - Discussion ItemCITY OF MIAMI, F'-ORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Commission GATE. April 24, 1980 "`E
SUBJECT: George Knox: Johnny Jones' Case
Involving Alleged Bribery of Jones
by David Rouen
FROM: Maurice A. F r REFERENCES:
Mayor
• ENCLOSUR[S:
The City of Miami Commission is, and should be, concerned by the actions of
the City Attorney George Knox, subsequent to the release of transcripts of a
telephone conversation which took place on March 20, 1980 with him, David Rouen
and Dr. Johnny Jones. Mr. George Knox is the City of Miami's Attorney and thus
our chief law officer. Th�� matter that was precipitated by that conversation
casts significant clouds, not only over the City Attorney but over the City of
Miami as well. These doubts must be cleared. Specific concerns of the City
Commission, as his employer as well, are:
1. Impropriety.
2. Possible violation of the City Charter.
3. Possible action by the State Attorney or the Grand Jury.
Since Mr. Knox has chosen notto suspend himself voluntarily, until these questions
are cleared up, the decision now rests with the City Commission.
With regard to possible actions by the State Attorney or the Grand Jury - these lie
outside of the City Commission's realm. Obviously, we should not interfere with
that process.
Concerning the possible violation of the Charter, that is a matter within our juris-
diction but outside of our ex-pertise. Therefore, I feel we should request the
assistance of the Dade County Bar. The reason why the Dade County Bar is the appro-
priate body is because the determination, as far as the City is concerned, is two-
fold:
I. Was Mr. Knox in fact practicing law?
2. Was Mr. Knox's conduct unethical under the Bar's definitions?
That brings us to the main pending consideration for the City Commission regarding
Mr. Knox's involvement with this matter, which is impropriety.
Mr. Knox has chosen not to be present today. Whereas I think that this is a mistake
on his part I understand his reluctance to submit himself at this time to a public
forum before the State Attorney has concluded a proper investigation. Secondly,
Mr. Knox has not had an opportunity to meet individually with each member of the
s,
Gj
Memorandum to the Members of 'the Commission
Re George Knox: J. Jones' Case involving alleged bribery of Jones by D. Rouen
April 24, 1980
Page Two
Commission on the questions that have arisen, as one Commissioner was out of
the country until today. Thirdly, Mr. Knox has not been confronted formally ,
with a series of questions that he should be given an opportunity to answer.
Fourthly, Mr. Knox's attorney, Dick Gerstein, has said to me and will state
to the Commission today, that Mr. Knox has waived all immunity on the Johnny
Jones - David Rouen Case and will fully cooperate in the trial with the State
in a manner that will be of assistance to the State's case.
With regard to the above, and especially taking into account Mr. Knox's waiver
of immunity and willingness to cooperate with the State Attorney (and since
that office has not concluded their investigation), I feel it would be unwise
for the City of Miami to take any action at this time. It would be my hope
that the State Attorney's Office will conclude this investigation within the
next two weeks.
I will be submitting questions, in writing, to Mr. Knox, and would ask that
other members of the City Commission do the same, so that Mr. Knox is afforded
the opportunity to respond, in writing, to all of the multiple questions at
one time. Mr. Knox owes clear explanations, not only to the Commission of the
City of Miami but to the People of Miami.
The decision by the Commission as to the question of impropriety rests on its
own merits and does not have anything to do with the actions or inactions of
another entity. The question is not whether Ttr. Knox's acts are to be judged
by the City of Miami Commission regarding impropriety by Mr. Knox, the only
question is when.
MAF:vb