It appears that the Pensacola City Council routinely violated
Florida State Statute 112.313 regarding the appointment of individuals who had a
conflict-of-interest to Pensacola advisory boards. Almost all cases were where the appointee was
the recipient of (or employees of recipients of) city contracts.
Florida Statutes clearly stated in 112.313(1) that any
person serving on an advisory body (such as the Planning Board, ARB Board,
etc.) is defined as a “public officer.”
Paragraph 112.313(7)(a) states what constitutes the
conflicting employment or contractual relationship of a public officer.
112.313 Standards
of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government
attorneys.—
(1) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “public officer” includes any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency, including any person serving on an advisory body.
(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.— (a) No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee, …
(1) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “public officer” includes any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency, including any person serving on an advisory body.
(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.— (a) No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee, …
The Pensacola City Council members nominated and approved appointments
to these boards. Most of the nominations the City
Council members made were in violation of the Florida State Statute regarding
conflict of interest.
I repeatedly reported, in writing, that these conflict-of-interest appointments were in violation of Florida State Statutes to City Officials, the Mayor, the Pensacola City Council members, the State Attorney, FDLE, the State Attorney General, the Governor, etc. All of those I contacted about this matter refused to stop the apparent illegal appointments.
The City Council members nominated individuals, across all Boards, who were developers (real estate and/or architect) and others who had contracts (doing business with) the City which constituted a conflict of interest and appeared to lend credibility to the complaint by many citizens that Pensacola was being led or driven by developers, a special interest group.
These Boards did not appear to include average citizens and did not meet
at a time convenient for average citizens to attend but the CEO of Bullock Tice
and other companies doing business with the City could and it appeared to be to
their advantage to do so. The City
Council refused to set the meeting time of these Boards at a time where the
average public could attend even though many speakers at Council Meetings had
asked the Pensacola City Council for a more convenient meeting time.
Each appointee to these boards swore to and signed an “Oath of Office”
witnessed and signed by the Pensacola City Clerk which stated:
“I, Name , do solemnly swear or affirm
that I will support and defend the constitution of the Government of the United
States and of the State of Florida against all enemies, domestic or foreign,
and that I will bear true faith, loyalty and allegiance to the same; that I am
entitled to hold office under the constitution, that I am eligible to hold the
office of Name of Board and that I will faithfully execute the duties of said office on which I
am about to enter, according to the best of my knowledge and ability. So help me God.
Signature
of individual
Sworn and subscribed before
me this ____ day of _______City Clerk”
Yet, based on Florida law, even though the individuals swore that they
were eligible to hold this office, most of the appointees were not eligible to
hold the office the City Council members had (apparently illegally) appointed them
to based on the Florida Statute defining conflict of interest which is a
serious offense and is prohibited. These
individuals falsely stated they were eligible to hold this office on their
application when they were not eligible to hold this office.
One resulting consequence of the City Council members’ apparent bias favoring developers who did business with the City should have been that if too many Board members did not meet the required criteria and were not authorized to sit on the board, no quorum could be reached and this fact should have negated decisions made by the Boards as the composition of the Boards was in violation of state law. This did not happen and the decisions of the apparently illegally composed Boards were enforced by City Officials and the City Council.
The City Council appointed more than one employee from at
least three companies who routinely did business with the City.
One of the clients (or employers) of Bullock Tice was the
City of Pensacola yet members of this organization sat on at least two Boards
of the City. Mr. Paul Ritz, Bullock Tice
Associates, was appointed to the Pensacola Planning Board and Mr. Larry Adams,
also of Bullock Tice Associates, was appointed to the Pensacola Gateway Board.
Mr. John Tice, CEO of Bullock Tice Associates, regularly
attended these meetings with his employees who sat on these Boards and was
regularly awarded contracts with the City.
This appeared to be a conflict of interest and looked very bad for the
City Council who appointed the Board Members.
This situation should have been corrected.
Another Company who did business with the City and had members of its organization on more than one Pensacola Board was Quina Gundhoefer Royal Architects. Mr. Carter Quina was a member of the Architectural Board and Mr. Gundhoefer was chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. Again, this was an apparent conflict of interest.
The
Pensacola City Council members reappointed Mr. Quina to the ARB even though I
had just reported to them, in writing, the Conflict of Interest issue and had
specifically named Mr. Quina as an example.
Moulton
Properties, which routinely did business with the City, had members of its
organization on three Pensacola Boards: Mr.
Bob Moulton was on the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board. His brother, James C. Moulton, also of
Moulton Properties was on the Construction Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Many of these illegal appointees were reappointed again and
again to these Advisory Boards which appeared to give the
construction/development community a great deal of power and influence and
appeared to dictate the disposition of our limited public resources of public
property (especially waterfront) and public money. This was in violation of the required makeup
of boards who were supposed to be impartial and independent.
