Excellence in Financial Reporting?

Commission meeting Feb. 25
(copy of email to Cooper City, City Manager, Bruce Loucks)

On tonight's Agenda is an item, "Frank DiPaolo will present Finance Director Horacio Montes de Oca with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting". While I don't know Mr. Montes de Oca, or even know very much about him, the presentation at this time of an award for excellence in "Financial Reporting" seems quite irregular.

During the last Commission meeting, the City Attorney presented his opinion on whether Resolutions create legally binding obligations. That is, whether Resolutions can create obligations in the nature of a contractual relationship. Because the City Attorney confidently advised that Resolutions can bind parties in the nature of an enforceable contractual relationship, I would think considerable questions now exist regarding the the nature of the parameters regarding the CCO-City relationship as set out in the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions. As you are aware, an important part of the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions addressed financial obligations by and between the Optimists and the City.

On the question of any financial obligations to the City from the Optimists, prior to Mr. Wolpin's pronouncement it was my belief the Optimists did not possess anything akin to an enforceable financial obligation in favor of Cooper City. However, I can only look at the problem as a layman, not as an attorney. In attempting to incorporate Mr. Wolpin's analysis into the present realities, I see several problems in a decision to present Mr. Montes de Oca with a "Certificate of Achievement". 

(1) No monies were collected by the City from the Optimists from at least January 1, 2007 through around August of 2012. If the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions represent enforceable agreements, the time period just given would result in unpaid fees aggregating as much as (approx.) $250,000 due to the City;

(2) I have been advised by Mr. Montes de Oca, through you and Ms. Poling, the City is unable to account (i.e., provide information) for the receipt of any fees from the CCO prior to January 1, 2007. I have asked for clarification on this issue, but received none. The bottom line appears to be that precisely when the CCO stopped paying nonresident fees over to the City is an open question. Because when the CCO ceased making payments contemplated under the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions is unknown, the amount of unpaid nonresident fees may be greater than $250,000;

(3)  Despite the existence of the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions, public records indicate no attempt by the City to ever enforce the payments contemplated in the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions. Public Records produced no invoices, demand letters, letters requesting payments, relevant emails, etc. from the City to the Optimists. In addition, Public Records indicate that no special account into which nonresident fees were deposited exists, or existed, even though such an account was contemplated by the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions;

(4) Despite the legal opinion presented by the City Attorney, aside from the Resolutions there is nothing in the Public Records evincing any intent on the part of the City to enforce the obligation of the Optimists to pay to the City all nonresident fees collected from participants in CCO leagues.

I am not entirely sure what to make of the above. Particularly in light of the City Attorney suggesting the possibility the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions could represent an enforceable legal obligation. Setting aside any legal analysis best left to qualified counsel, the facts so far discovered via Public Record Requests suggest financial mismanagement on the part of the City. A deal was worked out with the Optimists for nonresident fees to be paid over to the City. For obvious reasons, this is what one would anticipate happening to the nonresident fees. Does anyone doubt that nonresidents paying the extra money all believed the extra amount would flow to the City to assist in deferring the expense of City taxpayers maintaining facilities for use by nonresidents? For what other purpose would a nonresident fee be imposed?

I have assiduously sought out the reason(s) why and when payment to the City of nonresident fees ceased. No answers have been provided. Until there is a clear explanation by the City regarding nonresident fees does the Commission actually believe a, Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting should be presented to Mr. Montes de Oca? The situation is so bizarre and provocative it adds to my suspicion that in order to deflect attention from any allegations of financial mismanagement, the City is prepared to accuse the Optimists of failing to make payments pursuant to an enforceable legal obligation (i.e., the 2003/2004 Resolutions).

The basic, underlying fact set forth herein about nonresident fees not paid/collected is not in dispute. Frankly, with the open questions associated with what happened, or should have happened regarding the nonresident fees, this Commission presiding over this type of ceremony at this time gives off an odor of possible corruption. Until the outstanding financial questions are truthfully and credibly answered, the planned Certificate of Achievement should be delayed. In my opinion, the provocative nature of the ceremony's timing will otherwise work to frame certain questions about the character, judgment and motivations of yourself, members of the Commission, and the Commission's various fellow travelers.       

 Skip Klauber

Sunshine Law violated? (again?)

