HomeMy WebLinkAboutIndependent Review CommitteeCITY OF MIAMI
INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
INTO THE
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Commission
FROM: Israel Reyes, Esq., Chairman, and Members of the IRC
DATE: October 14, 2014
RE: Independent Review Committee Report - Findings and recommendations
to the City Commission based on investigation regarding the Civilian
Investigative Panel; pursuant to R-14-0196.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2001, the City of Miami Charter was amended to include a mandate that the City
Commission create a Civilian Investigative Panel (hereinafter, "CIP") to oversee the sworn
officers of the City of Miami Police Department. Section 51 of the Charter of the City of Miami
provides that the CIP shalt be authorized to:
(1) Conduct independent investigations of police misconduct;
(2) Review policies of the police department; and
(3) Make recommendations to the city manager and/or directly to the police chief, to
which a timely response shall be received within 30 days.
The following year, the commission approved an ordinance creating the CIP in
accordance with the Charter's mandate. The Code states that the express purpose of the CIP
is to:
[a]ct as independent civilian oversight of the sworn police department. Miami, Fla.,
Code art. II, § 11.5-27(1).
In furtherance of this purpose, the CIP is authorized to:
[c]onduct investigations, inquiries and public hearings; to make factual determinations;
and to facilitate resolution and recommendations to the City Manager and Chief of
Police regarding allegations of misconduct by any sworn police officer. Miami, Fla.,
Code art. II, § 11.5-27.
This Independent Review Committee was formed for the purposes as stated in
Resolution R-14-0196.
BACKGROUND
Concerns regarding the CIP have been brought to the attention of the City Commission
by, among others, ciyicvwatchdog groups and organizations that advocate for the protection of
constitutional rights. Separately, the United States Department of Justice has addressed the
City, in a July 9, 2013 letter, concerning what the Department of Justice states is reasonable
cause to believe that the City of Miami Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of
excessive use of force with respect to firearm discharges. The Department of Justice also
concludes, in its July 9, 2013 letter, that:
"... There are often egregiously long delays in concluding administrative
investigations [at the MPD] of officer -involved shootings..."
Consequently, the concerns regarding the CIP have included the CIP's ability timely to
complete investigations and the CIP's ability to effectively operate independently. After public
hearing, the City Commission established, in May 2014, an Independent Review Committee to
investigate the concerns brought to the attention of the Commission. See excerpt minutes of the
April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2014, City of Miami Commission Meeting pertaining to item titled
`Discussion Regarding the Civilian Investigative Panel.' (Attachment #2).
III RESOLUTION
On May 8,. 2014, the City of Miami Commission passed Resolution R-14-0196,
creating the Independent Review Committee to review certain aspects of the CIP. The
resolution reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CREATING AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ("COMMITTEE"), WHICH
SHALL BE COMPRISED OF FIVE (5) MEMBERS, ONE (1)
APPOINTMENT FROM EACH CITY COMMISSIONER, TO
INVESTIGA 1E WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY MALFEASANCE
OR MISFEASANCE BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OF THE
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, WHETHER THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND CIVILIAN
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL HAVE TIMELY INVESTIGATED CASES;
FURTHER DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE TO RENDER AN OPINION
See memorandum to the City Commission regarding 'Ways CIP's Independent Counsel Has Obstructed
Work of CIP (Revised)' dated April 28, 2014, prepared by the Coalition of ACLU, NAACP, NANA, PULSE,
Brothers of the Same Mind, Haitian American Grassroots Coalition, the Miami Workers Center, and SALAD.
(Attachment 1#1).
2
WHETHER THE PAST INVESTIGATIONS, OR LACK OF
INVESTIGATIONS, WERE TIMELY; TO REVIEW THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL; AND
TO PREPARE A REPORT WITH ITS FINDINGS TO BE PRESENTED
TO THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY ATTORNEY, AND CITY
MANAGER WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS.
WHEREAS, the Civilian Investigative Panel ("CIP"), created pursuant
to Ordinance No. 12188, provides for independent and impartial citizens'
oversight of the City of Miami ("City") Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the CIP is to provide the City with
independent and impartial oversight of the City Police Department through
monitoring and analysis of police practices, policies and procedures, as well as
conducting independent investigations pertaining to allegations of police
misconduct pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 11.5-31 of the Code
of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended ("City Code"); and
WHEREAS, various concerns have been brought to the City
Commission's attention including the CIP's ability to timely complete
investigations and effectively operate autonomously; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Commission to establish an
Independent Review Committee ("Committee") to investigate the various
concerns brought to the attention of the City Commission, including but not
limited to, the conduct of the Independent Counsel ("IC"), whether the IC has
timely investigated cases, whether past investigation were timely, whether any
delays in investigations are due to the fault of the IC or the CIP, and whether
the CIP is in fact operating independently; and
WHEREAS, each City Commissioner shall appoint one (1) person to
serve as a member of the Committee; and
WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Committee to review the CIP's ability
to perform its duties consistent with Chapter 11.5 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Committee shall prepare a report containing their
findings, as well as any recommendations to resolve conflicts, if any, to present
to the City Commission, the City Attorney, and the City Manager no later than
sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
3
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this
Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. A committee comprised of five (5) individuals appointed by
each- City Commissioner shall be created for the purpose of reviewing the CIP's
ability to perform its duties independent of the IC, determine whether there is a
delay attributed to the CIP in the investigation of alleged police misconduct, and
prepare a report containing its findings as well as any recommendations to the
City Commission, City Attorney, and City Manager no later than sixty (60)
days from the date of this Resolution.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption and signature of the Mayor. (1)
{ 1 } If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the
end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the mayor
vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of
the veto by the City Commission.
IV. MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
(Listed by District)
Lynn Lewis, Esq.
Appointee by the Hon. Commissioner Wilfredo Gort (Dist. 1)
Sonia O'Donnell, Esq.
Appointee by the Hon. Commissioner Marc Sarnoff (Dist. 2)
Clarence Dickson, Police Chief (Ret.)
Appointee by the Hon. Commissioner Frank Carollo (Dist. 3)
Israel Reyes, Esq., Chairman
Appointee by the Hon. Commissioner Francis Suarez (Dist. 4)
Christine King, Esq., Vice -Chairman
Appointee by the Hon. Commissioner Keon Harderon (Dist. 5)
V. FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT RENEW COMMITTED
4
The Independent Review Committee convened on June 6, 2014, June 23, 2014, July
29, 2014, September 2, 2014, and September 15, 2014. All of the meetings were publicly
noticed and audio -taped following customary City of Miami procedures, During these
meetings, the Independent Review Committee heard testimony from twenty-two (22)
individuals. The testifying witnesses included current and former members of the CIP, current
and forrner employees of the CIP Staff, representatives of civic and civil liberties watchdog
groups, the former Executive Director of the Miami -Dade County counterpart of the CIP,
representatives of the State Attorney's Office, and the City of Miami Law Department. The
CIP's incumbent Independent Counsel, Mr. Charles Mays, also testified before the
Independent Review Committee. No representatives from the City of Miami Police
Department or the Fraternal Order of Police (Lodge #20) appeared at any of the Independent
Review Committee meetings to address the committee. In addition to having heard from the live
witnesses, the Independent Review Committee received numerous documents from interested
persons. Those documents will be attached and made part of the record.
The materials, testimony, and presentations were provided to and/or made to the
Independent Review Committee by members of the community, other stakeholders and
interested parties, and organizations. In addition, all of the individuals who provided testimony
also responded to questions from the Independent Review Committee. The Independent
Review Committee, in reaching its determinations and formulating its recommendations,
considered and weighed all of the information provided.
After hearing approximately thirteen hours of testimony from witnesses and reviewing
many pages of written materials, the members of the Independent Review Committee have
reached the following conclusions addressing the issues charged to them by Resolution
R-14-0196, as follows:
Determination #1: There Is No Finding of Malfeasance or Misfeasance in
the Performance of Duties by the Independent Counsel
of the CIF.
There was nothing in any of the materials and statements presented that demonstrated
the Independent Counsel's conduct would fall within the definitions of malfeasance or
misfeasance. The Independent Review Committee concludes that the Independent Counsel, Mr.
Charles Mays, undertook multiple responsibilities, even in those instances where the CIP
Ordinance did not clearly establish those responsibilities as part of the Independent Counsel's
duties. However, he did so in order to fill the gap or void created in the absence of an
executive director. The Independent Review Committee finds that Mr. Mays is well -respected,
intelligent, and did the best he could do in a careful and competent manner.
It is important to understand that the language of the CIP ordinance contains a gap and
a void with regard to the duties of CIP staff members. However, the stability of the CIP office
took a downturn when the budget collapsed and the Independent Counsel assumed duties that
5
are not established in the CIP Ordinance and By Laws in order to ensure the work was done,
These duties included bearing the responsibilities of vacant positions including that of the
executive director. The ordinance did not prohibit Mr. Mays from having the ability to make the
decisions he made. There was no showing that he committed any infraction of any kind, let
alone the ones which were within the scope of Independent Review Committee's review.
The Independent Review Committee notes that a problem existed within the CIF
structure and that there were personality conflicts. Most witnesses who testified before the
Independent Review Committee were very credible. However, some witnesses gave conflicting
interpretations of the issues while others appeared as if they had an axe to grind. Moreover,
some of the documents received subsequent to the Independent Review Committee's meeting
on September 2, 2014, contained statements which were not substantiated by the materials
provided. There were certain allegations of illegality but the Independent Review Committee
found no proof to support the allegations. Furthermore, some of the conclusions proffered to
the Independent Review Committee were legal conclusions submitted by non -lawyers but no
proof was presented to support allegations of illegality. The Independent Review Committee
acknowledges that because Mr. Mays examined all issues as a lawyer, and the CIP is not a
court of law, part of the tension within the CIP niay have been caused by this. Nonetheless, the
Independent Review Committee cannot visit the internal problems of the CIP and the
relationship between CIP and the community or police department squarely on Mr. Mays. The
Independent Review Committee cannot place fault on one person for doing more than the job
required. Notwithstanding that the Independent Review Committee finds Mr. Mays did a
credible job, if Mr. Mays, in his wisdom and unselfish manner, chooses to separate from the
CIP and leave the City, it would be a correct decision.
Determination #2: There Is No Finding That The Independent Counsel
Was Responsible for the Untimeliness of Investigations.
The CIP Ordinance and the CIP's By -Laws are not clear as to what is the meaning of
"timely." There is no guidance as to what is the start date, end date, and issues that toll the
process of an investigation. If there is no clear and unambiguous timeline which states the start
date, the completion date, and justifiableexcuses for not timely completing the investigations,
then it is not possible to find that the Independent Counsel failed to investigate cases timely.
Therefore, the Independent Review Committee cannot find that past investigations were not
timely and cannot find that any delay in the investigations were the fault of the Independent
Counsel because there is no published criteria clearly delineating time limits. In reviewing the
testimony presented before the Independent Review Committee, it is unclear who had the duty
to complete certain tasks. What was clear is that the CIP's investigations were not timely. In
addition to the lack of clarity regarding responsibility for investigations, docketing, and other
such duties, there was no formal tracking system in place to keep up with tasks and time limits.
Moreover, there are other outside factors that interfered with the timeliness of the CIP's
investigations (criminal investigations, internal affairs investigations, the courts, etc.) making this
issue more difficult to reconcile. It does appear that Mr. Mays at least tried to get the
6
investigations completed. However, the blame for not completing investigations timely should
not be placed on Mr. Mays. The CIP Ordinance needs to provide for better internal structure,
clearly defined duties, and deadlines, and these deadlines need to be enforced. There needs to
be clarification as to who has the ultimate duty to enforce deadlines. By enforcing deadlines, the
community will have a sense that their complaints are being reviewed and not just put aside for a
year or two.
Ultimately, the Independent Review Committee has determined that some of the
investigations were not timely. There were numerous reasons for the untimeliness and some of
the investigations should have been completed because the information was available. The
Independent Review Committee hopes that this issue will be resolved with a revised ordinance
that addresses deadlines and a new executive director in place.
Determination #3: Past investigations by the CIP were not handled timely.
However, there are a number of explanations for the
untimeliness of past investigations.
The Independent Review Committee finds that there was an untimely review of
complaints and investigations, especially complaints involving fatalities caused by the police.
However, the principal explanation for the untimeliness of past investigations is because of an
insufficiently defined process within the CIP Ordinance and CIF By -Laws.
The explanations for the untimeliness of past investigations are similar to the issues
revealed in the previous determination. At the outset, the meaning of "timely" when evaluating
the timeliness of an investigation is not clear without further delineation as to what triggers the
start and end date, as well as the issues that toll the process of an investigation. These trigger
dates are more difficult to determine in certain investigations where there are concurrent criminal
or internal affairs investigations. In addition, the duties and obligations of the CIP staff are not
clearly outlined therefore it is not clear who has responsibility for making sure investigations are
completed timely. The record and transcript from the September 15, 2014, Independent
Review Committee meeting reflects additional explanations.
As such, the Independent Review Committee finds that the CIP is not responsible for
the untimely review of cases for the exact same reasons that the Independent Counsel is not
responsible for the untimely review and completion of cases.
Determination #4: The CIP Does Not Function Independently.
In order for the CIP to be truly independent, it must be able to exercise its authority and
operate independently of the City of Miami officials. The City Commission's control of the CIP
7
budget and approval of appointments, coupled with the authority of the City Manager and City
Attorney authority to supervise and control the CIP's executive director and Independent
Counsel, respectively, does not allow the CIP to function independently. The Independent
Review Committee understands that the CIP cannot be totally independent, but it can gain more
independence by allowing the CIP to appoint and remove its own Independent Counsel and
Executive Director. In addition, the Independent Review Committee recognizes the constraints
imposed by the City Charter on the budgeting process and recommends that the City
Commission consider revisions to the City Charter to allow the CIP as much fiscal
independence as possible. If no charter revisions are to be made, the City Commission should
endeavor to afford the CIP as much fiscal independence as possible consistent within the
existing City Charter.
VL RTCQMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
After consideration of all witness testimony, review of written materials, and
deliberation of the issues presented, the members of the Independent Review Committee offer
the following recommendations as charged by Resolution R-14-0196:
1. TIIE CIP SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY INVESTIGATE POLICE SHOOTINGS THAT INVOLVE
DEATH.
The CIP should automatically commence an investigation in all incidents in which a
MPD officer is involved in a police shooting death. The CIP should be able to commence their
investigation at the termination of a criminal proceeding. However, the Review Committee
believes that the CIP should not have to wait until the Internal Affairs Unit has completed their
investigation. Furthermore, the CIP itself must investigate, not merely review, the State
Attorney's Office's and MPD Internal Affairs' files or reports, in every single police shooting
involving a death. The investigation to be performed by the CIP must include the gathering of
materials and testimony presented to the State Attorney's Office and the Internal Affairs Unit.
However, the CIP's investigation should not be limited to materials gathered from those
reviews. The CIP must also conduct its own independent investigation, documentation, and
gathering of witness testimony. In doing so, the fatal shooting by police will undergo three levels
of review (the State Attorney's Office, Internal Affairs Unit, and the CIP) thereby resulting in a
truly independent finding by the CIP regardless of the findings by the other two agencies. This
will help the citizens of the City of Miami better understand what occurs in police shootings.
2. CHAPTER 11.5 OF THE CITY CODE SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND AMENDED.
The Independent Review Committee considers it imperative that the CIP exist and
operate to serve the citizens of the City of Miami. In order to do that, the Independent Review
Committee deems it necessary that the entire CIP Ordinance undergo major revisions. Because
this is a large task and one which must occur with both transparency andinclusion of all
8
stakeholders, the Independent Review Committee recommends that a committee be formed by
the City Commission with a charge to rewrite Chapter 11.5 of the .City Code. All stakeholders
in the CIP process should be involved in the revision of the ordinance. The stakeholders that
should be considered for the committee would include MPD, the CIP, the Miami Fraternal
Order of Police (Lodge #20), the members of the Coalition, and any member of the community,
including any member of the Independent Review Committee who wishes to be involved, or
have a representative of the stakeholders involved in the revision of the Ordinance.
Fundamentally, anyone who wants to be involved in the revision of the CIP Ordinance should
be considered, to the extent that it is possible in order to have a workable committee. The
Independent Review Committee understands that ultimately, it is the decision of the City
Commission as to who will be in the revising committee.
The Independent Review Committee recommends that the revisions to the CIP
Ordinance include the following areas:
• The Ordinance should clearly reflect the duties and responsibilities of the Independent
Counsel and Executive Director. There should also be a description of the chain of
command.
• The duties of the Independent Counsel should be limited to a Legal advisory role. The
Independent Counsel should be involved in every component of the CIP within the
context of legal advisory role. In addition, the executive director should include the
Independent Counsel in all functions of the CIP. However, the scope of the
Independent Counsel's duties, authority, and responsibility should be restricted to
providing solely legal advice to the CIP. The Independent Counsel should have no
supervisory authority over the CIP Executive Director or anyone under the director's
authority such as investigators and staff.
• The ordinance should reflect the time periods to complete investigations. (See
discussion below).
• The CIP membership should be allowed to appoint and remove their Independent
Counsel and Executive Director. (See discussion below).
3. TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH CIP'S INVESTIGATION SHALL BE COMPLETED..
Section 11.5-31(2) of the CIP Ordinance states that CIP investigations are to be
concluded within 120 days. However, the ordinance should be revised to provide for specific
time periods for all components of the investigation process and resolving complaints.
Specifically, the revisions must clearly indicate when the time periods are triggered; what event
triggers the time periods; whether the review and the investigation have different time periods;
and whether anything tolls the time period.
9
The Independent Review Committee recognizes that § 112.532, Florida Statutes,
contains a '180 day rule' for MPD's Internal Affairs Unit to conclude investigations of officers
as well as provisions for extending the time period beyond 180 days. Part of the hindrance
regarding the timeliness of CIP investigations is due to a lack of defined event to trigger the
running of time, typically when there are concurrent administrative or criminal investigations
pending. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Independent Review Committee that if a
revising committee is formed, then they should essentially analyze the time period for which the
CIF investigation shall be completed. After due consideration, the committee should formulate
clearly delineated and well -established triggering events, time periods for the CIP to complete
its functions, as well as reasons for why the time period should be tolled, if any. In doing so, the
IRC recommends that the revising committee should review the language provided under
Florida Statutes for guidance.
4. THE CITY CHARTER AND CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED To ALLOW THE CIP To HIRE
AND REMOVE THEIR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
The decision to hire and remove the CIP's Independent Counsel should be made only
by a majority vote of the CIP membership. Pursuant to the current CIP ordinance, an attorney
employed by the CIP as an Independent Counsel is subject to the approval of the City
Attorney. Additionally, the City Attorney has the authority to terminate the Independent
Counsel's employment. However, the City Attoniey's authority to hire or remove the
Independent Counsel should be eliminated. Nevertheless, the Independent Counsel should still
have the ability to call upon the City Attorney's Office for assistance when needed. This may
dispel any concerns that the Independent Counsel is bound to the City Attorney whose office is
responsible for defending liability claims brought against city employees.
Similarly, the decision to hire and remove the CIP's executive director should be made
only by a majority vote of the CIP membership. Under the CIP Ordinance and City Charter,
the appointment as well as the terms and conditions of the executive director's employment are
subject to approval by the City Commission while the authority to intervene in staff activities or
make personnel decisions is exclusively vested in the City Manager. However, the City
Commission's authority to approve or deny the appointment and terms of the executive
director's employment coupled with the City Manager's supervision and control should be
eliminated. The executive director should still have the full cooperation and assistance from the
City Manager in matters when requested. However, if CIP members have the ultimate decision
regarding the employment of the executive director, then this may dispel any concern that the
executive director is bound to the control of the City Manager.
