The Problem With the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission.

As you know, the county Ethics Commission (cEC) has been investigating the BP Commission.  This investigation has been going on for months, and the report has just been released.  The "case [is] closed."

There were four allegations the cEC investigated, and they were 1) whether Tracy Truppman or Krishan Manners in any sense illegally canceled a BP Commission meeting on 3/5/19, 2) whether Krishan or Village Clerk Roseann Prado "improperly impaired the release of public records by charging excessive and unauthorized fees to certain requesters," 3) whether Tracy fired former Village manager Sharon Ragoonan without authorization from the Commission, and 4) whether Tracy "exceeded her authority" in signing a debris removal contract without Commission approval.

As a historical dynamic, various members of the BP community have called upon or consulted various members of the cEC on several occasions over the years.  Curiously, the cEC seems always to conclude that whatever is the question, or the matter of concern, it is not within the purview of the cEC.  It had become a kind of question, or even an inside joke, as to what the cEC actually does.  But this time, they "took the case."  They sent representatives and investigators, and they seemed genuinely to pursue the matters of complaint and concern.  They attended many Village meetings, and they took notes.

The cEC evaluates matters it considers to be within its purview, it researches relevant state law, it interviews anyone it considers to be a relevant witness, and, if it actually takes a case, it forms conclusions.  That is roughly-- sort of theoretically-- what happened here.

For allegation #1, the cEC spoke to all of the BP Commissioners and to Krishan Manners.  It was quickly clear, and already known, that it was Krishan who made calls to BP Commissioners canceling the meeting.  It was also known that Tracy Truppman said she could not attend.  What was unclear was why Krishan told BP Commissioners that the specific reason the meeting would not occur was that there was no quorum.  Less urgently, but still curiously, there was the question of why Tracy Truppman said she couldn't attend.  Regarding the latter, it turned out Tracy was available (she was in town, and she did not have some overriding commitment), but there was some vague theory to suggest she wasn't ready for some matter or another.  Also, our long time Village attorney had recently resigned, and one proposal was that we didn't have an attorney for that meeting, so the Village/Commission wasn't ready.  Then, there was an assertion that the Village's administrative staff had not yet completely prepared for a particular issue for that meeting, so the Village administration was not ready.  Clearly, there are varying suggestions as to why any of a range of parties might not have found 3/5/19 to be the most opportune date for a Commission meeting, but none of them would be considered reason enough to postpone it.  Even all of them together wouldn't have been reason enough.

But the critical matter was not why anyone might have wanted to cancel the meeting, but rather, what was clearly wrongly told to Commissioners.  Tracy said she didn't want to come to the meeting, for whatever reasons, and the other four were told there was not an available quorum, and this was not true.  Krishan Manners told them this untrue thing, and the question was why he would have done that.  One speculation was that Krishan told four Commissioners there was no quorum, because Tracy, for who knows really what reasons, didn't want to have a meeting, and she told him to invent this story.  The cEC addressed this speculation by asking Tracy if she told Krishan to cancel the meeting by lying to Commissioners.  Tracy said she didn't.  That was the end of the cEC's concern about Tracy.  Krishan acknowledged that he told the other four there was a wish to reschedule the meeting, but he said he didn't remember exactly what he told them, or why he told it to them.  That was the end of the cEC's concern about Krishan.  "Shucks, I don't rightly remember" turned out to be a completely adequate defense.

As to allegation #2, the cEC reviewed the accepted requirement that municipalities make available to constituents public records in a fair way, and without unreasonable burden.  The cEC noted relevant specifics: that Roxy Ross had been charged about $150, which included a $100 "IT fee," Chuck Ross had been charged about $200, including a $150 "IT fee," and some unnamed friend of Tracy Truppman's had been charged about $37, without any "IT fee."  So, there was a very clear discrepancy.  But the cEC considered these only "examples," and "not an exhaustive investigation," and the conclusion was that "the evidence is insufficient to show that the Village is engaging in any disparate treatment of citizens regarding the fees for public records."  Not only is it mind-bogglingly unclear how the cEC came to this conclusion, but the cEC appears to have overlooked the $15K estimate communicated to Art Gonzalez for public records.  "Investigating" with this kind of incomplete information is like the phrase "not playing with a full deck."  It is my understanding that one of the lead cEC investigators was seriously ill during parts of the investigation, and he kept losing documentation, which then had to be provided to him again.  That's a hell of a document to lose.

The third allegation was resolved without complication.  Sharon Ragoonan was interviewed, she said it was she who abruptly resigned, and that she was not fired at all.  Investigators did not look further into why a new, highly motivated, and very dedicated municipal manager would suddenly resign, on the spot, and they either didn't know about or didn't interview the other Village resident in the room witnessing Tracy Truppman's firing of Sharon.  The cEC wanted a conclusion, as tidy as possible, and they had one.

As for allegation #4, the cEC noted that "During the October 3, 2017, meeting, the Commission met and unanimously ratified the signing of the contract."  The cEC does not bother itself to note that this ratification was retroactive, in that the contract had already been signed by Tracy Truppman without Commission discussion, and the cEC further explains that "The [cEC] does not enforce the Villages (sic) Charter."  Therefore, "no evidence was discovered that mayor Truppman exploited her official position with regard to the debris removal contract signing."  Well, it sort of depends on what you consider evidence.

So, to the extent that some of us wondered what, exactly, the cEC does, and what is its value, we're still wondering.