Article from the Broward Bulldog reprinted for the resident of Cooper city who may have missed it.  Broward Bulldog Article

Comment from Skip Klauber:



I am glad to see the issue of the City’s misuse and outright perversion of “minutes” under the Sunshine Law has again appeared, this time via the Fourth Estate. Thank G-d for that First Amendment, right?  ......

 

The purpose of the Sunshine Law is to provide the public with certain protections against those covered by the Law. As all of you should be aware, one of the greatest weapons available to guarantee protection of the public in the context of the Sunshine Law is “transparency”. Actions by a governmental body cannot be taken in secrecy, or virtual secrecy. There must be proper notice of meetings and key events. Proper minutes must be recorded and made available to the public. Disclosure and truth are of paramount importance.

There are four members of the present Commission who fail to understand that minutes taken pursuant a policy of purposefully excluding events “embarrassing” to the City do not comply with either the letter or spirit of the Sunshine Law. It makes little difference if you have ten different video feeds of an open public meeting recorded and available via video on demand, if the minutes required by the Sunshine Law are deliberately meant to defeat transparency. How exactly does the “supplement” of a video cure this problem? By allowing anyone with an interest to watch entire Commission meetings, right. Except, if the minutes purposely leave out events, how are you going to know to watch the video to see what occurred regarding that event?

The intended answer to the above is, of course, you won’t know. You will have no reason to watch several hours of video if you do not see in the minutes anything of interest having occurred. And the policy is quite effective in making sure you will not be going through a few hours of video because you know via the minutes something occurred that made, e.g., the Mayor look bad. Nope. That is kept out of the minutes so as to be hush-hush. Actually, pretty close to secret. Its there on the video, but almost nobody knows to look at the video because the event is scrubbed from the minutes.
 
Even a non-lawyer such as myself can read the brief Sunshine Law and understand what is necessary in minutes: Neutrality and Accuracy. The policy in effect in this City ensures that neither is met.
  
The above is so easy to understand that, and let’s be candid, you folks must have a pretty good idea you are acting in derogation of “transparency in governance”. One would have to be an imbecile to miss it. With that in mind, I note:

1) The Commission has never requested a written legal opinion from the Weiss & Serota firm on whether the policy for taking minutes complies with the Sunshine Law. All you have is a sort of oral opinion from David Wolpin, Esq., citing no law, and without the full question even being stated. No responsible fiduciaries would be satisfied by that;
 
2) Because of his conflict of interest, you have never considered having Mr. (Bruce) Loucks employ outside counsel solely for the purpose of providing a written legal opinion, or even simply requesting the written opinion from one of Mr. Wolpin’s Partners;

3) The Commission will never consider requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. And I do not mean this as an obvious “throw-away” point. Both Mayor Ross and Commissioner Mallozzi would appear to have good reason to join with Commissioner Sims and request an Advisory Opinion from the A.G. As an attorney, Mayor Ross’ should have a genuine interest in the bona fides of a City policy that purposefully excludes from minutes notice of information or events embarrassing to the City (i.e., to certain elected officials?). And during 2008, it was Commissioner Mallozzi who was the most forceful advocate against the abbreviation of Commission minutes.

While it may make very good sense that Mayor Ross and Commissioner Mallozzi would seek an Advisory Opinion, they will do nothing. For personal or political reasons they have chosen to adopt a policy quite close to outright censorship, and each properly fears the consequences of the City’s “scrubbing of minutes” policy being scrutinized.

Wanted: Dissent in Cooper City

 

Dissent Is An American Necessity

Once again the principle of free speech and the right of citizens to question the actions of their government are being tested. The general feeling seems to be that dissent is dangerous, that critical commentary erodes our unity and diminishes our resolve, that debates over the loss of constitutional rights is somehow a negative to the betterment of the nation. Perhaps such feelings are natural.

The state of our economy. the tensions of unemployment  as well as the outrageous larceny of some corporate leaders, indifference of political leaders and the stresses of high costs gas and other necessities can create levels of distress that can be unbearable. The tendency is to close down, circle the wagons, and lash out at all who may question. But real security doesn’t come from stifling debate or muting voices of dissent. In fact, dissent may be what we need most.