5. THE CIP SHOULD BE ABLE To INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE AND/OR REVIEW ANY
ISSUES GERMANE To ITS AUTHORITY.
Under the City Charter, the CIP is authorized to conduct "independent" investigations
of police misconduct, review policies of the police department, and make recommendations to
10
the City Manager. However, the CIP may perceive that there are problems or issues that
repeatedly come to their attention. Similar to the way a grand jury carries out its duties, the CIP
Ordinance and/or City Charter should be amended to provide for a mechanism that will allow
the CIP to independently decide whether to commence an investigation and/or review of any
issues that are germane to its authority and prepare a report of its findings as part of their civilian
oversight function., The intent is to allow the CIP to investigate more than a complaint of
misconduct or a review of policies but the scope of this investigation should be limited to matters
pertaining to repeated issues of conduct by City of Miami police officers.
6. A LIAISON SHOULD BE ASSIGNED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
WORK WITH THE CIP.
The CIP's relationship with the City of Miami Police Department (hereinafter, "MPD")
needs improvement. There seems to be distrust between them. It appears that there has been
an attempt by the CIP to work with the police department however, MPD must work more
closely with the CIP. The City Commission can, and should, require this.
Presently, all or most of the investigations conducted by the CIP are done without input
from MPD. At a minimum, MPD should have an appointed liaison to work with the CIP in
order to improve the relationship among the CIP members, staff, and MPD. To the extent
allowed by law, every officer who has received a civilian complaint should be required to come
before the CIP. It is difficult to reconcile how the CIP can investigate a complaint without the
officer involved appearing before the CIP or without someone from the MPD to address the
complaint. Notwithstanding that having the subject officer present before the CIP for hearing
and providing a statement may have sonic ramifications to the officer, MPD should have an
assigned liaison to work with the CIP i.n completing their function. It remains highly preferable,
again concerning police officer safety, that the officer appear before the CIP to address any
complaints if the CIP's investigation procedures determine a hearing is required. However, none
of the aforementioned should encroach or diminish in any manner any rights the officer may have
under the law.
To that end, MPD should designate a command staff officer or middle management
officer, lieutenant or higher -ranking officer, who is in the Internal Affairs Unit chain of command
and is familiar with internal affairs procedures to be the liaison with the CIP. This liaison officer
can, and should, insure that information regarding the CIP in general and any specific CIP
investigation is received and properly disseminated within the MPD. The MPD Liaison to the
CIP must be involved in all aspects of the CIP going forward.
The Independent Review Committee recommends to MPD that the role of the CIP and
its investigators must be included in MPD's training program and must be addressed in a
positive manner which emphasizes that the people of' the City of Miami have voted to have the
CIP instituted; and that the CIP should be equally concerned with police officer safety as the
CIP is concerned to identify police misconduct at the MPD. The CIP should review MPD
policies and procedures that address police take -down procedures to determine if effective
11
training is being given to officers to execute control over a suspect. In that regard, the CIP
should be invited by MPD to attend any phase of MPD's training program, Separately, MPD
should afford a time slot to .the CIP to address any issue which the CIP considers would benefit
inclusion in the MPD training program.
Assignment of a MPD liaison officer to the CIP may advance their relationship and ease
the tension between the MPD and the CIP. Knowing that there is a police department
representative who is involved in the CIP process instead of giving the impression that the CIF
is operating sovereignly, will foster more open dialogue between the CIP and MPD, which is
sorely lacking.
7. IF PROPERLY NOTICED, AN OFFICER'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CIP HEARING SHOULD
BE DOCUMENTED IN OFFICERS PERSONNEL FILE.
In matters of alleged police misconduct where the CIP deems that a hearing is
appropriate and the officer involved fails to appear before the CIP to offer testimony, then a
notation in that officer's personnel file documenting that he/she refused to appear before the CIP
for hearing should be made. This notation in the officer's file will, at a minimum, demonstrate
whether the officer has had multiple complaints against him/laer. If there is documentation
establishing a pattern of misconduct allegations and subsequent failure to appear at CIP
hearings, it will be reflected in the officer's file for consideration internally by MPD or by
litigants, both to evaluate the officer's credibility. This may encourage officers to appear at the
CIP hearing and bring a resolution to the complaint. It may not be a friendly way to compel
officers to participate in the CIP process but it will put officers on notice that failure to
cooperate with the CIP will become part of the officer's service record. Additionally, this may
prevent officers from accumulating notations in their file thereby establishing a problem with the
officer.
S. LOCATION OF CIP's OFFICE SIIOUI..D BE REEVALUATED.
The current location of CIP office is not conducive for access by all citizens. The CIP
office should be in a Location where everyone in the community, regardless of their economic
standing, can have has access to the CIP office. The CIP office should be moved to a location
more accessible to the public with considerations to available parking, public transit routes, and
walking distance. Alternatively, the City should establish some sort of community outreach or
other mechanism where the CIP can receive complaints at other city facilities.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
12
The Independent Review Committee wishes to recognize the following City employees
for their assistance throughout this process:
Nzeribe Ihekwaba, Ph.D., P.E.,
Assistant City Manager - Chief of Operations
Todd B. Hannon,
City Clerk
Amy Klose,
Director, Department of Human Resources
.Juan C. Perez,
Assistant City Attorney
VIII. CONCLUSION
The aforementioned findings and recommendations of the Independent Review
Committee were reached unanimously by its members and are hereby respectfully submitted to
the Honorable Mayor and members of the City Commission .ursuant to Resolution
R-14-0196, on this 22nd day of October, 2014.
srael Reyes, Esq. IR t Chairman
Attachments
cc: Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
13
ATTACHMENT #1
REVISED
Date: April 28, 2014
To: Commissioner Wilfredo (Willy) Gort, Chairman
Commissioner Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman
Commissioner Frank Carollo
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
Commissioner Francis Suarez
CC: Mayor Tomas P. Regalado
City Manager Daniel Alfonso
City Attorney Victoria Mendez
From: Coalition of .ACLU, NAACP, NANA, PULSE, Brothers of the Same Mind, Haitian -
American Grassroots Coalition, the Miami Workers Center, and SALAD
Re: Ways CIP's Independent Counsel has obstructed work of CIP (REVISED)
Over the past three years, our Coalition has monitored the performance of the Civilian
Investigative Panel ("CIP") and of its current Independent Counsel ("the IC"). As a result of this
monitoring, it has become clear that the IC has been obstructing the work of the CIP by
inappropriately exercising control over the operations of the CIP in the following ways:
I. The IC has established practices and procedures for the way the CIP responds to complaints
of police misconduct that have prevented the CIP from properly fulfilling its mission of civilian
oversight:
A) The IC has employed and imparted to CIP investigators (over whom he has improperly
exercised supervisory authority) de facto rules as to how to evaluate evidence that tend to
result in decisions that favor police over complainants. For example:
1) The IC has ignored and instructed investigators to ignore evidence that supported
the complainant;
2) The IC has systematically rejected and instructed investigators to reject statements
of family members and/or friends of the complainant as not credible, writing these
witnesses off as not "independent";
3) The IC has disregarded and instructed investigators to disregard key claims that
frequently recur in complaints, in particular, claims of false arrest and over -tightening of
handcuffs;
4) The IC has declined to consider and instructed investigators not to consider the
relative seriousness of the arrest offense when assessing whether the use of force in
making the arrest was reasonable or not;
1
5) The IC has failed to examine and instructed investigators to omit examination of an
officer's record of prior complaints to see whether a history of similar not sustained
complaints can be used to support a sustained finding In the current case;
6) In reviewing Internal Affairs ("IA") cases in which the investigation was done by the
accused officer's Supervisor (which often happens), the IC has neglected to take into
account and instructed investigators to omit considering how the Supervisor's
allegiance to that officer might impact the IA outcome;
7) In the two fatal -shooting cases from 2010-2011 thus far closed by the CIP -- in
which, by self -appointment, the IC has served as "the investigator" -- the IC:
a) recommended exoneration based on legal standards established by the
Supreme Court in federal civil rights cases, which is not the correct standard to
use under Florida case law;
b) failed to consider whether any misconduct or mistakes in judgment had
occurred in the steps preceding and leading up to the fatal -shootings, or whether
new policies or procedures should be put in place to avoid a repetition of the
same type of situation in the future, despite specific requests by the
Complainants (the ACLU and NAACP) that such matters be considered;
8) The IC has neither investigated nor directed others to investigate the culture in the
police department that may have led to the fatal shootings in 2010-2011, despite a
request by the Complainants (the ACLU .and NAACP) more than three years ago for
such investigation.
B) The IC has ordered investigators to change recommendations to sustain complaints of
police misconduct into recommendations to not sustain the complaints;
C) The IC has utilized delay in the resolution of complaints as a de facto policy or strategy
to avoid having to make decisions.
1) Although the CIP Ordinance, in Section 11.5-31(3), specifically provides that
"The review or investigation process shall be concluded:
a. Within 30 days of receiving the internal affairs report;
b. Within 120 days of receiving the determination an
independent investigation may commence,".
the IC has completely ignored those deadlines in the shooting cases to which he has
appointed himself "the investigator."
In one of the two shooting cases from 2010-2011 that the IC has handled, he
"concluded" the process:
-- 1 year 8 months past the 30-day deadline, and
-- more than 2 years 7 months past the 120-day deadline;
in the other,
-- more than 1 year 5 months past the 30-day deadline, and
-- more than 1 year 4 months past the 120-day deadline.
2
2) On the many occasions at CIP meetings when the Coalition has brought these
deadlines to the IC's attention, the IC has dismissed them as easily waivable and of no
importance.
3) Many other complaints have sat in the IC's office languishing for long periods of time
for lack of review or investigation;
4) In cases in which the IC has (improperly) exercised supervisory authority over CIP
investigators, the IC has ignored failures of those investigators to comply with the
deadlines set in the CIP Ordinance.
5) In cases in which Internal Affairs has engaged in undue delays in the completion of
its work, the IC has failed to take internal Affairs to task for such delays and appears to
not even have noted that such delays occurred.
D) Having arrogated to himself the role of gatekeeper over which complaints should be
processed, and by which investigator, the IC has been performing that role improperly.
1) The IC decides which complaints should be closed prior to presentation to the Panel
without stating any reasons, disclosing the criteria he uses, or leaving any notes in the
file or other written record of the bases for his decisions. (In Fiscal Year 2013, the IC
closed 108 of the 239 complaints filed -- close to half -- without the Panel's knowledge.)
2) Insofar as the IC has, by self -appointment, served as "the investigator" for the
shooting cases, he has not conducted any genuine investigations. Rather, the IC has
restricted his consideration to a review . of paper files, taped interviews, and legal
research into federal civil rights cases and has not conducted any actual interviews of
witnesses, or used the CIP Ordinance's subpoena power to command the appearance
of the police -shooters or other witnesses, or taken any other genuine investigative
steps.
II. The 1C has given incorrect legal advice to the CIP Panel. For example:
A) The IC has given legal opinions to the Panel with respect to administrative matters that
directly conflict with official leeai opinions issued by the City Attorney, as follows:
1) The IC incorrectly advised the Panel at the CIP's 2/18/14 meeting that it had the
authority to "fire" its new Executive Director when he knew or should have known that
power resides exclusively in the City Manager. See City Attorney Legal Opinion #08-
011, page 4.
2) The IC incorrectly advised the Panel at the CIP's 2/18/14 meeting that it could
appoint him as the CIP's "temporary" executive director when he knew or should have
known that no one can serve in that post without City Commission approval. See City
Attorney Opinion #9- 003, page 5, A.
3) The IC incorrectly advised the Panel at the CIP's 2/18/14 meeting that he could
either rehire the Chief Investigator who had been terminated or, at least, could have
her return to the CIP office as a "volunteer" when he knew or should have known that
he was not authorized to take such actions. See City Attorney Legal Opinion #09-033,
page 5.
3
4) The IC incorrectly advised the Panel in an email dated 2/21/14 that the City Manager
did not have the authority to reject the Panel's attempted "firing" of its new Executive
Director when he knew or should have known that, for purposes other than the
performance of the CIP's oversight duties -- and specifically for all administrative
purposes -- the City Manager does have jurisdiction over the CIP. See City Attorney
Legal Opinion #09-003, pages 3-4.
B) The IC has failed to give the Panel correct advice as to the Panel's duty to ensure that all
its seats are filled in accordance with the requirements of the CIP Ordinance and the City
MuniCode, as follows:
1) During the past year and a half, the IC has failed to ensure that the Panel
maintained a Nominating Committee in accordance with the requirements of the CIP
Ordinance Sec. 11.5-28 (b)(1) and that such Nominating Committee met to do its
essential work.
2) The IC has failed to ensure that no member of the Panel has served beyond the
maximum term limit of six consecutive years, as provided in the concluding sentence of
CIP Ordinance Sec. 11.5-28(6). (At present, two Panel members -- Michelle Delaney
and Bess McElroy -- continue to sit despite exceeding six consecutive years of service.
A third, Tom Cobitz, recently resigned from the Panel; but before doing so, had served
for more than six consecutive years).
3) The IC has failed to ensure that a member of the Panel who ran for elective political
office was removed from the Panel in accordance with MuniCode Sec.2-884(d), which
provides that "qualification" as a candidate "shall be deemed a tender of resignation
from [any] board," (Bess McElroy qualified as a candidate twice during her more than
six -year tenure on the CIP Panel -- first, on June 16, 2008, then again on June 17,
2010. The IC knew McElroy ran for political office twice because he contributed to her
campaigns on March 27, 2008 and again on September 30, 2009.)
4) The IC has failed to ensure that the Panel has elected its chairperson and vice -
chairperson by majority vote, as required by the CIP Ordinance Sec. 11.5-29,
I11. The IC has created an appearance of impropriety in his dealings with members of the CIP
Panel.
A) The IC has made contributions to the political campaigns of two members of the Panel --
to Bess McElroy's campaign for State Representative in 2008 and 2010 and to Tom
Cobitz's campaign for Judge in 2013. Because the IC is dependent upon the Panel to
approve his financially lucrative contract with the City, his making of these campaign
contributions creates, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety.
B) The IC has fraternized socially with some members of the Panel and some members of
the CIP staff, while treating others with rudeness and ostracism. This is unseemly conduct
for a person holding the professional position of Independent Counsel.
4
ATTACHMENT #2
City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 24, 2014
9:00AM
PLANNING AND ZONING
City Hal! Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomas Regalado, Mayor
Wifredo Ily} Gort, Chair
Keon Hardemon, Vice Chair
Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two
Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three
Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney
Todd 8. Hannon, City Clerk
City Commission
Meeting Minutes April 24, 2014
D3.1
14-00390
DISCUSSION ITEM
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL.
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: Item D3.1 was deferred to the May S, 2014 Regular Commission Meeting
with a time certain designation of 10, 00 a.m.
City of lvfiatni
Paige 2 Printed on 10/2.212014'
City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 8, 2014
9:00 AM
REGULAR
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomas Regalado, Mayor
Wifredo (Wily) Gort, Chair
Keon Hardemon, Vice Chair
Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two
Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three
Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
D3.1
14-00390
(D3.1)
14-00390a
(D3.1)
14-00390b
DISCUSSION ITEM
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL.
DISCUSSED
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING THE
NOMINATING COMMITTEE OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL TO
MEET IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11.5-28 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, TO PRESENT THE CITY
COMMISSION WITH NOMINATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS TO FILL VACANCIES
ON THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL.
Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-14-0195
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CREATING AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ("COMMITTEE"), WHICH SHALL BE
COMPRISED OF FIVE (5) MEMBERS, ONE (1) APPOINTMENT FROM EACH
CITY COMMISSIONER, TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN
ANY MALFEASANCE OR MISFEASANCE BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, WHETHER THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND CIVILIAN
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL HAVE TIMELY INVESTIGATED CASES; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE TO RENDER AN OPINION WHETHER THE
PAST INVESTIGATIONS, OR LACK OF INVESTIGATIONS, WERE TIMELY;
TO REVIEW THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE
PANEL; AND TO PREPARE A REPORT WITH ITS FINDINGS TO BE
PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY ATTORNEY, AND CITY
MANAGER WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS.
Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-14-0196
Chair Gort: Olcay, we're through with the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), so —
George Mensah (Director, CommunityDevelopment): .Thanks you, Commissioner.
Chair Gort: -- we have time certain, D3.1, the Civilian Investigative Panel. Commissioner
Carollo, you're recognized.
City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May8, 2014
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Commissioners, I bring to you and the
public this discussion item regarding the Civilian Investigative Parcel, also known as the CIP. As
most of you know, In 2001, following a string of police shootings of African American men and
the Elia Gonzdlez case, the Civilian Investigative Panel was created with the overwhelming
support of over 76 percent of the electorate. Unfortunately, it appears that there has been a lot
of infighting and _.. among other issues. At the same time, the Miami .Herald -- Nadege Green
from the Miami Herald reported that approximately 50 cases remain unheard, and therefore,
injustices may continue to occur, and an extra layer of protection to the average citizen is not
being met; not to mention that we are still not completely recovered from the downed economy,
and where we've had to make some real tough budget decisions this current year, Iproposed to
give the additional monies that the CIP had requested with the support of my colleagues. And
we actually found that money -- or we reduced the GESE (General Employees & Sanitation
Employees) Trust Fund money with our expenses in order to fund additional monies to the
Civilian Investigative Panel. So especially now that we've given them additional funding, we
cannot take a step back. Therefore, I ask all parties to come with an open and supportive mind
to resolve the issues and make this a first-rate Civilian Investigative Panel, because anything less
is just unacceptable. So I welcome the discussion, and I look forward to hearing everybody state
their opinions, suggestions, and see how we can make this afrst-rate Civilian Investigative
Panel. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo Commissioner Carollo's sentiments, I, too,
read the article, and I've also read the memo prepared by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties
Union), and I've had the opportunity to meet with the ACLU, with the NAACP (National
Association for theAdvancement of Colored People), with PULSE (People United to Lead the
Struggle for Equality), and with other organizations whose sole mission is to ensure that there is
fairness and peace and order in our community, and that the vehicle for that, as you expressed
very well, Commissioner, is a civilian -based panel that is constitutionally constituted to oversee
the behavior of our police officers, which we take a lot of pride in, who we know have a very
difficult task in policing a very challenging city. So I, too, am concerned that there seems to be a
lot of acrimony, you know. The memo that I was presented with was very detailed in terms of
things that were not operating properly, and the allegations contained in the memo are very, very
severe, and, you know, one of the ones that I think for me was most worrisome is that we have a
Charter -mandated process by which investigations start and when they end, And the fact that,
you know, it seems like that is not being followed, for me is extremely troubling. You know, we
definitely had.a year, a few years ago, where seven African Americans in our community were
killed as. a result ofpolice-involved shootings, and, you know, we struggled as a community and
as a city, number one, to ensure that there was peace in our community in a very, very tense
moment. Secondly, we wanted to respect the police officers who were being investigated, and we
understand that, you know, pursuant to State law, there is very little that can be communicated,
which is a frustrating component sometimes for the community and for members of the
community that are overseeing the process. And then I think the last part is to have a robust
Civilian Investigative Panel which conducts an Independent investigation, which is why there's
the name "independence" in its founding name, and comes to a conclusion that, you know, will
hopefully support what the other investigations have uncovered. But as the Commissioner
stated, we're not there, and I think the organizations that are national in nature and local in
nature that have a vested interest in seeing civil rights upheld in our community have expressed
very, very grave concerns. I have not had an opportunity to meet with the independent counsel.
