Elliot Cohen Investigation
Elliot Cohen Investigation
Inspector General
Accredited
Investigative Report
2016-0002
West Palm Beach
Public Records
September 28, 2016
Inspector General
Accredited
Page 1 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 2 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
BACKGROUND
Page 3 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 4 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 5 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On September 4, 2015 at
1:18PM,
Mr.
Cohen
forwarded Ms. LaGrones
email to Rita Sackmann
[City Computer Operator]
without comment; however,
the body of Ms. LaGrones
email had been edited to
remove everything but the
search
items
being
8
requested
(for reference,
see original email on page
3).
On September 4, 2015 at
1:31PM, Ms. Brevik forwarded Mr. Cohens 12:31PM email to Ms. Sackmann, Rita,
Please let me know when completed.
On September 4, 2015 at 1:47PM, Ms. Brevik replied to Mr. Cohens 12:31PM email
CC: Mr. Nardoni and Ms. Sackmann, Elliot, Rita will begin working on the email
request. It is my understanding that the Clerks office is responsible for memos, drafts,
letters, texts and/or any other documents. Is that your understanding? Ms. Brevik
informed us, Mr. Cohen contacted her [Ms. Sackmann] directly and said she was
supposed to turn it over directly to him, which she did. And that [conversation]
happened without my knowledge.
On September 4, 2015 at 1:48PM, Mr. Cohen responded to Ms. Brevik CC: Mr. Nardoni
and Ms. Sackmann, yes. Spoke to rita. You guys are just emails.
On September 4, 2015 at 3:13PM, Mr. Cohen forwarded Ms. LaGrones unedited
11:34AM email to Ms. Carson, Im taking care of this also.
On September 4, 2015 at 4:05PM, Ms. Sackmann sent an email [the TO: portion of the
email is blank] BCC: Mr. Cohen, Hi ElliotI also have the CDs if you need them. The
email contained two file attachments, one of which was titled ECohen-LaGrone.pdf.
On September 8, 2015 at 11:40AM, a software package, WordPress, was used by
ecohen to edit the Citys #transparency webpage to add a download link to a file titled
LaGrone.pdf.
On September 8, 2015 at 11:45AM, Mr. Cohen responded to Ms. LaGrones September
4, 2015 11:34AM email, Katie, The records youve requested are available for
download at http://bit.ly/WPBprr Thx.
8
We found multiple instances, in addition to this request, where Mr. Cohen would cut and paste only the information
being requested and only send that to whomever he was asking to gather the information. At times, enough
information was removed so it was no longer obvious that it was a public records request.
Page 6 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On Friday September 11, 2015 at 3:24PM, WordPress was again used by ecohen to
edit the Citys #transparency webpage to remove the download link to the file titled
LaGrone.pdf.
Actions that were Undertaken During the Gathering of the Emails
It should be noted that from the time Ms. Sackmann was notified of the LaGrone PRR
(September 4, 2015 at 1:18PM) until she emailed Mr. Cohen the results (September 4,
2015 at 4:05PM, an elapsed time of 2 hours 47 minutes), Ms. Sackmann had to
conduct 2 keyword searches9 of 4 separate databases,10 for a total of 8 searches, to
identify the 1,073 emails containing 2,224 pages. She then had to copy those 2,224
pages of emails to a separate location, convert them to pdf format, and compile them
into a single file. Ms. Sackmann told us that the entire time was taken up processing
Mr. Cohens request. She stated, We dont know how to redact, we dont know what
needs to be dract [redacted] we havent, we werent trained on that type of Ms.
Sackmann said that even if she would have been responsible to perform redaction,
there would have been no time for her to do it prior to her emailing Mr. Cohen the
resulting file. Theres no way. Absolutely, no way.
Dorritt Miller, Deputy City Administrator, a 25 year City employee, the last 17 of which
have been in City Administration, stated with regard to requests involving the IT
department, They would extract the information give it to you on a CD or a thumb drive
and then its taken to the respective departments to get it redacted. She was asked if
IT would have been the one to take it to the various departments and she said, it would
have gone back to Hazel [Carson] or whomever it isbased on state law you can
actually redact your personal emailthat is the normal practice.
Susan Stone, Systems Administrator, who has worked in the City IT department for 20
years and has conducted similar keyword searches of City emails, without knowledge of
the timeframe of the LaGrone PRR, indicated a request of this nature could take 2-3
days. She stated the searches can take so long that she will sometimes start them prior
to going home for the day and let them run overnight.
Additionally, Danielle Davila, Police Services Supervisor, was later required to redact
the 2,224 pages in a subsequent public records request after the LaGrone PRR was
removed from the Citys website. Ms. Davila stated it took her 40 hours to do the
redaction.
Based on witness statements and documents reviewed, it has been determined that the
records could not have been identified, copied, converted, REVIEWED, AND
REDACTED in the 2 hours 47 minutes it took Ms. Sackmann to fulfill Mr. Cohens
9
The LaGrone PRR was for a search of 12 keywords. The Citys email software, Lotus Notes, would not permit a
search of this many keywords without failing. Ms. Sackmann conducted a search of the first eight keywords and then
had to conduct a second search of the remaining four keywords.
10
The way Lotus Notes was configured at the City, it requires at least one database for each month. For both August
and September 2015, there were two databases for each month, thus requiring a total of four databases to be
searched.
Page 7 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
request. It will later be demonstrated that with Mr. Cohens training and experience, he
should have realized that the records provided back to him by IT could not have been
properly reviewed and redacted in only 2 hours and 47 minutes.
Citys Response to the Release of Public Records
In the Citys October 26, 2015 response to the OIG, Jeffrey Green, City Administrator,
wrote, The release of exempt and confidential information was due to a break down in
application of the City of West Palm Beach Public Records policy.