Dissent is the antidote for what social-psychologists call “group-think,” the tendency to rush to judgment. (Clearly demonstrated by the recent decisions disguised as thoughtful discussions). Group-think can become a kind of herd mentality. Dissent is a guard against this mentality, a check on the unbridled stampede toward the cliff.

For this reason, as President Eisenhower once reminded us, we should never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. A democratic society depends on dissent because, at its best, dissent is an act of courage, a real test of patriotism. The ancient Greeks understood this. They used the term, “parrhesia” to refer to speech based on moral principle, voiced by a speaker with the courage to speak the truth in the face of powerful opposition. Such dissent, they believed, represented one of the highest ideals toward which a citizen could aspire.

The American Founders also understood the importance of dissent, which is why they crafted the First Amendment. As the nation evolved, dissent became an important feature in all government institutions and processes, from Congress to the Supreme Court. Even in the executive branch -- the one most feared by the Founders because of its resemblance to monarchy and its tendency toward imperialism – even here our best presidents have welcomed and honored dissent.

Today we see government officials, powerful public figures, even our friends and neighbors asking us to be silent. Once again we are told that protest is bad, that dissent is divisive and un-American. That for the betterment and solidarity of the community we must become silent. But it is not. We must not be misled from a central truth: Free and passionate debate is essential to self-governance.

To dissent, to break from the herd, to question and offer in many cases an alternative position, is to celebrate American democracy with a ferocity that no one should attempt to suppress.Unless we let them.

Power Grab?

The Great Power Grab Caper in Cooper City

That is the title of a document that I received last night in an email. Upon reading I thought it warranted and I agreed to posting it for all Cooper City voters to read. It does raise the concern, “Were the voters of Cooper City in the last ballot change to the city’s charter hoodwinked into believing that the statement on the ballot was accurate description of the actions to be taken or were they deceptive and as a result lost a “charter right”, that being the right to approve certain major financial expenditures by the city commission when it exceeded a specific amount?”

One can only assume that there may well be some truth to it and should be viewed by the current sitting commission as an egregious transgression by the previous commission. A quote from a past virulent and outspoken dissident, who has receded into the background and is rarely vocal and then only acting as a surrogate for the Mayor or Commissioner Mallozzi.

          “Unity among commissioners should never be an issue.  The issue should be five individuals bringing their own independent thoughts and ideas to the people, and doing what’s right for this city, not agreeing with each other just to have a commission group hug.  We’ve had enough so called commission(al) harmony, being nothing more than rubber stamp voting.  The people demand you represent us, NOT each other.

         Also, please don’t claim our finances are strained until a forensic audit is done, and our books are looked into in detail.  You might be surprised at what you find, or don’t find.”

[verbatim comments of Diane Sori, resident, @ citizens concerns during a Cooper City Commission meeting.]

To: Coopercityinsider@Blogspot.com

Emailed as Follows;

This is the part of the old city charter that was removed in November of 2006 which was not properly described in the ballot item and as a result can only be described as the

The Great Power Grab Caper by the

Elected Officials of Cooper City

Mayor Debbie Eisinger

November 2006

Section 5.15. Requirements for referendum.

The City of Cooper City may borrow money, contract loans and issue bonds payable from ad valorem taxes and maturing more than twelve months after issue only to finance or refinance capital projects authorized by law and only when approved by a vote of the electors of the city.

 (Added to the charter.) The city shall have full power and authority to issue  municipal bonds or to borrow funds [or municipal purposes to the extent authorized by and subject to the limitations provided in the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Municipal Home Rule Law, other applicable statutes and this charter.

(Deleted from the Cooper City Charter.)

The purchase or construction of a capital project or facility or the purchase of capital equipment, the cost of which shall exceed seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the then existing current budget as adopted for the fiscal year, and which requires the borrowing of funds by the City or the issuance of bonds to fund such expenditures shall require prior voter approval of a majority of the electors voting at an election.

The referendum requirement of the section shall not apply to capital projects within the water and sewer utility systems of the city. Nor shall it apply to expenditures mandated by federal or state governments. 

 Also removed in its entirety, the section noted below of almost 1000 words.

Section 3.13. Initiative, referendum, recall.

I leave it to you the reader to determine for yourself the following questions;

What is the significance of this?

Were we told of this?
What should be done to restore the voters charter rights?

Your comments are most welcomed.