I know he reached out to my office very late this week. You know, Pm not sure why it took so
long, because, you know, this is something that came up at the last Commission meeting, and we
knew it was going to be heard at this Commission meeting, as well, and it was going to be heard
at a time certain. And I want to thank the Chairman for doing that. So I share the
Commissioner's sentiments, and I think -- you know, I'm not sure that the differences are
City of Miami
Page 3
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May8, 2014
reconcilable at this point, because it seems to me that they are pretty -- you know, pretty severe,
but if they are, there's a pretty wide golf as Horacio kind of gestured to me. But, you know, I'm
open. I mean, I think the -- at the end of the day, what we all want to see. here is a functioning
and robust CIP. As the Commissioner said, it was an overwhelming vote in favor of its creation.
It has a very, very important role to play in .the administration ofjustice for our citizens, and it's
an important check on a governmental power. So, you know, I'm open to also listening and
hearing what my Commissioners, members of the community have to say; what the heads of
these organizations that have come in good faith, in my opinion, to express their very, very grave
concerns. I've met with them several times, and I find them to be acting in good faith. So, you
know, I'm also willing to listen and -- but the one thing that I share with the Commissioner is that
we cannot continue this way. And if action needs to be taken, then action should be taken, and it
should be taken immediately, because, you know, the one thing we cannot do is see these
problems happening and developing and not do anything about it; that's not acceptable.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else?
Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr, Chairman,
Chair Gort: Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Vice Chair Harcemon: This is one of those issues where it's hard to really address it when the
parties have so much to say within it. I think, as Commissioners, we definitely have a duty to
ensure that the process is sound that the CIP uses to have its board members; however, at the
same time, we have to make sure that the CIP is functioning as it was intended for the people in
this community, and especially within my community, because most of those -- this was born
because of a lot of the things that happened in the City of Miami District 5. So here we are, we
have -- and when I'm in a position where one person says one thing and another person says
another thing, I like both people to have an opportunity to address each other, because there --
the varying stories or the varying issues that are being presented to us -- and I would say "us,"
'cause it's probably representative to all of us -- are hurtful. And I think all of us who have read
the Miami Herald -- and there's no need of beating around the bush. I mein, there's racial
undertones that have been presented and things that have been said that are despicable -- and
written, rather, have been despicable, So the question is: Did it really happen? The question is:
Who wrote those things? The question is: And how do we move forward from this point on?
And so I don't think that it's strictly, though, a racial issue, though, because we have partners to
the ACLU and PULSE, and things to that effect that believe in some of the decisions that have
been made to release some of the people that have been released. So I have no position one way
or the other just yet.. I want to hear the facts. I want to hear what's actually occurring within
this body. And for us, Ithink making the changes that we need to make to the CIP or ensuring
that its board -- one, we have the appointed people that we need, and then they carry out the
functions they're supposed to, is an issue that has to happen, no matter how we feel about the
players that are there. So I don't care whose terms have expired or whatever it may be; we need
to put whoever we need to be in place by the rules that we govern ourselves by. So that's --
period, But then from that point on, we need to address the issues and the ills that are going on
inside of it, And I don't think that even today, even though we're having this discussion, that
we'll be able to satisfy that today, because there's so much more information. You received a
memo, Commissioner Suarez; I'm sure other Commissioners did also. I received a memo, and
then I requested a memo in response; not necessarily something that is for everyone to see, but
something so I can have an understanding of how you respond to the issues that were presented
to me in front of the memo, because any lawyer -- and I'm sure Commissioner Sarnoff completely
understands that when one lawyer presents his side, if you don't hear the other side, I think
everyone is moved; everyone believes in what that lawyer had to say. But then, Lord help that
another issue was presented by another side, and then you find yourself in apickle, because you
don't understand which one is telling the truth or which one is being more truthful or which one
is bending the facts in theirfiavor. So thisis a position that I don't like being in, but it's
City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2014
something that we -- this is what we signed up for, and so the fact that we did sign up for this, I
think it's only fair that all issues are flushed out in front of the Commission and not necessarily
just in the papers or not necessarily behind closed doors, so that we have a clear understanding
and the people have a clear understanding of what's actually happening with the CIP that they
depend on to ensure that the police and µ- are acting the way that they swore that they would act
when they took the badge.
Chair Gort: Commissioner Sarnoff, you're recognized.
Commissioner Sctrnoff Thanlc you, Mr. Chair. You know, I want to kind of dovetail on what
Commissioner Hardemon had to say, because, you know, the ACLU reached out to me, PULSE
reached out to me, and the NAACP, and I got to tell you, the ACLU, PULSE, and the NAACP
does not ordinarily reach out to me, so I was like a little bit excited; wow, detente, you know.
And, you know, I certainly, I think, have butted heads with the ACLU. They withdrew my card
about 10 years ago. I don't know why, if they'll ever give it back to me. And it was kind of
exciting to actually hear their side of the story. And then, as Commissioner Hardemon said, then
I heard the independent counsel's side of the story yesterday, and he handed a great deal of case
law to me, Supreme Court decisions. And then I learned something that's I guess at yeast worth
revealing here right now. There are only two CIP's in all of the State of Florida. The Fah
District Court of Appeals has wiped out a CIP because it is, according to the Fifth DCA (District
Court of Appeal), offensive to the Police Officers' Bill of Rights. The Third DCA has an opinion,
John Tmoney opinion that does not do that. So we have in what -- Ilookat Commissioner
Suarez -- a conflict of jurisdictions. And the CIP counsel, independent counsel has been very
diligent in trying to preserve and make sure that this is not brought up to the Supreme Court,
because, essentially, that could mean that our CIP, with the conflict of the rulings, from the Fifth
and the Third DCA, could do away with the CIP and the intent of what I think we want to all
have here. You know, when I was speaking with the ACLU and candidly with them, we were
being asked to do some things that -- I kept on asking them, "Are you sure you want to do this?"
because it will set a precedent and it may be contrary to, quote, that independent agency. For
instance, you know, the Manager's ability -- and by the way, I happen to like Christine [sic%
Beamud, so let me go on the record saying that. I really do. I thought she was a breath offresh
air. Whether it turns out I'm right or wrong about that, when I met her, I thought she was a
breath offresh air. But when the Manager steps in and sciys, "I fire everyone, " is that an
independent agency? Does that agency have independence? 'Cause the hiring and faring of
somebody is under employment law which we call' "master -servant law" in the State of Florida.
The ability to hire and fire somebody shows that you are a servant of a master, which is a
colloquial way of saying "employee -employer relationship." And Iwas curious; are you sure
you want. the Manager to have that ability? Because that then tends to show it is not an
independent agency. And the more we delve into .the CIP, the less independence it apparently
has or will have. And that, I think, was the intent -- I think it was Commissioner Spence -Jones
that brought about some of the changes that she wanted to bring about on how people were
nominated to this particular committee. Unfortunately, I wonder if we would ever really get to
the root of everything at an open Commission meeting right here. And I hate to say this to you
guys again, but would we be better suited by maybe impanelling a three -person committee -- Iwo
lawyers and a civilian -- to actually understand and review the fact finding of everything that's
gone on, 'cause are we really going to get down to the very root of it right here? I mean, there
are things we can do here today. I think Bess McElroy is pretty clear, sand that is that she has
resigned under the law; I think that's very dear. But we have an issue with independent counsel,
and we have an issue with, let's just say, the director, Cristina Beamud. And.is there a resolution
that could be created with a fact fncling committee versus us listening up here, "Well, I said this.
She said that; Supreme Court case (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this says this; this is why I took the
action I took"? It's a lot of minutia. When I met with the independent counsel, it was about an
hour -and -a -ha f meeting, and about four Supreme Court cases later, he was justifying his
position, in a reasonably good way, as to what he was and wasn't doing. And I think what we're
not completely able to frame is the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, coupled with Supreme Court
City ofMiamt
Page S Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
decisions, coupled with the IA (Internal Affairs) investigations as to how these coordinate their
investigations. And I wonder if we would really do any kind of justice up here to debating it
without a fact-finding committee to give us a small report to say, "There are six -shootings in
which a City of Miami police officer was involved." I'm not saying we need to get into those six
shootings, but that could be their parameter under which they look at if what he has done is
correct or incorrect, coupled with, you know, the directors now — Cristina .Beamed, I guess that
was her name -- coming in. So; you know, Ijust throw this up, Commissioner Carollo. It's your
discussion item. I'm not sure how much you can debate and understand in a meeting like this,
because it's a very complicated set of laws.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Corolla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, especially that I'm up here surrounded
by attorneys, I guess I should have known this was coming, but the truth of the matter is that,
listen, I'm not -- even a fact-finding mission -- Listen, Commissioner Sarnoff, with all due
respect, I think, at the same time, we need to be very cautious, because I don't want -- I do not
want to get into the "he said -she said" finger -pointing back and forth. What I really want is to
be able to have a healthy debate and discussion, as we always had, with all the parties involved
to see how -- if and how we move this forward. I mean, this was the wishes of the large majority
of the electorate, and it was two cases. Yes, there was a large number of shootings. in the
African American community, but it was also right after the Elic n Gonzalez case, and I know
Commissioner — I'm sorry -- Mayor Regalado -- Commissioner at that time -- remembers that
era very well. And the person that really steer -headed this -- or spearheaded this was
Commissioner Teele at the time. And even then, I know there was discussions with regards to the
executive director and the independent counsel, but even -- and it clearly stated in the Charter
that we should have an -- I think it's the independent counsel or I'm not sure of the technical
name, but the bottom line is, look, what I'm seeking is, you know, to have a healthy debate to see
if we can move this forward, to see if we can find solutions. I'm not really looking into the
finger pointing. I don't even know if we really need to get into that, but I'm open, Commissioner
Sarnoff, I'm open. I'm just looldng-how we move forward.
Commissioner Sarnoff Could I just respond?
Chair Gort: Sure, go ahead.
Commissioner Sarnoff So --
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry, not to mention that in a real tough budget year, we finally
increased the budget well over $500, 000, well over more than half a million dollars so this
panel, you know, will function correctly and could move forward and give them what they -- the
resources that they asked for. So moving a step backwards is just unacceptable.
Commissioner Sarnoff Well, I'm not -- I don't -- let me just say I don't think the panel is moving
a step backwards. And for instance -- and I'll maybe address this to Commissioner Hardemon; I
think is very much going to understand this -- the gravamen of the allegations are the failure to
act promptly. He may have an explanation for why he has not acted within the time sequence
that some of the others have said, "You should have worked." And for us to understand that
time sequencing, to me, I'd like to see a report of an attorney or some fact-finding agency as to
how these laws work together to see whether what -- his statement is a correct statement at all;
based on what I read, it could be.
Vice Chair Hardman: Mr. Chairman.
City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Chair Gort: Yes, sir. We have three lawyers in here, so go ahead.
Tice Chair$ardemon: No. See, we have to clarify the issues, because ane of the issue [sic] is
that some people believe that Cristina Beamud should not be the executive director, so let's make
that clear. Another issue is that the firing of mainly the African -American people who were
working on staff was done with a racial undertone, and so it was a wrongful termination in that
sense. Those are two very different issues that really don't -- in one part don't have anything to
do with the timeliness of the organizations. I think that the timeliness and how they respond,
those are issues that are borne out of the two main issues, because to say, "She's not supposed to
be there, she fired the people for these reasons, and this person or that person shouldn't have
been fired because we haven't done this and they haven't done that, " those are all incendiary
issues to what the main issue is in the way that it's been presented to me. And however, I think
that it will be -- it's difficult for us to sit here today and hear all of those issues and make a
decision from the dais. So I do appreciate the recommendation as far as having a committee to
come together to at least hear both sides to the -- hear both sides of the issues so that when we
have a look at the issue, we can see very clearly what the problems are, what was said, what the
committee -- just have everything organized and have everyone feel like they had an opportunity
to be heard in a way that doesn't take up all of our time here and for the people in the
community, so all the issues are really flushed out. And so I'm open to that, Commissioner
Sarnoff, and I do have a recommendation. I know you named three people -- well, you named
three persons that would be there, but I have a recommendation to one of them who is a lawyer
within the community that helps a lot with African -American issues within the District 5 area,
and other issues and other people, whoever, you know, would -- comes to them for issues, but
they -- mainly, they advocate for the right side of the issues in all type of situations, so I think
it'd be a neutral arbitrator in this type of situation. But having it done right here today, I think
it's going to be problematic, and I think once we get through it, and then we will see that; and so
maybe it is a good thing to have it done outside of this body, to be presented again before this
body to talk about what we've learned and what decisions we're going to move forward with,
Chair Gort: Olcay. Mr. Mayor, you're recognized.
Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I just want to thank you
for bringing this item for a discussion, and I just wanted to give a little historical perspective
since I guess I'm the oldest ane here, or the only one that was here when this committee was
formed, and Commissioner Carollo is right, and I just wanted to clarify the record, In the year
2000, the City of Miami saw the worst civil rights riots since the '80s when Elkin Gonzalez was
deported to Cuba on a Saturday. That Saturday and Sunday and Monday, there were streets that
were blocked. The full force of the Police Department took upon themselves to clear the streets.
There were hundreds ofpeople arrested. There were dozens ofpeople that went to the hospital.
You know, there were fires, and I guess we all remember that. And after that, as a City
Commissioner, I asked my colleagues to start like a committee to look at what happened during
the Elian Gonzalez riots. And the committee was formed by the City Commission at the time, and
everybody appointed somebody, and that evolved, and that evolves [sic] as the need to have a
civilian panel that oversight the Police Department. And I remember that Commissioner Teele
brought all the issues that the African -American community had, and it went on the ballot; and it
went on the ballot and got 76 percent of the vote. The African -American community and the
Hispanic community, they united and created what they thought was the right thing to do after
some -- many incidents in the African American community, after the riots in the Hispanic
community in the City of Miami. And after the voters approved the creation of the panel, it
wasn't simple, And the people that I see here are the same people that were here 14 years ago. I
remember PULSE; I remember ACLU; l remember NAACP. They did the work for the City
Commission. They -- for days and days, and these were the longest City Commission ever,
because they were here until late last night, and they did the vetting process, and they come up
with all the needs that the community had at the time, and the way that this panel was supposed
to be functioning. All I can say to you is that I really' believe that this panel is not doing today
City of Miami Page 7
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
what the voters thought that they were voting for when they approve the panel. It was supposed
to be a panel where everyone from the community could come and give their complaints, and be
independent from Internal Affairs, and it has not happened. And I think that one of the points is
the way that the selection process was -- of the members was changed, I remember, you know,
for district and then not district, because it did have flaws at the beginning, because one
community took over the whole panel, because they were interested in serving. And so it was
changed to mirror the City of Miami. But one thing that I've noticed is that there are several
laws that this Commission had passed in the past that were not respected. Like for instance,
when people ran for office in the City of Miami, you have to resign .on -- as a member of the
board. And we have forced many, many people to resign when they want to run as City
Commissioners or Mayor or for something in the City of Miami. This has not happened with the
panel. So that's an issue that has to be dealt with. But I just hope that you have this
conversation, and I j'•ust hope that you can pick the best people in Miami to be part of this board,
Regardless of what the courts have said or not said, I think that the people do deserve to have a
forum, that the people should be told that they have a forum, because today, 14 years later, after
76'percent of the voters of the City ofMiami approved the CIP, there is no knowledge, I will say,
in the majority of the residents or the new residents or the old residents that this panel can do
right for you if you have a complaint about the Police Department. So 'just wanted to thank you
and give you this historical perspective, because I think that it's important that this is not seen as
something that the African„4merican community wanted and needed. It was the whole City of
Miami that came out and vote for that, and hopefully, you will be listening to the people that
spent many hours without pay working for this committee. Thank you, Commissioners.
Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to tell you, this same group came to see me about a
month ago, and I tried to use the strategy that you always talked about, mediation. I told them, I
met with them, I says, "I don't think we should bring it right up now. Why don't we get together
with the -- the group get together with the City Attorney and try to work out something. Let's
come up with an idea before getting" -- "corning to us." Unfortunately, that has not taken
place, so that's why it's in front of us today. And I believe, like Commissioner Carollo stated
before, a lot of times, rumors and things go around, and what you hear in one block, by the time
it goes 10 block[sic] away, it's been -- a big storm has been created. So having people testi&
today and let us know what they believe, what they think. Its' not functioning; we know it's not
functioning. And if it's something as a board that is not friction, we got to get involved in it. So
at this time, if you all don't mind, I will open it to public hearings. Any recommendation? Okay.
Horacio Aguirre: Mr, Chairman, thank you. Good morning. Horacio Stuart Aguirre, 1910
Northwest 13th Street, Miami, Florida. I am a member of the Civilian Investigative Panel, but
I'm not here on behalf of the panel. I'm here as a private citizen, I'd like to first with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, invite all the members of the coalition Mat seek reform of the CIP to
please stand up and be seen and recognized. Everybody here who wants changes at the CIP,
please stand up, be recognized; lots of different colors, sexes, appearances. This is a diverse
group; this is not a monolithic group. Thank you very much. And hopefully, all of you will make
brief comments. Pin going to defer a lot of my time to our other guest here, but I -- before I leave
the podium, I want to show you something. This is NBC (National Broadcasting Company)
News, October 2009; it's not recent, It's -- what? -- six years old? Help me with my math.
Frank? For2009?
Unidentified Speaker: Four.
Mr, Aguirre: Okay, and it says the exact same thing that we're talking about today; the exact
same thing with the same names. This didn't start in December of last year; this didn't start with
the new executive director, Cristina Beamud, who, by the way, is an attorney, knowledgeable in
matters of civilian oversight, And by the way, members of the ACLU are also attorneys. So we
do have different attorneys differing with one particular attorney on the CIP. So I thought I had
sent this to you by e-mail (electronic). If you don't have it, I'll make .sure you get it this
City ofMiarni
Page 8 Printed' on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
afternoon, NBC News, and it's titled "City ofMiami has broken its promise. Former CIF
investigator delivers scathing letter to Mayor and Commissioners." Thank you very much.
Chair Gort: Mr. Wilcox.
Nathaniel Wilcox: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Nathaniel Wilcox. I'm the
executive director of PULSE; that's People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality, a civil
rights organization. And like the Mayor said, we were working with and for the CIP from its very
beginning over 14 years ago. And this morning, well, I've heard something I'm very incensed
about; that the independent counsel will tell us now, after 14 years, that this body, the CIP that
we've worked on and toiled on now may be in conflict with some court ruling that may strike
down the CIF. Seem like when he first started working for the CIP, this information should have
been brought to this Commission. Why today would he bring this information, or yesterday? Or,
like you said,. Commissioner, the independent counsel reached out to you late. He reached out to
you late. We have an independent counsel that's always late. But we have people that are dying
in the street because the independent counsel and the CIP are not getting the job done; bodies,
young men who are dying in the street; investigations that have not taken place; people who
have died; and no -- we have no resolution to these deaths. We always hear sorne excuse coining
from the CIP, the body, the counsel why they can't do it, why we're late, why -- all these excuses
when the body was put in place to address these issues. There are two 15,000-pound elephants
in this room this morning; one 15, 000 pound elephant dealing with the CIP. The second
elephant is dealing with racism, and the second elephant is a very important elephant just like
the first one. They saying that M. Bearnud is a racist. She's being accused of contributing
toward the diminishing numbers in black people on the CIF. But after we had an opportunity to
look into this issue, Ms. Shawanda Hall, investigator, we questioned why haven't Ms. Shawanda
Hall and the independent counsel and the CIP investigated these shootings? Why haven't they
investigated the Travis McNeil shooting; one of the young men who survived the shooting? Why
wasn't there an investigation? Why wasn't these people called in to find out what happened? It
has not happened. We understand that Ms. Shawanda Hall was fired. We understand that Ms.