I have listed below what appeared to be the two most
powerful and important boards: the Planning Board and the Construction Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. I have
described the function of each board, the members who comprised the board and have
given an example of questionable decisions made by each board.
Official on-line description of duties:
The Board
advises the City Council concerning the preparation, adoption, and amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan; reviews and recommends to Council ordinances designed
to promote orderly development as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; hears
applications and submits recommendations to Council on the following land use
matters: proposed zoning changes, proposed amendments to zoning ordinance,
proposed subdivision plats and proposed street/alley vacations. Board initiates
studies on the location, condition, and adequacy of specific facilities of the
area, i.e., housing, parks, public buildings. Board schedules and conducts
public meetings and hearings pertaining to land development.
Membership: Seven
members, appointed by the City Council. City residency required.
Term of office: Two yearsFinancial disclosure required?: Yes
Meeting schedule: Monthly; Second Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall
---------------
At the meeting of April 8, 2008, the Planning Board
discussed and voted on the request for a conditional use at 9 DeSoto Street
which involved allowing a commercial business to occupy and use, without being
converted, a building listed as and previously used as a residence which was
located in the North Hill Historic Preservation District. Part of the land was in a residential zone
and part was in a commercial zone. The
parking appeared to be inadequate. Since
the property was situated on a narrow two lane road, overflow parking on the
street in a residential area would probably cause harm to youngsters living in
the residential area and to traffic on the street.
Printed below is a list of the members of the Planning Board
during the April 8, 2008, time frame.
THE
PENSACOLA PLANNING BOARD
2008
Appointment
Type/DateA = Appointment Appointed
R = Reappointment by Name Employment/Background
A 2000
Councilman Panyko Clay Roesch Real
Estate – Grover
R 2001
Councilman Eubanks Robinson and AssociatesR 2003 Councilman Smith Does business with the
R 2005 Councilman DeSorbo City
R 2007
City Council
A 2005 Paul Ritz Architect – Bullock Tice
R 2007 Associates BTA – Doesextensive business with
the City
A 2007
Councilman Nobles Victoria Dias Bank
of Pensacola
Does
business with the City
A 2006
Councilman DeSorbo Greg Threadgill President,
T-Gill Fuels
Does business with the City
with the City
A 2008
Tom Bonfield Scott Sallis Architect – Does
City Manager (non-voting) business with the City
Since 6 of the 7 members of the Pensacola Planning Board had
lucrative contracts with the City, this meant that 84% of the Board Members
were DeFacto employees of the City. To
avoid violating the Florida State Statute, referenced above, concerning conflict-of-interest,
none of the Board Members should have been individuals who had contracts with
the City. Of the 7 members of the
Pensacola Planning Board, 1 was from the Bank of Pensacola, 2 were architects,
two were realtors from large real estate firms, and two were owners of
businesses. The rules required that one
should be an architect and no other occupation was specified. There were no members of this board who
appeared to represent average citizens such as my husband and myself.
Impartial and independent – I don’t think so.
During the Planning Board meeting, on April 8, 2008, the
Planning Board members discussed the request for conditional use at 9 W. DeSoto
Street and approved the request.
Even though the Bank of Pensacola did business with the
City, Councilman Nobles (affiliated with the Bank of Pensacola) had previously nominated
Victoria Dias (an employee of the Bank of Pensacola) to the Planning Board in
violation of the Florida law regarding conflict of interest. During the Planning Board meeting of April 8,
2008, Ms. Dias voted for approval of the Conditional Use for the property
located at 9 DeSoto Street (owned by the Bank of Pensacola – her employer) and did
not abstain from voting. This appeared
to be conflict of interest compounded but no member of the Planning Board or
any member of the City Council objected to Ms. Dias’ obvious conflict of
interest in her participation in this matter.
The City Staff, the Architectural Review Board and the
Planning Board violated Pensacola City Ordinances in approving the site plan. “City Staff and utility providers have
reviewed and recommend approval of the request.
On March 20, 2008, another board, the Architectural Review Board
reviewed and approved the site plan and building renovations.”
The request for conditional use was then sent to the Pensacola City Council for final approval at their regular City Council meeting on May 8, 2008. At this meeting, Mr. Cohen’s department, the Pensacola Neighborhood Development Department, argued in a quasi-judicial hearing for the property, owned by the Bank of Pensacola, to receive approval for the conditional use to have a business office building at 9 W. DeSoto Street in the historic district.
The building is on a narrow road, not a major artery, there
is inadequate parking, and the setback is only 5 feet when 10 feet is required.