Don’t Be Fooled, Again

(Recieved this in an email and thought others might find it of interest. Ed.)

As many have come to recognize the ‘politricks’ of Mayor Debbie Eisinger do not have any bounds. As a practitioner of the Judy Stern school of nasty and often vile personal attacks Mayor Eisinger and her acolytes Lori, Amy, Diane, and Commissioner Liza Mallozzi have once again resorted to her favorite tactic of attempting to cloak themselves in the garment of religious persecution in order to gain a political advantage.

This election time the mayor and her appointed favorite candidate Gary Laufenberg, don’t be fooled again, he is of stout Germanic origin with a maternal Italian heritage of which he boasts strongly, are raising a flag against their opponent claiming a anti-Semitic bigotry.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The charge stands empty of both of any evidence or any commentary. In Fact, it appears that the truth while unknown to these accusers is just the opposite. Commissioner John Sims, a strong advocate of religious freedoms, he and only he was a strong supporter of the Jewish Chabad of Nova that had to sue Cooper City to win the right to be in Cooper City. The Mayor and her allies on the commission dragged out the suit for over 18 months refusing to settle it for $10,000 dollars. The federal judge finally settled it and awarded the Chabad $800,000.

When word that Commissioner John Sims had been a strong supporter of the Chabad reached others within the community an organization with a proud heritage, the Jewish War Veterans Post 177, determined that John’s military service record and his efforts on behalf of the Chabad of Nova warranted an invitation to join their group. Commissioner Sims gratefully, and I might add, with humility and pride accepted as a patron member.

As might be expected few outside of his group of friends and the members of Post 177 knew of his membership. Well, when the abominable minions of political detractors found that John’s resume contained a line indicating that membership they attacked with a viciousness of bigotry not seen in this area since the days of the KKK, claiming Sims could not be a member as he was not Jewish. (check with the website)

Not only did two of the Cooper City Commissioners, Mallozzi and one unnamed, and a pseudo civic activist named Diane Sori begin a campaign of harassment by calling national headquarters’ of the Jewish War Veterans demanding reprimanding action be taken against this post. This haranguing culminating in threats of demanding the revocation of the post’s charter, notwithstanding the age of these proud veterans.

I can hardly find the words to express my personal disgust and admittedly anger that persons of this community, two of whom purport to be of the Jewish faith would take to committing such a despicable if not vile and demeaning action to members of such a proud organization. Can we as a community of free loving, tolerant and compassionate people allow this to go unmentioned? I think not.

If there exists a group, both men and women, to whom we all owe a deep and profound debt, I can not think of another more deserving of our respect and gratitude. The fact that individuals chose to disparage, demean and castigate a veteran(s) cannot be deemed a simple political tactic. It must be seen for what it is, bigotry of the most despicable vile nature.

Please, stand with me against this type of crass behavior. It is without exception the most reprehensible act I have seen in many a year. It’s now your turn to standup for what we the citizens of Cooper City know to be an essential part of our being.

Condemn these acts by your action and vote on Tuesday Nov. 2, 2010.

Walt Jolliff

See the Jewish War Veterans' letter click on the link below

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B856dApO1AB2NjVhYWQyZjktYzdiYi00ZDgwLTkzOTUtNzA3YTJmZTg4ZTdi&hl=en

Amid corruption, Cooper City Mayor Eisinger moves to vet candidates

Reprinted from the Miami-Dade County Libertarian Examiner- Larry Warrick, author.

Examiner Exclusive - Amid corruption, Cooper City Mayor moves to vet candidates
July 12, 11:59 AM · Larry Warrick - Miami-Dade County Libertarian Examiner
Citing rampant corruption across local governments in South Florida, Cooper City Mayor Debbie Eisinger has placed candidate vetting on the agenda for discussion in the upcoming July 20 Commission meeting. According to the official request: “The City of Cooper City will conduct FDLE background checks and a motor vehicle background review on all candidates running for the office of a Cooper City Commissioner or Mayor of Cooper City beginning with the November 2nd, 2010 elections… Additionally, the city may contract with an independent agency to provide education verification and employment verification checks… Candidates may request and receive a copy of requested “investigative consumer reports”.”