Barbara Sweet resigned, but that does not equate to racism. And people in our community are
asking those questions. "Mr, Wilcox, why are we losing? Why are there -- why is there a
diminishing number of African Americans working for the City ofMiami? Why is there a
diminishing number of department heads?" We just lost a department head for Sanitation. So
those questions is what -- part of that big elephant that has to be addressed. But this morning,
we've come to address the issue of the ineffectiveness of the CIP, and we're saying that after the
fact, now we're here, that the CIP may be overturned by some type of court ruling. You guys
should have been made aware of this years ago when the independent counsel, Mr. Charles
Mays, came on the scene with all this great knowledge that he has, We're feeling that -- in our
community -- that the independent counsel is working more for the police unions and the police
than hers working for the people of this community. When we have African Americans who are
been -- who have been hired to work on the panel because their community is being impacted by
all these police shootings, then we feel that they should get the job done, but they haven't gotten
the job done, Mr. Mays hasn't gotten the job done. Shawanda Hall hasn't gotten the job done.
Ms. Bess McElroy didn't -- the other members of the independent review panel haven't gotten the
job done, so this is why we're here this morning. Let's stay focused on the CIP. And all this
other rabble -rousing stuff that they'll bring to the table about racism, that's not the elephant
we're dealing with. We're dealing with effectiveness and the need for the CIP to work effectively.
Thank you.
Chair Gort: :hank you. Jean Baker. Excuse me.
Mariano Cruz: Let me sit down.
Unidentified Speaker: Mr, Chair, is there a sign-up sheet?
City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, over here.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.
Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am, you're recognized.
Jean Baker: Thank you. I am here on behalf of a coalition of the organizations that have been
mentioned -- NAACP, PULSE, Brothers of the Same Mind, ACLU. We were the organizations
that worked, as Mayor Regale do has told you, through long nights to put together an ordinance
which would serve the community. And one of the things that I want to stress is that in the
ordinance, there's a timetable built in that takes into account that, first, criminal investigations
have to be completed; an IA has — Internal Affairs has to do its job. But nonetheless, there is a
timetable that the CIP should investigate and complete its investigations within 120 days after
they commence an investigation, and if they are reviewing something Internal Affairs has done,
they have 30 days to review that, Now, Commissioner Sarnoff has indicated that the independent
counsel recently has told Commissioner Sarnoff that there are complexities of laws and the
Policemen's Bill of Rights and perhaps conflicts with other agencies that account for the delays
that we have all been hearing about, and it is our position that that Is not accurate. The
ordinance took into account the need -- first of all, it definitely took into account the Policemen's
Bill of Rights. There's a very important part of the ordinance which deals specifically with how
you subpoena officers and their right to invoke their Fah Amendment right, and we were very
careful. We had the policemen's rights statute in front of us all through the original negotiations,
and we were very careful to carve a very precise pathway that totally respected the Policemen's
Bill of Rights, and continues to do that. So I want to focus on the fact that the delays that have
been happening are not because there's something inappropriate about the way the ordinance is
built, It's built to have a relatively speedy conclusion of each case; recognizing that, first,
criminal matters do have to be resolved. So to give you an example ofwhat the current
independent counsel's attitude is about delay; I'm --
Chair Gort: Excuse me. Not to be repetitious, if someone that wants to speak and give you their
two minutes, I will appreciate it.
Ms. Baker: Okay, ifI might just then finish with this.
Chair Gort: Thank you,
Ms. Baker: Back in February of 2012, I asked the independent counsel at a CIP meeting, "Why
have you not investigated the De Carlos Moore case and other cases that had already been
concluded long before by the State Attorney's Office?" And in the minutes of that meeting, Mr,
Mays -- and I'm reading from the minutes -- "Mr, Mays agreed that the 120 days had indeed
elapsed; however, he advised that is of little consequence, because the CIP staff in its review of
both cases, Moore and Belizaire, they found no violation of existing policies or procedures by the
principal officer." Mr. Mays added that "the CIP will likely provide a report in April 2012. " It
did not provide a report for another almost year, until February 2013. Mr, Mays has stood there
in front of us at the CIP and said, "Those delays are of no consequence. We can just waive
whatever time frames." As a result, the community has been extraordinarily frustrated in not
getting the answers it's been looking for. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Charles Mays,
Charles Mays: I'll defer at this tune, if you don't mind.
Chair Gort: Beg your pardon?
Unidentified Speaker: He said he'd defer at this time.
City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May S, 2014
Mr. Mays: I'll defer at this time. I would like to --
Chair Gort: Okay.
Mr. Mays: at the conclusion, if may:
Chair Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Thank you.
Chair Gort: Michelle Delaney fsicj.
Michelle Delaney:. Good morning. Michelle Delaney. I have a law practice here in the City of
Miami at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. I've been a panel member of the Civilian Investigative
Panel since 2007. I believe, as Commissioner Hardemon and Commissioner Sarnoff clearly
pointed out, there really are two big issues. First and foremost, the people that stood here have
interests. They have varying interests that are -- some are similar, some are very different from
each other, but they're interests, The Civilian Investigative Panel is an independent panel, so
that when they come, they're presenting to you that, generally speaking, they want to see police
officers' heads roll. I know this, 'because, as sitting on the panel, I note that they're usually
praising, particularly me, when I say, "No, I don't agree with that, it's not okay that we have the
issue presented in this way and these are the findings. " And I respect those interests, but when
we're up there, cis you guys, when you're up there, we have to be independent and malce sure that
those interests are heard when they're supposed to be heard. So what the CIP has been doing all
of these years are literally being independent. When I hear that the CIP is not working, it
troubles me greatly, When Mr. -- when Horacio Aguirre comes up here and presents, 2009 - -
October of 2009, we had this problem with Steve Wolfe, 71,vo thousand and nine we cut our
budget in half Steve Wolfe was fired as a result. He was then disgruntled and filed this
paperwork; that's what that was about. Since 2009, the panel has been working diligently, in
fact, with the Mayor, who previously carve up. Our latest mission just in Novemberand
December was about spearheading the getting of cameras on police cars, Not only that, but we
have been investigating the police officer shootings with the ACLU. What these independent
interest groups fail to realize, but we've told them time and time again is that there is this
process. The process involves the State Attorney's Office; process involves Internal Affairs, and
we have to wait for those investigations to complete; otherwise, we will undo what those
Investigations need to be done, because the police officers have rights, and we have to follow
those rights, and we can literally undo or hurt those investigative processes if we don't wait. Not
to mention, they assist us in our investigation because we don't and have not had the financing in
order to go out and have that ability. But most importantly, look at what's happened. Since
2009, we've been literally getting these cases through making these recommendations. We have
this case up on appeal of which counsel has been praised and lauded for up until when? Two
months ago. You know what? I almost blame myself You know whatl did? I mentioned that
Cristinaa Beamud, the brand-new executive director at that time, terminated our best investigator;
it not even close. She's a black woman. There were four black people in that office, three white
people in that office at the time, Right now, Charles Mays is the last black person standing;
that's not by coincidence. This investigator told me seven weeks into her job she did not like
Shawanda Hall, she did not want -- she did not like Charles Mays, and she wanted to see them
gone. So what I did is, I said, "Look, guys, we are doing a great job, instead of .-- it's clear --
this lady, amongst the other things that she told me -- this lady does not have this interest -- this
panel's best interest in mind. We need to vote her off, " and we did. City Manager, without
question, put her back on, okay? Since then, we have been -- found in her waste paper basket
torn up Post -It notes in her waste paper basket that said -- one said "niggers," and the rest
weren't clear. The other one said, "Blackpeople are like animals, ha-ha." And in the midst of
that, two people, black women, resign underneath her, and one is fired. And now, they're trying
City of Miami
Page 11 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
to get rid of the last black person standing, and that's the. independent counsel; that's a problem.
So there really are racial issues. I certainly applaud Commissioner Sarnoff; certainly applaud
Commissioner Hardemon in looking to investigate this. I want --1 know my time is up. I just
want to say that I absolutely love this panel, it goes to my heart, I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
I often see what happens when we have rogue police officers, but I also see what happen when
you have people in the public who are just trying to get back at the police officers for doing their
fob. We're there as the Civilian Investigative Panel to make sure that we come to the truth; not to
promote interest groups and what they want to see happen, but we get at the truth. We've been
doing that until this executive director has been hired; she is the missing link. I'm asking this
Commission to get rid of her. We voted twice to get rid of her, guys. And she _,. we hired her,
and we were obedient to her. We need to get rid other, and I believe that will be a great start to
getting this panel back on track. Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair.
Chair- Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Ifl may. First of all, I thank you for coming. You know, I think it's
important for us to get the different perspectives. Clearly, your perspective is diametrically
different f om Horacio's, and I think it's articulated very well. I think there is a couple of things
that you said that I kind of disagree with. I don't know if "disagree" is the right word, but I -- in
terms of what I've looked at and what's been given to me seem to be a departure. The first is I
think you said something to the effect of "We have to let these processes" -- which is the, you
know, Internal Affairs process and the State Attorney's process -- flush itself out before the
Civilian Investigative Panel can begin the investigations. I don't think that's' up fbr debate. I
think the debate is once those processes have ended and the CIP is supposed to kind of pick up
the ball and do its investigation, and it's supposed to conclude its investigation within a certain
time frame, and I think the frustration is on the part of these invest -- these independent agencies,
as you termed them -- is that that's not happening; it's not even close to happening, And I think
-- so that's the frustration. I mean, you know, charges of racism, to be honest with you, I mean,
it's — I can tell you as a young elected official, it's frustrating to hear that; it's very frustrating,
because you have to balance that with, you know, when you become a new executive director N-
and I'm not taking a side, because I don't — .I've spent very little time with Ms. Beamud. You
know, you have to balance -- you come into a position, and if it's not functioning according to
the rules that are established 'that regulate its functioning, you want to make changes, and then
those changes are questioned or, you know, we start counting, "Well, how many
African -American people are here today? How many are here tomorrow?" And, you know, I
understand what your perspective is, because you're saying, "Look," that's the only way we can
be objective or kind of look at things from an objective perspective is to say, "Well, you know,
when this person arrived, there was 'X' number of African Americans and now, there's 'Y, "' you
know, and that's a significant difference or a significant reduction. It's just -- look -- and in the
context of what we saw with the Clippers owner, you know, in the last couple of weeks, you
know, it's hard to believe that someone would do something as foolish if they were, in fact -- f
they did, in fact, have racial feelings as putting them in writing, tearing them up, and putting
them in their own wastebasket. That's pretty foolish.
Ms. Delaney: It happened, though, Commissioner.
Chair Gort: Excuse me, excuse me.
Commissioner Suarez: Well --
City cif Miami Page 12 Printed on JO/22/20.14
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Chair Gort: Commissioner --
Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no, wait; I want to finish.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: I want to finish. That's foolish. I don't disagree that those papers were
found in that wastebasket. I just find it to be extremely -- it's a leap -- it a huge leap of logic for
me to think that the person who that wastebasket belonged to would be foolish enough to do that.
Now, like I said, in the context of what we saw .in the last couple of weeks with the Clippers
owner, you know, that puts a lot of things in perspective, certainly, that someone would be
foolish enough, If they really felt that way, to actually express it. So 1 guess .it's more likely to be
believable, you know, after that, But when you have organizations that have spent their entire
life, for lack of a better word, advocating for equal protection, equality, civil rights -- and as you
said yourself, they're independent agencies. They have -- you know, I understand what you're
saying; that they may have a little bit of a dog in the fight in the sense that, you know, they want
to see things — it seems like sometimes, they want to see police .officers brought to justice,
quote/unquote, and I understand that you're saying that your organization's objective is to be
independent, whatever that may be; whether that means that an officer is held responsible or not
held responsible. I just think that these are independent organizations that helped create this
organization. They've been, for lack of a better word, overseeing the organization, and when
they have concerns, given the credibility that they have in our community and in our country,
over decades, we can't ignore that. You know, we can't, as a Commission, ignore that. And I
really don't want this to dissolve into a "he said -she said." I think we should, as some of the
Commissioners have expressed here today, take a step back and try to see, is it functioning; is the
ClPfunctioning? And if it's not, what are the changes that need to be made? And sometimes,
it's a matter of when someone's been in a certain position for a period of time -- you know, even
us, we have term limitations; we're not going to be here forever. So there are rules in place
sometimes to keep an organization fresh; to keep, you know, a new perspective coming in; to
keep making sure that'whoever's in charge has the same energy, the scone enthusiasm for the jab
that they do, you know, on day one, and so that's why those rules are in place. So I think we're
all grappling with and struggling with sifting through all the information. But it is troubling, I
have to say, when you have organizations whose sole mission is to promote equality and whose
sole mission is to promote peace in our community that are coming forward with these
allegations. It's very troubling as a Commissioner, I have to tell you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to request -- ask for a request. If you all have
any comments, any question, please write it down, because I have a lot of individuals that would
like to speak, unless you want to change the procedure, but we have a public hearing taking
place, and let's do it at the end. Because if we're going to debate back and forth, especially when
we have attorneys, we can take all day on this.
Commissioner Suarez: That's a good point.
Chair Gort: Thank you.
Vice Chair Hardman: Why you keep hitting us? Why you keep hitting us? That's not fair.
Chair Gort: Because I deal with attorneys all my life.
Vice Chair Hardemon: That'll be -- an attorney is verbose. The goal is to say it's best
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Chair Gort: Bess McElroy. Bess McElroy?
City of Miami
Page 13
Printed on 1012.2/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May8, 2014
Bess McElroy Good morning, Commissioners, I am Bess McElroy, and I am presently serving
as the chair of the Civilian Investigative Panel. And just one small correction,. Commissioner
Sarnoff. I have not resigned, not yet.
Commissioner Sarnoff But did you actually once file for -- qucal for a candidacy?
Ms. McElroy: Yes, 1 did,
Commissioner Sarnoff And do you not know that that's an automatic resignation under the law?
Ms. McElroy, Well, 1 did seek information on it, and I wets told that I did not have to resign, so
that's why 1 did not.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Who told -- I'm just curious -- you you did not have to resign?
Ms. McElroy: A couple of attorneys told me that I did not have to resign, so .that's why I clid not.
It's not — it was never my intention to violate anything. I would like to speak to some of the
matters that's going on now, and Iwould like to recognize our Mayor, Mayor Regalado, and I --
when he was referring to people that was present years ago when we were putting together the
CIP, I took the lead in that matter. As a matter of fact, I served as the chair of the Coalition of
Community Organizations. At that time, Commissioner Gort was here. The Mayor was serving
as Commissioner at that particular time, So I do Ally understand the mission of the CIP and the
intent of the CIP, and there are process, and there are rules, and an ordinance that speaks to the
Civilian Investigative members, and there is some concern about some persons serving beyond
their terms on the panel that is really not the fault of the person that's serving. When we accept
to serve as members of the CIP, we also accept with the understanding that we will continue to
serve until our successors are appointed. We do not appoint our own successors. The successors
are appointed by the Commission. And I do recall that on at least two occasions, maybe three,
we went through the process that we were supposed to go to in getting names to the Commission.
The Commission had -- it was on the agenda, but for one reason or another, the Commissioners
did not appoint the successors, so we continued to serve, And it would be easy just to walk away,
to leave, but as I said, we accepted to serve until the successor is appointed, and .I'm always
careful of how I would leave a situation because I might want to return; not return to serve on
the CIP, per se, but there may be some other boards that I would want to serve on in the future.
So the appointing process is there. The final analysis of that is the appointees are by the
Commissioners, and if the Commissioners fail to appoint, then we just continue to. serve. So that
is my.say on that. And far as the executive director, whomever that person may be, there's a
glitch in the ordinance that need to be corrected. It -- from my interpretation of it, based upon
what has happened recently. The ordinance states that the CIP may hire an executive director,
whose term of employment, benefits, et cetera, are approved by the City Commission. Now, it's
no place in the ordinance, as far as I can see, as far as I have read, that said that we cannot
terminate the person that we hire, and that's a problem that -- a big problem. Ifwe are able to
hire someone, certainly, we should be able to terminate that person if that is our wishes. And at
the present time, the CIP has voted twice, really, to terminate the person who is in that position,.
and again, a second time. Now, in that regard, the outgoing City Manager, who was here
previously, did not agree with the CIP and said that the executive director was to continue. And
the second Manager, more or less, has done the same thing. And the second Manager, I sent to
him a letter stating the wishes on the panel. .To this date, the Manager has not responded to my
letter, so in essence, he's turned his nose up at me as the chair and as the panel and in general.
Whether the Manager agrees with our decision or not, definitely, professionally, he should have
responded, so there is a problem there. I do want to thank you for listening to us, and I do thank
Commissioner Sarnoff and Commissioner Hardemon for the suggestion that they are alluring
jsic] to, and that is to set up a panel of some sort or committee to examine and to report back to
you what is happening. I don't think it is possible in today setting; a one-time setting, to hear
City ofMianti Page 14 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
from us and to really get to the nuts and bolts of what is happening, and I would hope that you
will consider that recommendation. Thank you, I see you're waving; my time is up. .Thank you.
Chair Gort: Your time has been up for a while, but this is a very intense --
Commissioner Sarnof Mr. Chair.
Chair Gort: -- issue that we need to discuss. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sarnoff. Can I just be heard on one section which Ms. McElroy brought up? And
Chair Gort: Go right ahead.
Commissioner Sarnoff; I know it's going to prolong it, Mr. Chair, but I think it might —
Chair Gort: Sure.
Commissioner Sarnoff -- short circuit it, as well. So the real -- any panel that wishes to remain
a panel of the exact same people with the exact same heartbeats, the key to making that happen
is to ensure that there will never be a new nominating committee, agreed? Of course, we agree
to that. So here's what Section 11.5.28 says of the term of office, vacancies and appointment to
CIP -- very clearly -- Sub -Section "G, " terms of the office, Mr. Chair: "The term of the office of
the members of the CIP appointed by the City Commission shall be for three years." I'm going
to move to the next section: "CIP members shall continue to serve until their successors have
been appointed and qualified." Fair enough. However --
Chair Gort: Who qualifies them?
Commissioner Sarnoff; -- there's a terminus provision at the very end of that paragraph; it's
very clear, it's very exact. "No CIP member" -- not some; not the ones we choose; not the
African -Americans; not the Anglos; not the Hispanics; not -- says "No CIP member shall serve
more than six consecutive years on the CIP," 1 think the lawyers call that the terminus --1'm a
lawyer, so what the hell -- that's a terminus provision. That means under no certain terms can
anybody stay and occupy that position for six years. So the key to any establishment, if you want
to remain forever, is make sure there's no process in place for a new appointment. And that's
what's happened here; there's been a log jam. Now, you know, Ms. McElroy has come out -- and
you can see, I don't take a position. I'm not here for the ACLU. I'm not here for Mr. Mays.
There's a lot of truth on their side, and Igot to tell you, as a lawyer, Igot to tell you, there's a lot
of truth on his side. But here's a very fair statement. Madam City Attorney, you have now heard
a woman admit to this Commission that she has qualified for office twice.
Victoria Mclndez (City Attorney): Pursuant to Section 2-884, membership on boards of the City
Code, it says no member Sub -Section "D: No member of any City board shall become a
candidate for elective political office during his or her term. Should any member of a City board
pal* as a candidate for elective political office, such qualification shall be deemed a tender of
resignation from such board." So based on that and the information that Ms. McElroy has
given, she has resigned, effective immediately back then when she qualified.