There was a citizen’s petition, mostly from the members of the North Hill Historic Preservation, stating our opposition to the City Officials and the aforementioned boards breaking the City Ordinances in recommending approval for the Conditional Use. This petition was mostly ignored.
Ms. Morris, representing the Community Development Department, made many false statements at the City Council meeting. She stated that the City Ordinance determination of parking spots was made on square footage less storage space which would require 9 parking spots. Parking spaces #1-5 are at the back of the property, #5 is the handicap space at the back of the property,, #6-7 are on the side of the building squeezed in beside a very small entrance lane to the parking in the back, and #8 and a large bike rack (#9) are in the front yard.
The Pensacola Planning Department and the Pensacola
Engineering Department helped with the proposed parking arrangement by actually
drawing the plans wherein at least one vehicle and a large bike rack (designed
for several bikes) would be placed in the very small front yard in the North
Hill Historic District.
The convenient subtraction of storage space from the square
footage, made by Ms. Morris, resulted in just enough parking spaces for the
interested party to avoid costly requirements such as paving and lighting.
Ms. Morris disobeyed the City Ordinance, quoted below, when
she subtracted storage space because the City Ordinance specified that the
determination of parking spots was to be made on gross square footage which
would require at least 13 parking spots which this property could not
accommodate and which would require paving and lighting.
Sec. 12-3-1. Off-street parking spaces requirements.
Off-street parking is required in all zoning districts,
except as provided below. The following off-street parking is required by this
chapter.(A) General provisions.
(1) Area calculations based on gross square footage.
Ms. Morris falsely stated that the applicant complied with the setback of 5 feet but City Ordinances required a setback of 10 feet. She then indicated that the City Council could waive the required setback of 10 feet.
Councilman Donovan stressed several times that the number of
acceptable parking spaces was made by Ms. Morris incorrectly interpreting the
City Ordinance and that the plan City Officials and the Boards had approved did
not contain enough parking spaces to meet the requirements of the City
Ordinance. The City Council voted to
deny this request even though the Community Development Department, the
Architectural Review Board and the Planning Board had recommended and argued
for approval.
Another case where City Officials and staff used false
statements, regarding parking, to illegally grant a conditional use approval (this
time for a Series 2 COP alcoholic beverage license) was ProBoKnows Restaurant
located at 400 West Gregory Street.
The square footage required at least 16 parking spaces. There were only 7 parking spaces, one extended
over the sidewalk, yet City Officials allowed them to open.
I sent emails on February 23, 2009, to the Pensacola Mayor
(Mayor Wiggins) and each Pensacola City Council Member (after the swearing in
of the new Pensacola City Council Members the month before), discussing the
on-going practice of City Council members appointing members to the boards who
had a conflict of interest and also discussed the above two cases.
The City Council refused to stop this practice which violated Florida State Statutes and, in fact, as I stated above, they voted unanimously to reappoint Mr. Carter Quina to the Architectural Review Board when he was one of the individuals I had specifically pointed out who had a conflict of interest.
Construction Board of
Adjustment and Appeals
Official
on-line entry:
The Construction Board of
Adjustment and Appeals reviews and grants or denies applications for variances
and waivers of all technical codes, including the building code, the plumbing
code, the gas code, the mechanical code, the electrical code, the minimum
housing code, the unsafe building abatement code and the swimming pool code but
not the life safety and fire prevention codes. Serves as the regulation and
discipline board for holders of City plumbing and gas certificates of
competency. Reviews the appeals of the interpretation of the Building Official
in regards to technical codes.
Membership: Seven members and two alternates, appointed
by the City Council. The board shall be comprised as follows: one (1)
registered architect, one (1) registered professional engineer, one (1) general
or building contractor, one (1) electrical contractor, one (1) plumbing and gas
contractor, one (1) mechanical contractor and one (1) member at large from the
public. Alternates shall be one (1) member at large from the construction
industry and one (1) member at large from the public. Board members are not
required to be City residents.
Term of office: Three years
(alternates serve two-year terms)
Financial disclosure required?: NoMeeting schedule: As needed on first Wednesday of every month at 2 p.m. at City Hall and upon call of the Chairman
-----------------------
The members of the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals
routinely violated Florida Statutes, Standard Building Codes and City
Ordinances which control construction which I initially discovered at the
hearing regarding the illegal Certificate of Occupancy requirement, in 1999,
i.e. the Board Members ignored all exceptions written into these regulations which
specifically excluded historic properties because they didn’t want to exclude
them – no matter what the law dictated.
During the hearing, Members of the Construction Board admitted to
breaking the pertinent Certificate of Occupancy law themselves and denied my
request that the Building Inspection Department obey the pertinent regulations
covering the Certificate of Occupancy requirements.