The request includes a sample policy meant to be used by employers in private business, found here. In essence, Mayor Eisinger proposes to discuss the best way for the current commission to vet candidates who have declared their intention to oppose or replace them in the next election and beyond, and post their findings for the world to see. Presumably, any candidate who refused to allow intimate details of his or her past life history to be made public knowledge would in some way be blocked from filing candidacy.

Maverick Commissioner John Sims was direct in his response “This woman is crazy!” adding “Would Background checks have led the public to vote initially against Bev Gallagher, School Board Elected Official Indicted on corruption Charges? How about Fitzroy Salesman? Would background checks lead to the choosing of a better candidate than Josphefus Eggelation for County Commission when he first ran? How about Diana Wasserman-Rubin? And let’s not forget how her husband played a major role, more than hers, in her corruption indictment.” In each case, the person accused of public corruption had exemplary personal backgrounds prior to being elected.

There are also questions regarding the legality of any city ordinance requiring publication of personal information. Prior to the election, all non-sitting candidates are still legally ‘private citizens’. Post – election, those candidates who are not elected are also ‘private citizens’. Whilst it is certainly advisable to carry out due diligence when considering whom to cast a vote for, the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Is it unreasonable (or even ethical?) for a city government to use public money in searching through the past histories of those who would replace them? Is there probable cause in utilizing that information during re-election campaigns?

Is this a strategic move on the part of Mayor Eisinger to garner publicly stated disapproval from her political opposition, providing her with a golden opportunity to imply (rightly or not) past wrongdoings amongst her enemies as the source of this opposition? Politricks as usual, perhaps, or is the mayor simply attempting to entrench herself as the ‘honest (if misguided) politician’ in a sea of corruption?

At press time, emails to Mayor Eisinger requesting more information had not been returned

Cooper City Mayor goes Clinical

The New Season has begun. Yes, the mayor of Cooper City just can't control herself. It is pretty clear that she lacks the prerequisite skills to manage a commission meeting unless the others are under the influence.

I guess you might not have heard that the Mayor of Cooper City, the now infamous Debby Eisinger really lost it the other night at a commission meeting. Yes, that’s right lost it. I heard it on the video tape as just backroom yelling then after careful questioning of the various attendees both in the audience and behind the dais the truth emerged.

The Mayor of Cooper City, Debby Eisinger, just lost it and was reported as yelling at several people to get him out of here. The “him” being Commissioner Sims.

It appears that the Mayor just can’t seem to handle any opinion or comments or just plain disagreement with whatever she doesn't agree. Initially, we thought that she just was incompetent or she failed to have that drink, oops failed to hold the glass before the meeting. (Did anyone check her purse?) The chair again showed a complete lack of leadership, creating another black eye and further disgrace to Cooper City. Several leading citizens who have not witnessed
the mayor's outbursts were heard to comment very negatively. (As we were not there it would not be appropriate to repeat the comments.)

Apology SHOULD go out to everyone in this community directly from the mayor. Unfortunately, that would require humility, leadership and a great deal of character, qualities that this mayor sorely lacks.

It seems that anytime that pesky Commissioner Sims says something the mayor
disagrees with she just jumps down his throat. Or she calls upon that bag of wind David ‘the Jurisprudence Idol’ Wolpin, (City attorney and her friend of 18 years) to come to her aid with some ridiculous ruling as parliamentarian as he pretends he is issuing an order from the bench.

I guess that is what the city gets when the commission blatantly votes to appoint a 18 year friend of the major to an important position in the city.

It appears that the Mayor is incapable of dealing with anything if there is any contention or contrary discourse that may be in any way controversial. Clinically there are several terms for this type of behavior. We will let the more medically trained persons attach the proper label as all we can do is identify the systems of this tragic and troubling malady.

It appears to many that the pressure from the Democratic powers of Broward County who have brushed her aside, confirmed by reports from Tallahassee and local elected officials, is just to much for the very ambitious political climber who has used the position of Mayor to turn Cooper City into the city of ‘we love Debby, the educational gift of Broward.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that she seeks to be elected to the school board. I wonder if they have reviewed the last election returns which indicated a minority vote. More than 50% voted for someone else in the recent mayoral vote.

One has to begin to wonder just what does the Mayor have hanging over the heads of the other commissioners that allows her to conduct herself in such a manner without the slightest indication of disapproval from anyone on the commission other than Sims.