Commissioner Sarnoff.• So, Mr. Chair, the key -- one of the keys has opened up, Commissioner
Carollo; that is that now a position is vacant and now the chairman is no longer the chairman,
And by the way, she'd like to think that's can illegcd provision or somehow un -- you know, not
correct; there is another recourse to go for that, and that's in, of course, in a court of law, But at
least now the process starts, and at least now we see -- tf we want to analogize this, Mr. Chair, to
a drain, the water is' starting to flow.
City ofMaamd )'age 15 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Chair Gort: Thank you. Julia Dawson.
Julia Dawson: Good morning, Commissioners. I would like to ask for a small indulgence. The
mother of one of the shooting victims has come here this morning and would like to make some
brief comments. I would like to give her my place to speak now, because she does have a job
and may need to get back to that job, and if possible, could I speak directly after? Or I will wait
for my turn later on.
Chair Gort: Look, we have a you've heard the discussion among all of us. There's a lot of
things they don't like to discuss in the open. You guys want to do that, it's fine, but I have all this,
and I have this agenda that we have to follow.
Ms. Dawson: Okay, where will you put me ifl defer to her?
Chair Gort: You'll have to get someone else to waive their rights to you, please.
Ms. Dawson: Okay, I will go ahead and speak now, then, and I will try to be as brief as possible.
In regards to Ms. Delancy's comments, the best way to ensure that the police are able to do the
best job they can do is to have robust investigations of police misconduct; that helps the police;
that helps the community; that helps everyone, and that is what the CIP's job is. Regarding the
nominating committee and panel members who are currently seated and beyond their terms and
the vacancies that currently exist, these are the facts: The last time the nominating committee
met was at the end of the year in 2012. They have not met since then. The last time new
members were seated on the panel was in March of 2013. Since then, the nominating committee
has not met to consider applicants, to make recommendations or nominations to the Commission
for appointment or anything else. The chair of the nominating committee is Michelle Delaney. I
also feel that -- well, let me just start with the remarks I had. I think we can all agree that the
CIP is not working; that it is and has been for quite some time a dysfunctional board that is
plagued by vacancies and board members who are serving well beyond their term limit -- Ms.
McElroy was more than two years beyond her term limit -- a chronic lack offamiliarity with the
most basic documents that define their task and how it is to be carried out, and I would refer Ms.
McElroy not just to the ordinance that defines the CIP, but also to the attorney's opinions that
spell out who has the authority to hire and fire the executive director. They are plagued with a
stubborn commitment to the status quo and a fear on the part of the majority to challenge any
action or direction from their independent counsel. The bold community fight to establish
community oversight of Miami police is being squandered. One of the major obstacles of
the CIP back on track is the current independent counsel. For over three years, the coalition has
been monitoring the CIP, attending monthly meetings of the full panel and subcommittees, and
for well over a year, we've been chronicling examples that demonstrate that the current
independent counsel is either incompetent, negligent, or willfully ignores, or misrepresents the
CIP ordinance in both how the panel is administered, which is not his job, as well as how cases
are investigated and findings are arrived at. He has ignored the deadlines that are in the
ordinance that clearly spell out and stipulate when an investigation of a case must be concluded.
I have looked at all of the shooting cases. Every single one of them is a year overthe deadline of
when it should have been concluded. Ms. McNeil's case, when she stands up to speak, her case,
Travis McNeil, is one year and three months over the deadline. It is an open case; the clock is
still ticking on that case. Lynn Witherspoon is a year and 11 months over the deadline, and the
clock is still ticking. Brandon Foster, a year and nine months over the deadline, and the clock is
still ticking. The two cases that were closed, DeCarlos Moore (phonetic) was closed a year and
eight months after the deadline passed. Gibson Belizaire was closed a year and five months after
the deadline passed. The ordinance clearly stipulates that if the deadline Is not met, that case
shall he closed with a "no finding"; that paeans no investigation and nothing was found. Both of
them were closed, however, exonerating the police officer by the full CIP panel. And in the
Belizaire case, although they were informed that the ordinance required that the case be closed
with no finding, they voted down a motion to follow the ordinance, and immediately passed a
City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
motion to close that case exonerating the police officer, One of the problems with the
investigations --
Chair Gort: Please.
Ms. Dawson: One morething and then I'm done. -- is that the kind of mishandling that is
happening when you consider the job that the independent counsel has done on these cases --
and he is appointed -- he has appointed himself as investigator in every single one of these cases.
He is the only person who is responsible for what happens in these shooting cases, And he has
admitted in the first two cases that have been closed that he did not interview, speak to, talk to,
make a phone call, or meet with a single officer or witness in those cases, Instead, he listened to
the taped interviews from independent --from the police investigation, independent affairs --
Internal Affairs, excuse me -- of the officers and the witnesses, and then said that after listening
to that -- not talking to anyone -- after listening to the tapes, he could not think of a single
question to ask them, and he believed everything that they said. That is not an investigation.
These cases have not and are not being investigated, and the Independent counsel Is directly
responsible for that, and we need to remove him.
Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. I want to start breaking down some of the information that
we're getting and I'm go -- I'm not really sure who to ask the question to, but I'm going to start
asking some questions; some I may know what the answers to; some I may not. But I want to see
if'we could start breaking some of this down to see exactly if we could get to the root of faxing
some of these issues. First of all, the nominating committee has not met since 2012, Who calls
that meeting of the nominating committee, and why haven't they met since 2012? And Pm not
really sure who to address these questions to, but I want to start seeing if little by little, we start
drilling down to the root of possibly some of the issues, And I'm not even going as far as looking
to point fingers. I just want to see, okay, if the nominating committee has not met since 2012,
okay, how do we get them to meet? I would like to know why they haven't met, but anyways --
because that may actually fix the problem -- but why haven't they met, and how can we get them
to meet? What's the issue that they haven't met?
Mr. Aguirre: Through the Chair, Horacio Stuart Aguirre. The chairperson of the nominating
committee is Ms. Michelle Delaney.
Commissioner Carollo: And is she the only person that could call that meeting? Like who
nominates the nominating committee? Is it the board?
Mr. Aguirre: That is correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And has that been addressed by the board? Because it seems like a lot
of these issues could be addressed by the board, you know, and I don't want to micro -manage
this, and I don't want to, you know -- but realistically; can't the board then ask, any other
members ask, ".Hey, listen, we have an issue. Why hasn't the nominating committee met? When
is it going to meet?" You know, and.again, I'm not looking to micro -manage this, but obviously,
there s issues; and we need to start drilling down to see if we can find some solution.
Ms. Delaney: The executive director usually contacts me when there -- and there's right now two
open seats. So by the way, ifwe get rid of two or three other people -- which would, by the way,
also include Horacio Aguirre -- we wouldn't even have a quorum. Normally -- we've already in
City of Miami Page 17• Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
the last year had to literally get rid of two different or three different meetings, because we
haven't had a quorum, but usually, it's the executive -- we've a volunteer panel, so the executive
director will contact me -- this is how it's always happened, and I've been chair, I think, for two
years -- contact me and say, "Okay, Ms. Delaney, we have these two open seats. You need to --
here are dates of availability." She sends out the dates of availability, and then I convene the
meeting. I just run the meeting. I don't work on convening the meeting; I run it, I'm the chair. I
do -- kind of what, you know, happens here -- I don't convene or know, quite frankly, to do it.
Commissioner Carollo: So you're saying that the executive director has not contacted you to say
that "We need to nominate 'X' number of people" --
Ms. Delaney: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: -- or have you all meet? Now, let me ask you something: As board
members -- and I don't mean any disrespect with this. I really just — I'm -- listen, I'm just getting
down -- start drilling down and drilling down to see how we solve the issue. Can any of the
members say, "Hey, listen, it seems like we have two vacancies, and we've had two vacancies
for" —
Ms. Delaney: Of course.
Commissioner Carollo: — "'X' number of years. When are we going to meet and" --
Ms. Delaney: Of course.
Commissioner Carollo: -- "speak within yourselves?" Because I know we do this up here, I
mean, many times; and even this discussion, I'm sure some of these Commissioners are saying,
"Listen, could we have had a task force or a two- or three -member body deal with it?" But at
the same time, at least this Commission, since I've been here, we've debated for many, many
hours on issues to really drill down and vet it, and I think it makes, you know, our decision a
better decision, 'cause we really vet it out. So I'm wondering, could any of that board -- any of
those board members sort ofigured that out and say, `Listen, guys, I think we need to act here,
and I think, you know, a nominating committee should meet and, why isn't" -- you know, "there
are vacancies and Madam executive director or" -- I don't know if the independent counsel deals
with that also, but "how do we make this committee whole?"
Ms. Delaney: That never happened. Mr. Horatio Aguirre, no members from the public, Ms.
Julia Dawson, no one has said, "Hey,. we're missing two people; can we convene a nominating
committee?" until we brought up this issue with the executive director.
Commissioner Corolla: Okay, so moving forward, can the nominating committee meet? And --
Ms. Delaney: Of course,
Commissioner Carollo: -- can we see if those vacancies get filled?
Ms. Delaney: We been working on that.
Commissioner Carollo: And how quickly can that occur?
Ms. Delaney: We've been working on that diligently, actually.
Commissioner Carollo: Do you know when it would occur? 'Cause --
Ms. Mendez: Right now it's missing one member, based on its composition.
City of'Miami Page 18 Printed on 10/22/20.14
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Vice ChairHardemon: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Hardemon: May I? So the nominating committee usually has a member from each of
the five districts, so it's missing one; that doesn't make it not have a quorum or majority, what it
needs to actually nominate. But I believe then part of the issue then becomes -- remember now,
we have two bodies, two groups that are warring with each other in this slate, and that's the best
way to put it. And so, for instance, Ms. Delaney is on one side of the fight, and then we have
others on the other side, so it becomes:: Is it inherently unfair for someone who is a chairman of
the nominating committee and maybe some others who are term -limited, who should not be
there, to be a part of the body that is nominating the candidates that the CIP would choose to be
on that body? So it's -- there then lies some of the issues that the nominating committee is facing
as of today.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood, Commissioner, but -- and I definitely understand what
you're saying, but it gets to a point that, you know, there needs to be action taken, unless you
want a clean slate and get all new board members. I mean, I don't even think we can do that,
due to the process that's in place.
Ms. Dawson: I could shed some light on that.
Chair Gort: Excuse me, let's fry to keep some kind of order, because we're going to be here all
night.
Commissioner Carollo: But I want to see, can, you know -- I don't know -- the board --?
Ms, Mendez: Commissioner Carollo, just so that you know, if the nominating committee -- if
these issues were not resolved in short order; that is, getting a proper nominating committee and
all that, the City Attorney's Office was going to propose legislation totally revamping this; and
then if there was ever a problem with the nominating committee, that the Commission would just
appoint the members in order to select a slate. So that was going to be -- just to be able to
resolve the issue -- was going to be a proposed legislation now in June.
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly, and that's where I'm getting at. However, I want to -- I guess I
want to exhaust all avenues and try to let this, you know, the CIP Board actually fix the issue;
however, if not, yeah, then we're going to have to act. However, I'm trying to exhaust all
avenues beforehand.
Commissioner Sarnoff So -- do you mind, Mr. Chair?
Chair Gort: Go ahead, go ahead.
Commissioner Sarnoff So, Commissioner, why don't we let it auto -correct; give it the .
opportunity to auto -correct. Why don't we pass a resolution demanding -- asking, requesting --
'cause we ..shouldn't make demands upon an independent agency -- requesting the CIP Board, in
accordance with Section -- nomination of the members -- to convene a nominating committee to
solicit and screen applications, interviews, potential candidates to be appointed for membership
and submit such candidates. The CIP shall, by a majority vote, submit nominations to the City
Commission for approval. That would be my motion. That would allow them to auto -correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And I second that motion, 'cause that's where I'm going at, and that's
where .I kept hearing this -- I kept hearing from the public, but at the same time, we need to, you
know, start drilling to what they're saying. I'm listening to you all, to everyone, and I appreciate
City ofMiami - Page 19 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
your comments, but we need to start drilling in, because my intent here is to find a solution and
be able to solve this problem, and it seems like we might be able to do it this way without
legislation from this committee -- or this Commission, as suggested by the City Attorney;
however, I'm glad that we have that option, and I'm sure that we will exercise Mat option if it's
not fixed. And then I think once that occurs and we have members and a fill board, I mean, in
all fairness, they can vote with regards to executive director and with regards to independent
counsel. I know the one position that is there in the Charter is the independent counsel, and
once again, it's my understanding that the board is the one who appoints and nominates and
votes on whoever they want as independent counsel, so as a matter offact -- I'm sorry?
Ms. Mendez: Commissioner Corolla, just to let you know two points: One, based on --
Commissioner Gort had made a statement earlier that he wanted the parties to mediate and talk
to the City Attorney's Office, and I -- this office, my office, and Deputy City Attorney Min spoke
to the parties and advised them of this same option; that if they did not auto -correct, as you
placed it, that our office was going.to have to intervene and change the ordinance and such. So
my understanding is that they are trying to convene a meeting of the nominating committee, but
as such, what we discussed earlier, that is an option; that we will bring forth legislation in order
to achieve that correction immediately. And then the second point you had mentioned about who
appoints the independent counsel; that was your question?
Commissioner Carollo: It wasn't a question. It's my understanding it's the board, and I don't
mean the Commission. I mean the Civilian Investigative Panel,
Chair Gort: We confirm the nominations,
Commissioner Carollo: Of both?
Commissioner Sartre: Well, she's -- I think she's checking to see who (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Carollo: Right. So that's why I'm asking. And as a matter offact, I remember --1
actually pulled the minutes. I haven't had a chance to read it all, but I remember Commissioner
Teele had issues with that, because he didn't want -- he wanted this panel to be as independent as
possible,. and he actually spoke against the City Commission rating whoever they choose as an
executive director. But anyways, as of right now,. what is the process?
Ms, Mendez: The City Commission appoints all the members of the CIP, except the appointee of
the Chief of Police, by a majority vote, exclusively from the nominations submitted by the
nominating committee, so that's where the hiccup is.
Commissioner Carollo: Right,
Commissioner Sarnoff The old days —
Ms, Mendez: And then with regard to the independent counsel for -- in Section 11.534, it's the --
an attorney -at -law admitted to the practice of law in Florida for at least seven years shall be
employed by Me CIP as independent counsel, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. So
that's' --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Ms. Mendez: -- the nuance, and the authority of the City Attorney to remove the independent
counsel from employment,
Commissioner Suarez: It's the City Attorney.
City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Commissioner Carollo: So it's named by the board, and then subject to ratification by the City
Attorney's Office, correct?
Ms. Mendez: I think that's how it's been done in the past, but it's pretty much --
Commissioner Sarnoff It's her choice.
Ms. Mendez: -- employed by the CIP, but it's me. It's really me.
Commissioner Same Her choice.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay.
Chair Gort: Gentlemen, let me ask you a question. I have people here that signed up to speak.
I'm going to close the public hearings after hearing from Lesley [sic] Jones, I'd like to hear from
the public, and then we'll make whatever decision we want to make. These people have been
waiting for a long time. Let's hear everyone that wants to speak, and then we can make a
decision.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Commissioner Sarnoff: I think we do have a motion and a second, I'm not saying we have to
vote on it now --
Commissioner Carollo: No. Right.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- but I think it's here.
Chair Gort: There's a motion and a second; it stands there.
Commissioner Corolla: But in all fairness, let everyone speak.
Commissioner Sarnoff Right.
Chair Gort: Okay, Sheila McNeil, please.
Ms. Dawson: All right, I do have information on the functioning of the nominating committee
that would help with the drilling down that the Commissioner wants that you really need to
consider.
Chair Gort: Sheila McNeil.
Sheila McNeil: Good morning. My name is Sheila McNeil. I'm the mother of Travis McNeil.
He was one of the young men who was killed in a traffic stop by the City of Miami police officer.
My family and I have been — we've been through a. lot, and this committee, I found out, has -- is
what -- my attorneys have said they've been waiting for them to come to some kind of conclusion
cis to what's going on. I really don't understand what the process is, but this has put a lot of wear
and tear on myself and my family. My son died in 2011, and I think there's been adequate
enough time for them to come to some type of ratification about his case. Vs very stressful. I
have so many questions, and still, I've gotten no answers as to why my son is dead, and I was
hoping that through this committee, some kind of conclusion would -- we -- they could come to
some type of conclusion that would help me and my family sort ofput this thing to rest. This is
not -- there's no way I can say that it's gotten better. These days have not been easy days. I feel
City of NliarnI Page 21 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014.
like my son was murdered, and I still -- I just need some type of -- some help, you know, as far as
getting the answers I need from this panel or whomever has the last say in what's going on.
We've been through quite a bit. First, his death was ruled unjustifiable. Then they got -- the
Feds got Involved. Then we got another conclusion to the case, and it's just lingering, and it's
very stressful. I just want them to come to some kind of agreement or whatever they need to do to
get on the ball and get it done, 'cause it's been over a year and some months that this -- they
should have made some type of decision in this case, and it still hasn't been made. It would be
very helpful to me and my family if we could get some answers to so many questions that we
have. Thank you.
Chair Gort: .Thank you, ma'am. Bradford Broom. Bradford Broom c- Brown, I'm sorry. Brown,
Brown. Sony.
Bradford Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Brad Brown. I'm
currently first vice president of the NAACP. I was president when this ordinance was put into
place, and I will never forget that Commissioner Teele told me at that time that we should
evaluate the effect of that ordinance by looking for changes in the culture in the Police
Department. Not too long ago -- and you saw the pictures of the shooting victims. It was
obvious that that hadn't taken place. We thought that the independent panel should investigate
those; they weren't doing anything. We filed a complaint joint --- a third party complaint jointly
with ACLU, thinking they should investigate all of those kinds of police shootings. I'm moved to
tears at the testimony we've just heard, because we were in the position of urging people like that
to bring their complaints to the CIP. Shortly after the first one was dismissed, the first charge, I
told the CIP in their committee meeting that I would recommend that the NAACP withdraw from
any involvement with the CIP. We could care less whether they -Were funded or whether they
existed, because they were not doing a job that was worth supporting. We wouldn't go to bat to
wipe them out; we'd let other people be involved in that. And I think it's important that we look
at that, because if -- and I don't -- I'm not being a lawyer -- if the opinion that we heard that they
can't do the job because of issues in the Supreme Court, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no
value in having them. Ifwe want to test whether we can have them, then we need an aggressive
independent review panel that will push that to the point to find out whether it can actually be
effective in changing the culture in the Police Department. And I want to just make -- briefly,
we've had some concerns about -- raised about our new executive director. That — when I made
that statement, the new executive director was nowhere onsite. So the issues with the CIP and
with the decisions offollowing the decisions of the current independent counsel were there; she
has nothing to do with those. We need to deal with that separately, and then want to look at
whether we haw a new executive director who lives up to the resume that everybody saw and
were accepted as there. And I would suggest that rather than worrying about frying to decide
who put the sticky notes down there, because handwriting is sort of pseudo -science anyway, that
one does a due diligence on her resume, because if there is an issue and is a problem, that due
diligence will find it out. So -- but put that separate. Lets solve the CIP issue and independent
guidance for that CIP now. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Julia Dawson, Again? We heard from you.