In 1999, the members of the Pensacola Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals had voted against and denied my appeal of the illegal policies of the Pensacola Building Inspection Department even though the Florida Building Commission had determined that I was right. Through extensive research, I discovered that the majority of the members of this Board frequently had contracts with the City, which was considered a conflict of interest under Florida Law. Additionally, the construction industry benefited greatly from these illegal practices and all members voted to continue the local illegal policies which violated construction law and which caused great harm to Pensacola property owners, especially the owners of historic properties such as we were.
It appeared that the City Officials and members of the
Construction Board had joined forces in order to institute and continue the
illegal requirement for a “new” Certificate of Occupancy each time a tenant or
occupant changed. Since the Construction
Board consisted of individuals in construction, they benefited from this
illegal requirement which they used to require unnecessary construction. These unnecessary construction requirements
were also in violation of the Federal, State and City regulations concerning property
and especially the restoration of documented historic properties listed on the
National Registry of Historic Places which ours was. The Certificate of Occupancy for our
building, which was on file when we bought the property, was finally
acknowledged to meet all of the legal requirements and is still the one on file
for our property.
THE
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
1999
Appointment
Type/DateA = Appointment Employment/
R= Reappointment Appointed by Name Background
A 1994 Mayor John Fogg Kenneth Woolf, Kenneth
H. Woolf,
R 1996
Architect Architect, P.A.R 1999
A 1994 Mayor
John Fogg Donald
Jehle, Jehle-Halstead
Inc.
R 1997
Engineer Does business withthe City
A 1996 Councilman
Anderson James Boyd, Boyd Plumbing Does business with
the City
A 1994 Mayor John Fogg Fred O. Fell F&M Electric Inc.
R 1996 Electrical R 1999 Contractor
A 1994 Mayor John Fogg Stephen Ritz Tower East Group
R 1997 Mechanical has a lease with the Contractor City
A 1994 Mayor
John Fogg Kimberlee Anderson President, Gulfside
R 1995
At large from Public Mechanical Inc. Does business with
the city
A 1994
Councilman
Eubanks James C. Moulton Moulton Properties
R 1995 General or Building Does
business withContractor the City
Alternates
A 1994 Mayor John Fogg Don Jackson – At ConstructionR 1996 large Construction
Industry
A 1994 Mayor
John Fogg Dewey A. Miller – D. A. Miller, Inc.
R 1996
At large from Public Air Conditioning
I researched the composition of the Board and discovered that
5 of the 7 members of the Board (71%) did business with the City or, in other
words, were de facto employees of the City and, apparently, not independent or
impartial.
The two individuals who were supposed to be representatives
of the non-construction public were not representatives of the non-construction
public but were in the construction industry.
One representative for the public was Mr. Dewey A. Miller, who owned D.
A. Miller, Inc., an Air Conditioning Company.
The other representative for the public was Ms. Kimberlee Anderson, the
President of Gulfside Mechanical Inc., who did business with the City.
It appeared that the goal of the appointments was to load the Construction Board with construction professionals, most of whom worked with or for the City, instead of staffing the Board with members who were independent and impartial and who would make decisions based solely on regulations controlling construction.
BRIEF COMMENTS ON OTHER BOARDS
Architectural
Review Board
Official
on-line entry:
The Architectural Review Board
approves or disapproves plans for buildings to be erected, renovated, or razed
which are located, or to be located within the historic districts, preservation
districts and the Governmental Center District.
It is assumed that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) members
are concerned about preserving
historic properties. I wrote to them and
reported the City Officials’ illegal actions which had caused great harm to our
historic building and other historic buildings.
None of the members answered.
To see examples of how intertwined some Board
members are with City contracts, City sweetheart deals and appointments to
City Advisory Boards, go to ci.pensacola.fl.us, select Government, select City
Clerk Records, select keyword search for documents, click council files on Select
Document Type page, On enter your search criteria, leave the dates blank and
enter Quina (or any other member indicated above) as the keyword and press find. The result of my search was page after page
where Mr. Quina had contracts with the City and, during the same period, was
appointed to the Architectural Review Board again and again.
In addition, there was an instance where Mr.
Quina, in order to pursue a job where he was the architect, had the Land
Development Code, a City Ordinance, changed to allow an animal hospital in an
old established neighborhood over the objections of neighbors (to include a formal
petition signed by 21 individuals and submitted to the Pensacola City Council). Part of this job also included permission
from the City to use the City right of way on two streets bordering the
property to meet the required parking demands.
In my opinion, since City Council Members are required to comply with State Laws, all Boards should be purged of members who are in violation of the conflict of interest laws in Florida.