Ms. Dawson: Can't hear me too many times. What wanted to say when you were discussing
the nominating committee is that since 2009, the CIP has not had an executive director. There
has been no one in that position until this last December when Ms. Beamud was hired. So for all
those years, who did that function of administration and management of the CIP? The answer is
the independent counsel, who persuaded the CIP panel that he could handle this, and they
acquiesced, and they let him function as a de facto executive director. That is a period of time
when the nominating committee did not meet. Ms. Delaney is no longer on the nominating
committee, so I'm confused as to why she's speaking on it as though she were still today. The one
other piece you need to know is that the City Attorney left out one very important factor when
you were talking about the ordinance and that the nominating committee would solve all the
City of Miami Pep 22 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
problem in the CIP. Her office, Mr. Min, directed specifically the independent counsel to be the
one to see that the nominating committee functioned and met; that was on March 31. Since that
time, he has not accomplished that. Ms. Beamud, as executive director, deferred to him since the
City Attorney designated him with that responsibility. And finally, in frustration, for example,
with there being no representative from District 4, she went to Commissioner Suarez and asked if
his office had some suggestions for people who could temporarilyserve on the nominating
committee so it could function, and he did, and she has those names,
Chair Gort: Okay.
Ms. Dawson: She took care of that. The independent counsel's solution was to advertise in the
NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices and online.
Chair Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Dawson: I don't know who you get -- where the applicants come from there but --
Chair Gort: Thank you, thank you.
Ms. Mendez: I advised that —
Chair Gort: Excuse me.
Ms. Mendez: -- that was an inaccurate statement when I met with her previously. Both
everyone at the CIP, both the executive director and counsel, were charged with getting this
done, and if it did not get done, then our office is going to take care of it with regard to
legislation, and that's what was discussed.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: And I think you do have a proposed resolution on the floor that -- we'll
continue to listen to everyone who wants to speak, but I think we could take a vote on that and
that may bring some -- I don't want to say "closure, ".but move the ball forward into finally
making this -- making the process work and making sure that we have a, Bull CIP panel.
Chair Gort; Rubin Roberts.
Rubin Roberts: Good morning. I'm Rubin Roberts. I'm the criminal justice chair for the
NAACP, and Pm here with the coalition. I want to be brief and really spealc to the facts. I know
that they're talking -- there are talks about having. some sort of investigation, but I think there are
some facts that are very clear. Facts are that the investigation [sic] are not happening for the
families, as we've heard from the parent of Travis McNeil, and it's very troubling. Facts are that
in District 5, there is a disproportionate number ofAfrican-Americans that are being shot by --
that have been shot by police officers, and that is an issue that we are concerned with. I'm sure
in any other district, you don't have the number of police civilian shootings that you have in
District 5. We're not blaming the police, but that is —that's a fact and that's an issue. This CIP
was developed to address those issues and those concerns. We've heard from a very distraught
mother today that is concerned that she has not had any recourse or redress on this issue, and
she ,s still grieving and mourning and waiting to see that there's something happening.
Commissioner Hardman, I'm sure that you probably know some of these young men, have gone
to school or -- with them or their relatives, and I'm sure that you're concerned about what's
going on in your district, as well; I'm certain of that. The other facts Iwould like to say is that
the IC (independent counsel) has taken on ct role that supersedes his authority. This is not e
City of Miami Page 23 Printed an 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
witch hunt on the IC; doesn't matter who the IC is. What I am concerned about is that there is
representation that folic who are -- have family members that have been shot or had any sort of
improprieties with the Police Department that they have due process through this panel, and it
doesn't matter who the IC is for me. The other thing is that there's an internal process the CIP
needs to revisit so that they can come up with some standard operating procedures to help them
with this process. And finally, if you're going to have an investigation, I would welcome all of
you to look at the March 20 CIP meeting where the coalition was slandered by Ms. -- Attorney
Delaney, and I think that anyone that serves on the panel should have a little bit more poise
about -- in their position when they're addressing with panelists. We can agree to disagree, but
we don't have to be slanderous. Lastly, I want to say to you that it is approaching the summer. A
lot of youth are not -- summer jobs are not there. There may not be summer programs for school,
that sort of thing. And in the heat of the summer in Miami, I am very concerned that if there
happens to be -- unfortunately, if there happens to be another shooting in District 5 that there
may be civil unrest. And I charge that -- I really would like to see that you guys address this
issue before something of that nature or that magnitude happens. These kids, they are people;
they're people; they have families. And Ms. Delaney said that we have an agenda. Our agenda
is to support the residents of the City of Miami, regardless of color, creed, religion, sexual
orientation. We want to protect -- that's this coalition's agenda, so that's what we'd like to do.
Thank you for your time.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Next speaker; Javier Ortiz.
Javier Ortiz: Good morning. Javier Ortiz, president of Fraternal Order of Police, 710
Southwest 12th Avenue. I want to start off by letting the families know -- I know the McNeil
family was here earlier -- that there is not one police officer that comes to work saying, "We
want to get into a shooting." That's the first thing. There are allegations that were made by the
president of PULSE that somehow, the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) and the Police
Department are in cahoots with the CIP. That is the most egregious statement -- well, one of the
most egregious statements he's made today, The CIP has absolutely nothing to do with the FOP,
There were some statements also made by another individual that the officers did not give any
type ofstatements to the CIP. Because that is the recommendation from our legal counsel. The
FOP doesn't care if the CIP is around; they can investigate all they want. Internal Affairs
investigates us; the public investigates us; the US. (United States) Attorney's Office investigates
us; the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Our own Chief has invited them, invited the U.S.
Department of Justice to come in. These shootings were just fled. They're unfortunate. You'll
never hear me say, "Oh, this is a good shoot." There's no such thing as a good shoot. Ifwe
have to take somebody's life, it's very unfortunate. It is a tragedy. And, yes, they have families.
My officers have families, too. And in none of those cases, none of those cases of any of those
gentlemen that were involved in these shootings, they weren't just walking down the street. If
they would have followed lawful commands or they would have not been committing a crime, we
would not be here today.
Vice Chair Ilardemon: Wow.
Mr. Ortiz. As far as the CIP and police officers coming, just like our Chief limoney did in the
past, we would elect'-- you know, exercise our Fifth Amendment rights. Criminals have the same
rights that we do, and we will assert them. In closing, this is the question that I ask my
Commissioners: What are we getting for the $600, 000 a year? Tax their money. Wheat have we
gotten out of that year after year after year? My solution is quite simple: Get that $600,000 and
put more investigators in our Internal Affairs Division. Detach them to the FBI if you want. Our
officers have nothing to hide, but let the investigators investigate; not what public perception is
or what some people have as their own hidden agenda. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you. H.T. Smith.
Ciay of Miami
Page 24 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes.
Vice Chair Hardemon: May I -- before Mr. Smith speaks, 'just -- I have to say something
briefly. Pm dismayed by the lack of insensitive -- the lack of sensitivity in the comments that I
just heard. Maybe he knows more than what I do about each one of these cases that the CIP is
or has yet to investigate. And I understand that, you know, the FOP has a position, and
sometimes it asserts that position, but sometimes we have to know when to assert it and when to
just know that there will be a time to assert it. And so I will say just briefly, the CIP does have
the power to subpoena, If the CIP wants to subpoena witness and that witness may be an officer,
it does have the ability to meet with the State Attorney's Office and subpoena witnesses to come
before it to speak. The FOP, Pm sure, has attorneys. I'm not asking for a response. But the
FOP does have attorneys that may recommend to their officers to answer those subpoenas or
not, and that is a legal decision that's going to be decided before a judge to decide if that is
permissible or they must answer to the subpoena. But knowing people — you know, my mother is
a police officer. I have no qualms of saying that, and thankfully, she's never come home to me
and said that "I killed someone today." And -- but also knowing the people in the community
that have been killed, "just -- I apologize to the mother. I apologize to anyone who is watching
this. I apologize to anybody if you were offended by the comments that put the position out there
that if you were killed by a police officer in this City, that you are a criminal or that you were
committing a crime or that you were doing. something wrong. That is emphatically an incorrect
statement, and I am so disheartened to hear that being put, because every single person in this
community is a person first, and not every single person that is killed in the line of fire that a
police officer has put himself in is a criminal. It's okay sometimes to say, "l made a bad
decision." It is okay sometimes to say, "I was afraid. " It is okay sometimes to say, "You know
what? Maybe Liberty City isn't the best place to put me, because I just,-- I can't function in that
area. Maybe I need to be in Coral Gables or Coconut Grove or something of `that nature." Give
me in my district officers who understand people. Give me in my district officers who are slow to
fire. Give me professional law enforcement officers. And what that means to me is -- the word
"professional" means so much, and that's why you put it before the term "law enforcement,"
'cause anybody can enforce law. But when you are a professional, like when you are a doctor or
a lawyer -- a doctor has a responsibility of performing a certain type offitnetion within a certain
measure of error every single time. And when he operates outside of that degree, he is sued for
malpractice. A lawyer has a responsibility to operate within a certain degree of error every
single time and when he does not do that, he is sued. A professional football player or
basketball player or baseball player has a responsibility of (acting within a certain amount of
error every single time, and when they fall below that, they are let go. And I believe, in all of my
heart, that every single professional law enforcement officer has gone through the training that
they have, that has put forth the years of service that they have, that have dedicated their time
and put their lives on the line because they understand that at any time that they operate outside
of that measure of error, they or someone else may lose their life. And I think that that is the
beauty of being a professional law enforcement officer. And as a professional, we have certain
decorum that we must maintain, and I think that we step outside of that professionalism when we
insult the families that are suffering at such tragic events. No one is right; we are all losers.
Chair Gort:: Thank you. Mr. Smith, you're recognized.
Applause.
HT. Smith: Thank you.
Chair Gort: Wait. Hold on, excuse me.
Mr, Smith: Thank you.
City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Vice ChairHardemon: Come on.
Mr, Smith: H.T Smith, 1017Northwest9th Court, Miami; born in the Christian Hospital in
Overtown; went to elementary school, living at 1420 Northwest lst Place in Overtown. My
business Is located in the City of Miami. I am a property owner in the City of Miami. First of
all, let Inc say that I've heard that there are warring factions. I am not here today as a warrior.
Many times, I have put on my warrior costume and led the "Free South Africa" movement with
many of the people, by the way, who are coming to you, asking you .to take action. They are
good people; they are smart people; they are people with integrity. But also, I also know your
independent counsel, and I can tell you that he's one of the finest lawyers in the State of Florida,
I came to you today to ask you to focus on two things that you know about, because I've heard
you say them, but sometimes, in the discussion, the most important things kind of get lost. The
two most important things I suggest are independence and fairness. If you'll look at the reason
why 76 or whatever percentage of the citizens voted for the panel, it wasn't so much they wanted
an investigative agency alone; we already had one, Internal Affairs. The people felt that it
wasn't independent; that consciously or subconsciously, when police officers investigate police
officers who they've gone to academy with, who they work with, that even subconsciously, there
may be a bias, or what is more importantly [sic] to .the community, an appearance of bias. So
the number one thing they wanted was independent review panel; the number two was a
subpoena power. All of you around, you know that for a fact. You cannot be independent if you
cannot hire and fire your own people. Can you imagine if you were elected City Commissioner
or the Mayor and somebody else would pick your chief of staff That's outrageous. You -- how
could you operate like that? If you do nothing else, you have got -- I mean, if you -- I really
believe -- although that you all will disagree how to get there, I believe that you all really
understand the iinportaance of the CIP, and you're trying to fax It. So let me just tell you what Pm
not here for. I'm not here to say that the CIP doesn't need faxing. Pm not here to go into who put
the racist things in the garbage can: Prn not here to talk about or to get in the way of whatever
the right thing to do if people may have stayed over; I'm not here for that. What I am here,
though, is to say the facts -- and I'm not here to contest the facts about the time. I was a part of
the group — you know, a lot ofpeople don't know I was Commissioner Teele -- we pledged
fraternity together., I was his first campaign manager at FAMU (Florida Agricultural and
Mechanical University), I hate to admit we lost. I guess he never used me again after that. So I
was meeting with him privately as the ACLU, NAACP, and a lot of people in the community, all
across the community, white, black and Hispanic working for this, So I am in favor of a strong
independent CIP; we need it. We don't need to take the money and do something else with it; we
need it, That's number one. Number two, I have sued the City of Miami as much as any living
lawyer involving police misconduct. I just had the case when the young man, Singleton, got shot
on the roof Now, when someone said that either your independent counsel is incompetent,
negligent or something else, I can't speak to the other things. I can tell you he's one of the finest
lawyers. How do I know? The .skillset for this job are these: Whoever that person is, they must
understand the criminal justice system, because almost all of the cases come out of a potential
for a criminal charge, and you got to work with the State Attorneys; the U.S. Attorney's Office,
FBI, et cetera, Charles Mays comes from the State Attorney's Office and one of the finest
lawyers. One of the first murder cases I had, he prosecuted it, and I sure wish they had a lesser
prosecutor, 'cause I want to win, He was excellent. He then came to the City of Miami and
joined your fine staff at the City Attorney's Office, They were so proud and trustworthy of his
work that they put him in charge of your litigation department. They said -- remember when the
-- there was a parking lot that crashed; remember that? Parking lot fell down; one of the most
embarrassing things ever happened in the City of Miami, Who clo you think they asked — who do
you think the City wanted to handle that? Charles Mays, The shooting I talked about, any time
there when he was in -- a City of Miami Attorney-- when they said, "This is a case that can
cost us a lot of money, bctd publicity, whatever, we're going to our hired gun;" and that hired
gun was Charles Mays. And most of the time, he prevailed. And I just got the signal, and Pm
going to respect the Chair. Let me just close by saying this: The debate right now is -- and by
City of Miami
Page 26
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
the way, the people who've come up here, all of whom are my friends, are saying that the —
they've taken too long. And any lawyer who'll read this will say, "The question is 'why?" It
takes a legal analysis to determine whether his "why" is just f able or not. You must, I beg you,
please have some people to look at the reasons why. And Ms. -- the other people are saying
those reasons are not justifiable, and come back to you and tell — how long other C1P's are
taking? How long the StateAttorney's Office taking? How long is the U.S. Attorneys taking?
All this is good information to have. I'll -- I'm willing to bet my Bar card, if you get that
information, you'll make the right decision. If you do it beforehand, you're going to make the
wrong decision, probably because you don't have the information. Thank you.
Chair God: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? Mr. Chair,
Chair Gort • Yes, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Smith: Oh, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Suarez: No, that's okay, It's not really a question; it's more of a comment. I think
- from what I've heard, I think the independence factor, which I think you articulated very well,
a part of it, which is, you know, the ability to hire and fire your own people, I don't have any
issue with that in terms of having a fully independent organization. But I think there's a second
component to the independence factor, which is to conduct an independent investigation, and
think that's what's at issue,. I think, and what's being criticized in some ways, because to only
base your investigation on a prior investigation or another investigation or whatever evidence
it's going to uncovered under another investigation, I think, to a certain extent, fails the test of
independence, and I think that's the concern. I think we all agree that fairness is paramount,
because the -- you know, the objective of the panel is not, you know, to convict or not convict; it's
to be fair. So I think -- and to be another layer of oversight, But the timeliness issue is -- really,
forme, it's a big one, because we're not -- I don't think-- and maybe I have it incorrect, butt
don't think it goes from the point of whatever the incident is through those investigations that you
detail, you know, the FBI or the U.S. Attorney or the City's -- those don't count towards the
timeliness factor. There is a designated, statutorily designated time frame, and that is being
ignored essentially, and that's Me concern. And it's not being missed by a week, by a month,. by
six months; it's being missed by a function of years, And I understand that your response is,
"Well; why? " you know, and we need to get to the "why," and I agree with that, and I think
that's the very minimum that we can do, and I think you're absolutely right in saying that, and I
think Mat Commissioner Sarnoff is right in saying that. But there is a big problem, because if
our statute calls for 120 days from the moment they can begin and should begin or mandated to
begin an investigation, and we're talking about, you know; 24 months or 18 months, I mean,
that's a huge problem. If it's a resource problem, we need to address that. If it's -- you know,
whatever the problem is, we need to address it, because I think that goes to the core of, you
know, Ms. McNeil's pleas, you know, when she comes before us and says, "Please, you know, we
want to know what's going on. We want this process to have a conclusion so that we can have
peace in our family. "
Mr, Smith: Thvo quick things. One, I did not speak about the independence of the investigation
because, unlike my friends, I don't have the facts.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Smith: Okay?
Commissioner Suarez: Understood.
Cily of Miami Page 27 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Mr. Smith: Secondly, Iwant you to know that almost all of the time when I deal with the CIP or
the IA, I'm representing the people in the community whose family has a member who's gotten
shot. I want the investigation to be fast, too. So I think we're getting -- want the same thing, is
how to get there. Thank you for saying -- and I'm watching to seeing — that the minimum we can
do is to find out why. If you believe that, we're going to be on the right path,
Chair Gort: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Chair Gort. Grace Garces.
Commissioner Sarnoff Before --
Chair Gort: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Commissioner Sarnoff I apologize; I'll be brief Commissioner, I don't know if you know this,
but before any of us got here, a Mayor's chief of staff was fired by the City Manager. Now, I
think you would be outraged if your chief of staff was hired by the City --fired by the City
Manager, 'cause we think our offices are independent. I think we also like to believe the CIP
should equally be independent.
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Commissioner Sarnoff But the way we are structured, that is not happening. "passed an
ordinance my first three months of being here, one -- two things that happened: I thought my
budget had got raid -- was raided, which it was. And think about it; timing -wise, you're into the
next fiscal year and a Commissioner can bonus their ex -- outgoing people. So two things I
passed: One, you could not do that; and number two, that your employees areyour employees.
Now, I'm told that may not be as effective as I like to think, as Commissioner Carollo -- I know -
he'd like to believe that he controls — yes — he controls his employees' hiring and firing, right; as
I think every Commissioner does, as the Mayor I think would like to believe he does. Yet, that
may structurally -- and I'm speaking to you -- may not be the way it really is, but it is -- in
practice, we get to do it. But _- and I say this to the ACLU, 'cause there's an irony here. The
irony.is sometimes the ends don't justify the means, because 1 know you want the City Manager
to keep Cristina Beamud in place, and I understand why that is. But in doing so, you set a
dangerous precedent, and the precedent now set is that the City Manager controls the ultimate
hiring and firing decision of some CIP folks. And while your result may be what you want,
you've now dangerously set precedent.
Commissioner Suarez: I would just -- I would kind of a little bit disagree with the way you
articulated that, because I think the precedent was set from the beginning; maybe it wasn't the
right precedent and maybe -- I don't think so. I don't think they're asking for that precedent to be
set. That's what the precedent has been, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you
want to look at it. I agree with the crux of your argument, which is essentially that that's not the
way it should function,
Commissioner Sarnoff,• Right.
Commissioner Suarez: That may have a derent result than what they like. And then it's on us
to decide if we think the board members of the CIP are doing the right thing, because if they're
firing someone who we think is competent and capable, or whatever, then we have the right to
City of Miami
Page 28
,Primed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
remove them and get ca board that Ls acting in the best interest of the residents of the City of
Miami; that's the ultimate check. But I don't' think that they necessarily disagree with that
argument, from the conversations I've had with them. I just think that they want things to happen
the way that they've always happened from the beginning, given this set of circumstances. But I
think you're right, I think -- I don't think it's -- I don't think, in the long run, it's the right way,
because I agree with you, and I agree with the Commissioner that it definitely reduces the
independence of the board, for sure.
Chair Gott: Thank you, Ms. Casas.
Grace Casas: Thank you. Grace Casas. I am an attorney. I'm also a member of the CIP panel,
and I was one of the more recently appointed panel members. This — to reiterate what's already
been said, gentlemen, independence and fairness. The reason that this panel exists as an
independent entity is for that fairness, and I have said this before, and I will say it again: This
panel is not meant nor shall it be turned into the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition. We
are not here to champion agendas. We are here to serve the people of the City of Miami so that
they have a voice, they have somewhere to have their concerns addressed and addressed
appropriately within the law and within the laws that this body has also passed in the form of
ordinances. What you've heard today is you've heard personal attacks, you have heard
criticisms, but heard very little solutions. Commissioner Suarez asked if there is a resource
problem. There is a resource problem, and if gentlemen, if you'd like to ask the CIP how many
investigators have, we are not going to say we have five, six, seven, eight, or ten. At this point, I
believe we're down to one to two investigators. Now, one of the issues that you have heard here
this morning is that the Commission — that the panel is not moving appropriately, fast enough.
Our resources are extremely limited; that being said, we still have that obligation to the people of
the City of Miami in order to have these shootings investigated, but to be fair, because I made a
promise to be fair; not because I was asked to, but because I wanted to; to be fair to complainant
and to officers alike. I am not here to champion anybody's agenda; not mine or anyone in the
community, any group or anything, nor should I believe this panel should be allowed to be
turned into someone else's agenda. Andlwould ask that this body do Investigate, because you
haven't heard all of the facts. You've heard different versions of the facts, and for the lawyers
here, I'm sure you know that that's actually one of our jobs as lawyers. We talce facts, but we --
you and I can take the same fact, Commissioner Sarnoff, and we could spin it quite two very
derent ways.
Commissioner Sarnoff: I never spin my facts.
Chair Gori: Three different ways,. uh-huh.
Ms. Casas: So a different breed of lawyer. This panel has been in existence for a reason, and
the reason for that panel is still there. The CIP is needed. Does it mean that the panel isn't open
to changes, to suggestions that will help it improve? Of course not. Everyone needs change,
everyone needs to be improved; that's the passage of time, But it needs to be done in the right
way; not through personal attacks, not through misstatements, and not through people trying .to
specifically push an agenda that's other than give the people of the City of Miami a place to go
where .their complaints can be heard without fear that anything is going to happen to them or to
their families, but also that they be treated fairly, and also that any officer that this panel is
investigating also feel at the end of the day that they were treated fairly, and that they were
treated with respect, and Mat our complainants are also treated with respect and have their
issues addressed on time. So before this Commission makes a final decision, I would ask you
sincerely, please, .to convene your own panel of investigators and actually see exactly what is the
situation at this point, because the panel needs to grow, the panel needs to remain an active part
of this community, but it needs to be done in the right way; it needs to be done in a fair way,
Thank you.
City ofMiamt Page 29 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2014
Chair Gort: Thank you, Neil Shiver.
Neil Shiver: Good afternoon on a morning item. Neil Shiver, 3095 Plaza Street, Coconut
Grove; that's the Goombay side of Coconut Grove. I feel like the main character in the "Bada
Vagi da, " a warrior who was called to battle, but he hesitated, because he saw friends on both
sides, I'm a former board member of the panel, and I'm here in support of the fact-finding
committee. I think, Commissioner Carollo, that some of these issues would automatically work
themselves out, because there is a process in place. So I was prepared to attest to the
qualifications of the independent counsel. If this matter was before the board, the matter of a
vote of low confidence, Charles Mays would prevail. I was prepared to attest to the budgetary
cuts and the impact that those cuts had on the operations of the independent counsel. I was also
prepared to talk about the delays in receiving Internal Affairs documents and files that also
caused delays within the CIP investigation process. The recent findings of the Department .of
Justice talked about such Internal Affairs delays. So all I would say at this particular point and
--'cause I got to be respectable -- respectful of the time — is that we do need to know the facts;
some of these things will work themselves out, But as far as Charles Mays is concerned, he's
underpaid, overqualified and just a wonderful person.
Chair Gort: Thank you, Leroy Jones. This will be the last speaker.
Leroy Jones: Hate being last, Commissioner; swear I hate being last. Man, Ijust want to say
that I'm a person that believe in reform. I believe in reform. And having been one of the persons
that when this whole CIP thing came about, having been a person being asked to be a part of
that as one of two members of the Brothers of the Same Mind, I was -- how could I say ii? --- I
was thrilled that the organization, that people in the community felt that Icould be a person that
can play a part in helping bring the CIP intuition (sic]. And the other side, it saddens me to see
and hear all the things that's taken place and have taken place as relates to the CIP. Ifyou
haven't watched the last three CIP meetings, watch them. It will break your heart to see that our
community have to sit back and listen what's going on on that level with CIP members, with the
counsel. It will break your heart. And to see how citizens — two meetings ago or maybe three
meetings ago, we had a complainant come here and had to sit two and a half hours to listen to
the board go back and forth instead of deal with the issues at hand when people coming to bring
a complaint to our community. It would sadden you, man. So I want to say this: I want to see
reform as soon as possible. The CIP was created for two things, I believe. At the time when I
was investing my long time into it and I was in it, two things I think the CIP was created. That's
--- I'm talking about me, not as a coalition member, of course, we come here. Pm involved in it
now, because it's personal, because I invested nay time, and I'm very particular about making
things personal. I try my very best not to make things that I do and say personal. But this is
personal to me, because our community is at stake here. People are being killed; people are
being wrongly convicted; things are taking place that the CIP has a voice to say ,something. So
when I come here and when I fought for this, of course, I fought because I want to see bad police
officers dealt with. But I also want to see good police officers exonerated Those are the two
reasons why Leroy Jones, as a member of the Brothers of the Same Mind, played a part in this,
because I do want to see bad police officers prosecuted; they shouldn't be on the force. But I
also know that we got some good police officers that sometimes accused of things that they
haven't done, and they should be exonerated. We missing the whole point here. Let's deal with
this situation. I'm going to tell you, the way I feel personally, I think if all the board members on
the CIE stay on the CIP, we going to continue this back and forth, and it need some change. It
need to be some change to board members, 'cause now, it`s too much bitterness between the most
of them. Some change have to take place soon. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you. As I stated before, this was the last speaker for this public hearing. Sir,
come on up and go.
Mr. Cruz: Listen, I showed you my name there.
Ciry of114iaml
Page 30 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Al Crespo: Al Crespo. I missed most of this, and I don't want to speak about what happened
here today, but I do want to raise a question: The CIP, two years ago, did an investigation and
had a finding that Javier Ortiz and Edward Lugo had harassed and threatened individuals, you
know, who they had -- who had been written up. A guy had gotten a ticket. And they were -- you
know, they harassed him. I wrote a story about this. In fact, I wrote several stories about this.
And I've never been able to find out -- and perhaps, since the Chief is here, maybe you can get
the Chief to explain -- after the CIP found them in violation and sent a strongly worded letter to
the Chief about this, what actually happened to that CIP report and the recommendation that
they made to the Chief? 'Cause I've never been able to find out if anything ever happened.
Thank you,
Chair Gort: Thank you. Mariano, you're recognized. That's it. We'll close the public hearing
afier this.
Mr. Cruz: I know.
Chair Gort: Okay,
Mr. Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street in Miami, I am not an attorney. I'm not a
lawyer. I'm not a barrister or counselor. I am, by trade, an electrical engineer. Also, I have a
degree in entomology; certified pest control operator in different -- all the categories that give
me a chance, but that's something I left years ago, because after I saw some of my buddies sick
with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) produced by inhalation through the skin of the chemicals, I decide I'm
not going to leave a rich widow; I'm leaving the business. But going back on time, like I say,
remember in 1980, McDuffie riots; 1988, the Mercado problem; 1990-something the Elidn
Gonzalez, and all of those things are the ones that brought the creation of the CIP, especially
57th and Flagler was the Elkin problem, and Commissioner -- I mean, Mayor Regalado now --
Commissioner Regalado at the time was there. And I remember, because .l was part of the
creation of the CIP. And I live in the City of Miami since 1962. The only time Ileft Miami was
when I was in the Army in the October crisis, October 1962 to '63, that's it. I volunteer in the
U.S. Army. That's why I get service -- collect disability. But I been in Miami, in the City of
Miami, in Allapattah, and I have the wherewithal to live any place, because I have the money;
the wherewithal to live any place, but I decide to stay in Miami, because that's the only way you
going to solve the problem, by staying in your neighborhood. Many people, they get the money
and they leave to Pembroke Pines, Coral Gables, Westchester, the whole thing. No, I stay there.
And, you know, Willie live there, too. It's in my neighborhood, two or three blocks, used to come
my hedge; not anymore, remember. No, but one other thing, also, remember all those things
brought the problem. And you know what happen? It's bad. Even now police officers are being
exonerating clean by the Dade County Attorney, and you know, the only way that they pay Is
violation of civil rights. It happen, it happen, and It's happening now. An officer was been just
terminated on a misdemeanor burglary case, being terminated, but now, the City is having
problems because the City's being sued, is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We should go around and give
the CIP more that all these cases doesn't have to go to the U.S. Attorney, because the last word is
a violation of civil rights, which is a different code, because once you go -- Federal Court is
completely different than State Court. There is no discovery rule, there is nothing there, There
you are guilty.
Chair Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you.
Chair Gort: Mr. Mays, you want to speak?
Mr. Mays: Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, thank
City ofMiami
Page 31
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
you for the opportunity to address you. It's very difficult to do so for a couple of reasons -- well,
more than two. Number one: The attack that has been leveled is so broad -based and, in many
instances, of course, is laced with personal issues, f you will. Number two. I recognize and I
acknowledge that I believe that the coalition and every person who has spoken here Is, in fact,
acting in good faith; I do believe that. That does not necessarily mean that I share their
conclusions. Now, let me address some of the issues. And I'm glad that you raised the question,
Commissioner Suarez, as to why I reached out so late. No reasons: Number one, I didn't even
know about a memorandum that they had written to you all until such time as someone suggested
to me that I make a public records request, because the memorandum that was sent to you, to the
Manager, and to everyone else in the world, for some reason, I imagine they rctn out of ink and
they could -- or they forgot how to spell my name, because I wasn't included. That's how I
learned about this. That's why .1 did not reach out to anyone beforehand. And when I did start
reading it, I was angry, because much of it, in addition to being misleading and inaccurate, in
certain instances downright lies, much of it was as such that I said to myself "Do I want this?
Do "want to deal with this kind foolishness and this kind of nonsense? Should I just walk
away?" And I said I would, and I advised a few people who are close to me that, "Yes, I am
going to walk away," and I ignored their protests, and that's what I was going to do, And then it
came to me, "Why should I give them that which they want? Because I've worked hard to bring
this organization and to protect and defend this organization. Should Ijust allow it to lapse into
their hands when I know it will end up -- it will end up in the garbage can?" Now, how have we
gone about protecting the CIP? Well, they claim that I have arrogated unto myself the authority
as gatekeeper, if you will, and that I make the decisions as to what's going to be investigated and
how that's going to be investigated. That's nonsense. When I came aboard with the CIP, the
"biggy" at the time, the issue of the moment was the FTAA (Federal Trade Association of the
Americas) and the complaints that had been filed then and the protests that had taken place and
the issue was whether or not the police had overreacted. There was at that point in time a schism
between the Police Department, which was under Chief Ilmoney, and certain very vociferous
and vocal members of the CIP. Chief ?baloney initially cooperated with the CIP and -- I wasn't
there at the time, but I read the transcripts -- he appeared in front of the CIP; he allowed his
senior staff members to appear in front of the CIP. But there were some vociferous members of
the CIP who began to change, if you will, and began to, I guess, create in Chief money's mind
that "no, I'm not going to get a fair hearing here." The relationship, it turned acrimonious. I
walked in in the middle of that, and it is at that point in time that we began, for the first time,
investigating FTAA complaints. We had two public hearings under my leadership -- maybe
"leadership" is the wrong word -- maybe "under my legal advice," if you will, at least two
public hearings were held. And we also produced and presented to the panel so-called expert
witnesses. One of them was a college — was a law professor at the University of Miami, a
constitutional law professor, and that law professor came up with some recommendations that
instead of arresting people and taking them to jail, perhaps you can just issue them a ticket,
which is something called a "will appear," Well, at the time he made that statement, I wasn't
necessarily familiar with that process and that concept, and in my own head, I said, "Naw, that's
not going to work." Well, we come today to the year 2014, and I read a report that indicates
that the City of Miarni is one of the leading cities in the State of Florida with this "will appear"
concept, and what it does, it protects juveniles, et cetera, and young people from a criminal
record. But moving fonvard, we, in the FTAA matters, issued an interim report and also a. final
report. Those reports came with praise from the community and from this Commission. Moving
forward, there came a point in time when Chief l i'money, a manof good integrity, made a
mistake by accepting a vehicle from a Lexus dealer just to drive around. The hearing cry came
as to "What is the CIP doing about this matter?" Well, nothing we can do about it until such
time as a written complaint is filed. And the reason a written complaint is needed is because
that's what the law says. The ordinance says that the CIP may investigate after a written
complaint is filed. Armando Aguilar of the FOP filed such complaint, and then as a result of
that, an investigation ensued. There came a point in time when I invited Mr. Timoney to come
and talk to the complaint committee and to explain his side of'the story. He rebuffed that
invitation. That was followed up with a subpoena to Mr. Thhoney to not only to come and talk
City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
with us, but, by God, to bring certain records and documents relating to what we want to talk
about. He appeared without an attorney, and then he told us that we had great hutzpah to even
seek to question him, and he walked out. Panel members were angry, and then they turned their
eye towards me and said, "Do something." I said, "I will, but let me plot through this." I filed a
lawsuit in the form of what is known as a "Motion to Enforce" the subpoena against Mr.
7tmoney, Mr. Tlmoney was .represented by a former member of the -- I mean, former president of
the Florida Bar, one of the finest lawyers around and with a very powerf al and influential law
firm. We went to court, and they fought tooth and nails, but we also fought tooth and nails, and
after some time, the trial judge ruled in our favor. Mr. Timoney then, of course, appealed to the
Third District Court of Appeal, again represented by an extremely powerful and extremely
persuasive attorney with far more resources than we had. And by the way, at that point in time,
we had a budget that we clearly don't have now. I defended our position, and the Third District
Court of Appeal ruled in our favor, so we had beaten the Chief on the issue as to whether or not
we could continue to exist, because, let's face it, if we had lost at the trial level, if we had lost in
front of the Third District Court of Appeal, that would have been the death mill of the CIP; that's'
it. Now, another significant matter that we dealt with from the standpoint of furthering and
protecting the interests of the CIP, but not doing so in a willy-nilly fashion, not doing so from the
standpoint of being an activist, not doing so from the standpoint of reacting, but from the
standpoint of deliberating and thinking and plotting and strategizing, was in the case of Mr. Di
Agostino. He, a lieutenant of police, challenged our subpoena, but he went beyond challenging
our subpoena; he challenged the City of Miami, itself. He declared in his lawsuit that the City of
Miami had no authority, whatsoever, to create the Civilian Investigative Panel. He went on to
say that the Civilian Investigative Panel and the ordinance creating it was in violation of State
law, and the State law he referred to, of course, was the Police Officer Bill of Rights. That has
been eluded to here earlier, but somewhat loosely, if you will. And I know that Commissioner
Sarnoff is well familiar with. that area. They argued at the trial level that the Timoney case was
incorrectly decided. They said that the ordinance creating the CIP was in contravention of
Florida Statute 112.533(12(a). I don't remember it that well, but it goes on to say --
Commissioner Suarez; That's pretty good,
Mr. Mays: -- that when anybody or agency receives a complaint of police misconduct, within
five days, within five days it must be forwarded to that officer's employment agency, i.e., the
police department. Now, the court, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Orange County -- what
Commissioner Sarnoff was referring to -- it bought that argument when it struck down an
ordinance creating the Orange County Civilian Review Board. The ordinance is identical to
ours. That's problematic. Ain't no "ifs, "ands" Or "buts" about that. It said, the Fifth District,
that the ordinance was in contravention of State law. That raised a whole 'pother can of worms
as to how we're going to deal with this. We successfully argued in the Third District Court of -- I
mean, in the trial court that we were right and that Timoney applied and it governed. And then
when the losing side -- which wasn't us -- took an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal,
we argued the same thing. Now the State -- the City Attorneys Office participated very capably
in that litigation, but they allowed myself to act as lead counsel at the trial level and also at the
appellate level. We won. We wan in 2012. At least we won 2 to 1 when the Third District agreed
with the position that we were asserting that the Fifth District Court of Appeal was wrong and
that there was no conflict between our ordinance and the ability of this Commission, under the
Florida Horne Rule Powers Act, as designated in the Florida Constitution and also under the
State statute, that there was no conflict between the two because they were not incongruent; we
were not dealing necessarily with the same thing, because the Police Officer Bill of Rights and
what we argued and what two members of the court agreed on dealt with discipline, it dealt with
dismissal, it dealt with demotions, and all those other sorts of things. These are issues I pointed
out quite clearly and repeatedly that we don't deal with, so therefore, there is no conflict. Well,
the case is not necessarily over, and the reason it's not over is because the losing side fled a
motion for reconsideration, a motion for rehearing on bond -- that is by the full court -- and they
also filed a motion for certification of conflict to the Florida Supreme Court based upon the
City of .Miami Page 33 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Third District ruling one way and the Fifth District ruling the other and also on the basis of a
question of great public importance. We wrote papers arguing against that, because we don't
necessarily want it to reach the Florida Supreme Court. We have won, and we want to keep that
win. Now, let's turn to some of the issues and how they affect the CIP. The coalition would like
the CIP to issue a subpoena in each and every case. That would be cost prohibitive, and it
makes absolutely no sense. But not only that, but it also affects our status in the litigation at
hand, 'cause we don't at this time want -- and didn't want to discuss this, but l feel like I'm
compelled to do so. I don't want to issue a subpoena to a police officer at the present time, and
that police officer challenge that subpoena, and then I end up in court at the trial level. And you
got to keep in mind now, the trial judge makes up his or her own mind, because the only thing
that is outstanding at present is the Third District in Timoney and the tentative win that we have
won in Di Agostino. Do 1 want to see a trial judge issue an opinion that all of a sudden ends tap
in further litigation in front of the Third District Court of Appeal? No. That would be stupid.
But trying to explain that to people who are so committed to an agenda, if you will and I think
they're acting in good faith nonetheless -- but trying to explain that to them in such a way as to
say, `Look, there's a lot of strategy involved in this,"that's talking to no one, and that "galling
upon deaf ears. The issue -- I'll bring it to a conclusion, I know -- the Issue with respect to doing
. an investigation, first thing we have to do is stay out of the way of the State Attorney's Office;
that's clear under the Charter and under the Code. Second thing we have to do, I tend to think,
and the wise thing to do is to stay out of the way of Internal Affairs; let them do what they've got
to do. I don't want to get involved and see the CIP or the City get involved in a needless fight
with respect to the Police Officers Bill of Rights or anything else. Let Internal Affairs do what
they've got to do, because Pc -now at the conclusion of that investigation, they've got to present it
to us. And under the current Chief and the gentleman that you have over there over Internal
Affairs, there's been nothing but cooperative attitudes. Once their investigation is complete, it is
provided to us, what do we have then? In addition to already having the State Attorney's files
which -- the homicide investigation -- we also have every recorded statement that was taken.
We've got the transcript — or the transcripts available; we've got the crime scene photographs;
we've got the investigator's notes. We've got everything that we need, if you will. If we review
that material and if we conclude that we need something else, all we got to do is pick tap the
phone and call over the to George Wysong, or let the Chief know or the commander of IA, and
we'll receive it. Ms. Dawson misquotes me when she says, I couldn't think of a single
question." She's taking it out of context. She asked, "Why didn't you talk to any witnesses?"
Well, you don't just jump up and just do things just for the purpose of doing it; must have a
purpose, must have an objective to it. Ifyou have reviewed carefully and critically the material
and you see nothing outstanding, if'yau see nothing omitted, if you see nothing that troubles you,
if you will, if you see nothing that is un -- if there's nothing unanswered, then what is the
purpose, what is the futility of just bringing in someone just for the purpose of doing so? They
claim that -- and I know Pm going over my time, just __ I promise, I'll finish in 15 seconds. They
claim that we used the wrong legal standard to evaluate cases. Well, the legal standard for
evaluating excessive force case or a Fourth Amendment case is the Fourth Amendment. This is
not what Charles Mays is saying. This is what the United States Supreme Court has said, not
once, but twice: 1985, they said it in Tennessee versus Garner; 1989, they reaffirmed it in
Graham versus Connor. And they say the question is one of objective reasonableness. You don't
look in hindsight, but you look at the circumstances as they were unfolding at the time, and you
ask the question whether or not the seizure was objectively reasonable. And f a seizure was
indeed objectively reasonable, it doesn't violate the Constitution. Then you examine the City of
Miami's departmental order governing use of force. If that use offorce policy is congruent, iif it's
consistent with the United States Supreme Court precedent in other cases, then the policy itself is
proper. Then you examine to see whether or not the officer acted in accordance with that policy.
If the officer did, how can there be fault? Yet and still, the coalition would want you to find fault.
We don't do inquisitions. I promise you — I'll conclude it.
Chair Gort: Thank you, sir.
City ofMiami
Page 34
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2014
Mr. Mays: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, f I may?
Chair Gort.• The problem is -- well, I -- all of you have been able to take a break. I have not
been able to take a break at all, so I'm going to take a two -minute break myself
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Vice Chair, ifI may?
Vice Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Look, Teem see why Mr. Smith speaks so highly of you in
terms of your abilities as a lawyer. You clearly know the law very well. You can recite the law in
a very dear and articulate fashion, and I you know, and it's impressive, you know. I can't sit
here and tell you that I'm not impressed by your recitation of State statutes, of Florida laws, of
procedures, et cetera. But I think what's getting lost a little bit in the discussion, even though
your presentation is very comprehensive and coherent, is several things. Ithink the first is
exercising the subpoena power. As you, yourself stated in your presentation, is the crux of what
gives you -- or what gives the Civilian Investigative Panel authority. And failing to do that, I
think to a certain extent, undermines your authority. So I understand the reasons that you've
articulated in terms of the tactical and the timing Issues related to other litigation or other
outstanding litigation matters, but it's almost like you're telling the community, "We got to put
our biggest tool on ice, you know, pending, you know, the resolution of these things which we
don't control in some respects, and when there are very, very sensitive investigations." And, you
know, one of the things that I think we've all focused on here today is big events. We've talked
about big events. We've talked about events that had led to riots, major protests, et cetera. The
shootings that occurred in 2010 in conjunction are a big event, and I think the issues that we're
discussing here today relate to that series of events that I consider one big event. And one
reason that I can think of -- and I'm not a litigating attorney, andl'm not a criminal attorney,
whether it be defense or prosecutorial, so I think I'm at a little bit - - or I'm at a major
disadvantage -- but I think I'm a thinking man. You know, one of the advantages to subpoenaing
independently or duplicatively [sicJ is when you take psychological tests, for example, a lot of
times, they ask you the same question in six or seven different ways to test whether you're being
truthful. So, you know, the fact thata witness will answer a series of questions in one form .._ in
one instance doesn't mean that they will answer the same or a -- or the same kincl of question
asked a different way in a different forum, and that could go to the witness' credibility and that
could go .to, you know, whether the person that's being examined is being truthful. And I think
that kind of goes to the crux of what their concern is, which is when you engage in your own
independent investigation, there are things that can be uncovered that can be conflicting with
prior investigations. And so, I mean, that's the way it was articulated to me. And I think the
other concern that you didn't really address in your presentation was the time lapse between
investigations having concluded and you know, when the CIP clock starts to run, for lack of a
better phraseology, and the statutorily mandated time frame to conclude them or to have no
action taken. And I think that is a major concern that's been expressed by the community in the
form of Mr. McNeil'' mother and the members of the coalition. And, you know, so it's clear to
me, Mr. Mays, that you are a very good lawyer; that you have done, you know, yeoman ,s work
for this committee since you arrived, but I'm not sure where the disconnect is here; you know
what I mean? But there's certainly a disconnect, and I don't know if it's why you both who are
people of good, faith, who are people of good will are talking past each other. That's the part
that I have a hard time understanding, because I understand their concerns, and their concerns
are simple, they're clear, and they're verifiable, and, you know, even though I think your
presentation is, like I said, very, very deep, very comprehensive in terms of your knowledge base
and your history, there's a disconnect right now.
Mr. Mays: May I respond, sir? May I respond?
City of Miami
Page 35
Prinled on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Chair Gort: Look--
Mr. Mays: It'll only take, I promise you, 120 seconds.
Chair Gort: We still have certain items that we have to list. We have to make a decision still in
here that we have to do, and we could be arguing this all afternoon.
Commissioner Suarez. And we can talk about it all night, 'cause I don't know that anything is
going to happen here at this particular moment, you know, and we didn't get a chance to speak,
and I know you did reach out to my office kind of at the last --
Chair Gort: The one thing I learned -- and I don't want to pick on attorneys, but one statement's
made by one attorney. There's an opposite statement and they don't -- they want to continue to
argue about the statements. So you --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first echo the
comments of my brethren in response to how well you articulate the issues in law, and — but of
course, with issues in law, there are issues in fact sometimes that we have to consider when we're
making our legal decisions And one of the things that you said that was particularly troubling
to me was it is cost prohibitive --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- to issue the subpoenas.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I think that that statement, taken in and of itself is a -- is difficult to
swallow from the community's perspective, because we know that It cost money to issue a
subpoena and to have someone respond, to have a reporter there to record the statements, et
cetera, et cetera. But I could never imagine saying to the Public Defender, as he asks me the
question, "Mr. Hardemon, why didn't you subpoena the officers who were involved in the
shooting?" and I say to him, "Well, Mr. Public Defender, as you know, the Public Defender's
Office is -- you -- has dire financial restraints, and I believed that it was cost -prohibitive for us to
do so, so in lieu of keeping us within budget, I didn't issue .the subpoena," I think -- no, let me
just say that. So however, I do think that it is a matter of legal strategies to know when to issue a
subpoena, because not everyone needs to be subpoenaed, true; depending on who's paying you.
But in this situation, what -- the one thing about the subpoena power that is codified is that this
-- it says that "The GIP may subpoena witnesses and documents when conducting an
independent investigation of allegations of police misconduct as follows." And the word
"independent" to inc means something, because what it says is that, "Yes, you are the sole
decider if there -- a subpoena will not be sent out." That is true; true statement. You decide that
it is not to be sent out. However, f you decide that it should be sent, you must go to the CIF for
confirmation of that. Now, the independent investigation part -- is the part that we hinge on,
because the question then becomes, "Is your review of the files that are sent to you, is that
considered an independent investigation or is it considered to be merely a review of a
investigation that was done and packaged to you for your — to be considered?" And that's part
of where we are. I don't -- if you issued it or if you did not issue it is not my issue before this
body today. What I'm concerned about is that I know that my City Attorney is being asked to fire
you. That is the real discussion that we're having right now, And I don't personally believe -- I
don't know how the other Commissioners believe -- that my City Attorney has enough facts to
decide that matter. And that is why I believe in part of what Commissioner Sarnoff was saying
about having a small body of people to just look into whether or not -- and the way that I wrote it
down was the director -- and I would be willing to make this motion -- Ilcnow there's a motion on
City ofMtami
Page 36
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes Allay 8, 2014
the floor right now, so I don't want to confuse the issues -- but to direct the City Attorney to
consider the report of the independent committee to review the performance that you have had
over that designated time to determine whether or not there was a malfeasance or a nonfeasance
of your job duties. I think as an attorney, you could appreciate someone giving a report about
that. And based on that information, where everyone would have an opportunity to speak, then
Madam Attorney would have the best information to make her decision about who needs to be or
does not need to be independent counsel. I think that that would be fair for all of us, and
definitely fair, especially to the City Attorney when she's making a decision that's so important to
all of us in this community. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: I would welcome that. I wish instead of saying "cost -prohibitive, "I would have used
the words that you used, but I think we're essentially saying the same thing, which is you don't
just issue a subpoena just for the purpose of issuing a subpoena. And with respect to the issue of
time constraints, the time constraints issue operate in this manner: Clearly, once the Internal
Affairs present matters to us, we either got a 30-day window or a 120-day window and --
Chair Gort: Let me be clear. I don't think we're going to get to understand the whole thing here.
I believe there's two motions going to be taking place. I don't think there's going to be a decision
that we're going to make here today. I think the decision that we're going to make is we want to
make sure we're fair to everyone; we heard opinion from everybody; have a panel to look into all
the issues that have been stated here. And a decision will have to go to the Commissioners; it
will have to go to the attorneys, and it will have to come back to us. So -- because we can --
come on. You're an excellent attorney, We have three attorneys here and we could be arguing all
night, We still have two more items before we break for lunch so --
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. --
Mr. Mays: I agree, it reminds me of --
Chair Gort: Everybody will get the chance; I can assure you that.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate everyone coming 'here and,
you know, the time of my colleagues, I know that we've taken quite a long time in this one item,
but it's also the importance of this item. Like I mentioned before, over 76 percent of the
electorate of the City of Miaml voted for this item. With that said, I think we have a motion on
the floor. I'm going to respectfully ask that we call the question; however, at the same time, I'm
listening to my colleague, Commissioner Hardemon, and 'wilt welcome you to make that
motion. I will second it with a friendly amendment, because -- and 'would like to maybe have
some discussion on who this task force should be, how many members and so forth, butt will
make some friendly amendments, because I do think that if we are going to create this task force,
there should be some added duties. I would like for them to see as far as the timeliness factor,
because there are reasons why maybe the timeliness factor hasn't happened or not, but I would
like for them to look at that. I know sometimes maybe the State Attorneys Office or Internal
Affairs takes certain amount of time, and it goes into their timing; I'm not sure, but the bottom
line is I would like for them to look into that and also the independence, to see exactly how we
make this a truly independent board. But with that said, Mr, Chairman, I respectfully request
that we call the question on the floor.
Chair Gort: Wait a minute. There is two -- there was a motion that was presented before.
Commissioner Carollo: There's only one motion.
City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Todd B. Hannon (City Cleric): Correct.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Right, Can you clam, Mr. City Clerk, what the motion on the floor is?
Mr. Hannon: .yes, sir. And Commissioner Sarnoff, I'll do my best. I have it as a motion for the
CIP's nominating committee to meet in accordance with Section 11.5-28 of the Miami City Code
so that nominations to the panel can be brought forth to the City Commission for appointment.
Commissioner Sarnoff That was good.
Commissioner Carollo: And I just want to add to it -- not add to the motion, but pretty much so
there's clarify on the intentions of this Commission. And I don't want to put words in anyone's
mouth, but at the same time, I want to make sure that the intention of this Commission is solid;
that if this is not done in a' quick manner -- and I would say by June -- this Commission then is
going to be seeking the City Attorney to draft language for us to take a vote and be able to then
nominate the board members to be able to move forward. And again, I don't want to put words
into anyone's mouth, but I want to make sure that my Commissioners or my colleagues here are
solid that this is the message that we're sending out.
Chair Gort: Thank you. I believe you want to amend the --
Commissioner Carollo: Do a second.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well, if the motion was called, there's no amendment at this point. I just
want to be clear so all of us understand what's happening, because, Madam City Attorney, we do
not have the power to force the --
Commissioner Carollo: Right,
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- CIF nominating committee --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- to convene,
Commissioner Carollo Correction
Vice Chair Hardemon: The Chairman can convene. So this is merely an expression of our
resolve about haw we feel we should move forward; is that correct?
Ms. Mendez: Yes, but with the resolve that if they don't meet -- they've already been told that I'm
bringing forth legislation for this Commission to consider; because we just can't have these
stalemates so.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Right. So when you -- but what I want to avoid is us putting them under
some type of duress in making this --
Ms. Mendez: No, no, I -- it's no duress. It's obviously that you're, you know, aspirationally, you
know, wanting them to meet and —
Vice Chair Hardemon: So I would not want to amend any motion on that. We can decide that --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
City ofMialni
Page 38
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- and then bring another motion,
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: That's exactly what I want.
Vice .Chair Hardemon: So.
Chair Gort: Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Carollo: Now make ca second motion, Commissioner Hardemon,
Chair Gort: Now, in going into that, we got to make sure -- we have a responsibility, As
Commissioner, my understanding is it was approved that we recommend individuals to be sent to
the nominating committee, and they will look at them, they will look at their resumes, and then
they're the one that will make the recommendation. I have my two in there. I have one that has
already been committed, but needs to be -- my understanding is they have to reappoint it every
"X" amount of years. So I have two in there; one has to be reappointed and the other one has to
be reconsidered, a new appointment. Got to make sure that each one of you send the
recommendation that you have to the CIP Board. Okay? Go ahead; second motion.
Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner Hardemon,
Vice Chair Hardemon: So I move that we form a independent committee consisting of four
members?
Commissioner Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE) do I.
Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTET.LTGIBLE) you would need --
Commissioner Sarnoff I would do five.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Five?
Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or three.
Vice Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), that's fine, that's fine. So I move that we create can
independent committee consisting offve members who will investigate the malfeasance and
nonfeasance -- the potential malfeasance or nonfeasance --- and/or nonfeasance of the job duties
that the independent counsel has had over the past few years.
Commissioner Sarnoff Can I make --?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Commissioner --
Vice Chair Hardemon: You want to add more to it? 'Cause Pm trying to figure out the language.
Chair Gort: Excuse me.
Mr. Smith: Mr, Commissioner.
City of Manzi
Page 39
Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Vice Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: May I suggest you use the word "whether," as we lawyers do, as opposed to —
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I haven't written.
Mr. Smith: Okay.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I apologize. So let's get this more in order. So we want to make
sure that, one, we have an independent committee consisting offive members to investigate
whether there was any malfeasance or non -- malfeasance and/or nonfeasance of the job
responsibilities of the independent counsel in the time period that he has been there,
Ms. Mendez: Appointed by who?
Vice Chair Hardemon: Right. And those --
Commissioner Carollo: Let's take it one step at a time. He'll get there.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So are we -- first of all, so just where we are with that. And I'm -- as a
matter,offact, I don't have to make the motion just yet. We can discuss the motion, so that part of
it -- that's where I am. Now, as far as the appointing of the people on the committee --
Commissioner Sarnoff Can I describe what --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay,
Commissioner Sarnoff -- probably would make sense? Let me just try it --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Commissioner Sarnoff -- and then you can -- 'cause you know who I'm going to nominate so.
How you got him for Ultra, Ill never figure that out, but that's okay. There should be, I think,
three attorneys; one who specializes in criminal law; one that should be a civil attorney. I think
the Chief of Police should have a nominee an this committee, and thereshould be just a regular
civilian.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So the three attorneys are one criminal, one civil, and what else?
Commissioner Sarnoff I think the Chief of Police should put somebody on this committee,
Unidentified Speaker: 'Oh, so you're saying five.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Three attorneys and then two _. I mean three attorneys and then two --
Commissioner Sarnoff A designee from the Chief of Police,
Vice Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Sarnoff: And then a person we would nominate; doesn't have to have any
qualifications.
Ms. Mendez: The civil attorney, it would be civil rights?
Commissioner Sarnoff No, civil.
City ofMiami Pnge40 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014
Ms. Mendez: Just civil?
CommissionerSarnoff.• Yeah,
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay, three attorneys; one should be --
Commissioner Sarnoff; I know it's hard to find a civil attorney. You don't want anything to do
with this?
Vice Chair Hardemon: So now we --
Manuel Orosa: Ijust -- I'm sorry. Chief Manny Orosa, Miami Police Department, I'just don't
feel comfortable appointing somebody to a board that can be investigating us, so I don't feel that
it's appropriate for us to get involved in anything.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr: Chair, if I may?
Chair Gort: Yes, Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: Look, I don't think any Commissioner here envies being in this position.
This came to us almost by default or because there was no other fontm to do this. I think the best
— I mean, I trust every Commissioner here, and we've done this in the past on several occasions.
Maybe the easiest way to do it is for each Commissioner to designate one person, you know, of
their choosing. You know, I'm sure that we're going to choose someone that has the requisite
qualifications to pass to -- you know, conduct the investigation and I — for lack of a better word,
pass, judgment on some of these issues. But if we start saying three, then who gets to pick the
three? And then, you know; the Police Chief doesn't feel comfortable, and,. you know, I think it's
the cleanest, simplest way. This has come to us through no fault of our own, really, and we've
been, you know, required to get involved, and I think we're getting involved, and we're doing the
right thing, so I-- just to keep it simple, I think that makes the most sense. I don't know how you
guys feel.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I think that's fair; so Icon -- we have -- like I said, there's no motion on
the floor just yet, because we're still trying to draft it, but five people; we'll each appoint each
one. I think that's fine, in my opinion. Also, as far as the time period that we will want a report
back from them, what do you think is reasonable? Is -- 90 days sounds like a long time, but I
think that's reasonable for this type of'work, because they're going to have to get information,
review information. They do have jobs; they have other responsibilities, so I believe 90 days
would be fair for a report to be back for the City Attorney and for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine with me: And I think we should try to nominate someone
between now and the next Commission meeting. I mean, I think -- 'cause that's the other issue;
they need to get started right away.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I can -- I have a name, Ijust have to confirm with the person that
they're willing to do it.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Right.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Mendez: Remember that August is off so depending on your time period, if you're saying 90
days, it might hit into August, the month of August, for you to listen Vies reporting back. I don't
City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 10/22/2014
City Commission
Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014.
know. .Is it a report that's going to go directly to me and you don't have to deal with it or is it --?
Chair Gort: Yes.
Ms. Mendez: So.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So 60 days will then be more reasonable.
Chair Gort: Sixty days is fine.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: And I want to make sure, like I mentioned before, that the timeliness of
the cases is also looked at to see if the cases are being looked at in a timeliness [sic] -- you
know, appropriate timeliness base, and if not, why? How could -- it could be remedied? And
also, with regards to independence with the executive director and, possibly, even the
independent counsel.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay,
Commissioner Carollo; (UNINTELLIGIBLE) add those two factors.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr. Chairman, I think Pm ready to create the motion now:
Chair Gort: Go ahead.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I move that we create can independent committee to review whether there
was any malfeasance and/or nonfeasance of the job duties of the independent counsel of the
Civilian Investigative Panel; and to also include within those duties to review the timeliness issue
and render an opinion about whether or not the past investigations or lack of investigations were
not timely addressed; and also to review the independence of the organization; and that the City
Commission appoints five members to this committee, one from each Commissioner's district;
and that report should be generated and before this Commission and City Attorney within 60
days.
Commissioner Carollo: Second, but --
Chair Cori: It's been moved and second.
Commissioner Carollo: - - with a friendly amendment. I just want to make sure that if there
hasn't been a timeliness -- if there has been a timeliness issue, that they also come back with
recommendations on what can be done so the cases are held _.. are heard in a timeliness manner.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I'll accept that.
Chair Gort: Okay, any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Gort: Thank you all for being here. We'll continue to work on this• We all believe it's very
important; that's why we spent so much time on this.
Ctty of Miami Page 42 Printed on 10/22/2014