Mayor Muoio told us regarding Mr. Cohen, I just dont think it was on the front of his
mind to consider redaction, thats not something hes responsible for, he gets the
records, he puts them out. I dont see why that would even enter, you know, his thought
process. She also said, Everybody was doing their job and it just went wildly out of
controlto some extent we decided to be more open and more transparent and really
make it, information available to the public. Obviously, we should have redacted them
but there was no point of responsibility.
Mr. Cohens Employment/Background/Experience Dealing with Sensitive Public
Records Requests
Mr. Cohen was the Public
Information Officer (PIO) for
the City from January 18,
2005 to September 2, 2005.
He served as the Director of
Media Relations for the
Broward County Sheriffs
Office
(BSO)
from
September 12, 2005 to
February 15, 2008. During
his tenure at BSO, his office
was
responsible
for
handling PRRs. He was
rehired by the City as PIO
on May 14, 2012 and was promoted to Director of Communications (his position during
the timeframe covered by this investigation) on November 25, 2012. When the
LaGrone PRR came in, it is reasonable to assume that based on Mr. Cohens
background and experience he should have expected that the first two key words being
searched for, camera and surveillance, would result in emails related to the Police
Department which may include exempt or confidential and exempt information.
Page 8 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 9 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
request. However, the LaGrone PRR was not entered into the Citys Public Records
Request Database as required by City policy.
Exemptions and Confidential Records, D.1 states, Requests for documents which may
contain information that is exempt from disclosure under Florida law may be delayed
until the records can be reviewed and redacted as necessary by the Custodian of the
Records. OIG Comment: As a result of Mr. Cohens actions, he circumvented City
policy for review and redaction by the custodian of the records.
Exemptions and Confidential Records, D.3 provides examples of records that may be
confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. They include,
but are not limited to:
Active criminal and intelligence information (119.071(2)(c)).
Information regarding confidential informants (119.071(2)(f)).
Social Security Numbers (119.071(4)).
Information regarding the Citys security systems or emergency plans
(119.071(3)).
Information regarding victims of crime some limitation to exemption
(119.071(2)).
It should be noted that there
were additional aspects of
the Citys PRR Policy that
Mr. Cohen did not follow with
the LaGrone PRR.
As
example, charging for public
records and waiting until a
50% deposit is collected
prior to proceeding with the
request. Neither of these
policy requirements were
followed.
Analysis of Mr. Cohens
Actions
Mr. Cohen circumvented the
process. He excluded the
Custodian of Public Record,
thereby
assuming
the
responsibilities
of
the
Custodian of Public Record.
We reviewed thousands of
Mr.
Cohens
emails,
including many related to
media PRR.
It is clear
Page 10 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
through these emails that Mr. Cohen was aware of the Citys PRR policy. For example,
a March 8, 2013 email sent to Sylvia Gregory [Compensation and Employment
Manager-at the time], David Bernhardt [Police Captain] demonstrates Mr. Cohens
knowledge of: the need for review and redaction (due to the nature of the request);
specific information needing redaction11; providing the PRR requestor with a cost
estimate; and, collection of 50% estimated deposit before beginning the work.
Additionally, Mr. Cohen instructs the recipients of this email, PLEASE DO NOT BEGIN
TO WORK ON THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE HEARD FROM ME.
One month later, Mr.
Cohen
received
PRR
processing instructions via
email from Ms. Miller.
On April 26, 2013 at
8:37AM, Mr. Cohen replied
to all parties, Team, I am
taking care of this. I have
already spoken to Claudia,
and all the commissioners
regarding this. As this is
from the media, per policy, I
am running point on this.
On April 26, 2013 at
10:32AM, Ms. Miller replied
to this email to Mr. Cohen,
Claudia McKenna [City
Attorney-at the time], and
Ms. Carson, Elliot you
are to keep Hazel in the
loop since she is the
custodian.
The request
should also be entered in
the database and tracked.
Per the policy requests
from media organizations,
e.g.
shall
be
coordinated with the Citys Public Information Officer Thanks
On April 26, 2013 at 10:47AM, Mr. Cohen replied to Ms. Miller, Ms. McKenna, and Ms.
Carson, Of course. All requests such as this are always listed in the database.
We asked Ms. Miller why she sent this email and she replied that it must have been
that Hazel must have said this is not happening and this was a reminder to herto him
11
The quote in the center of Mr. Cohens email is a citation from 119.071(4)(d)2.a.I, Florida Statutes.
Page 11 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
that it needs to be doneSo there was a conversation and now remember that I said to
him it needs to be there for tracking mechanism to make sure we actually comply with
the public records request because we do have some guidelines and timeliness as well
to make sure its being done.
Our investigation disclosed that at no time did Mr. Cohen enter media PRR into the
Citys Public Records Database. The PRR discussed in the above April 26, 2013
emails was entered into the Citys database, but not by Mr. Cohen. Furthermore, the
LaGrone PRR of September 4, 2015 was never entered into the Citys database by
anyone.
The Citys PRR Policy has not changed since
December 2009. It states that media PRR requests
shall be coordinated with the Citys Public Information
Officer. However, this has not been the case at least
since Ms. Carson became the City Clerk in September
2012. Ms. Carson told us that after she began, Mr.
Cohen told her that he will handle all media PRR
requests. In doing so, Mr. Cohen usurped Ms.
Carsons position and responsibilities as Custodian of
Public Record. In the case with the LaGrone PRR,
Mr. Cohen did not coordinate with the City Clerk as required by policy. Instead, he
told her he was taking care of this. Mr. Green told us, If it [the LaGrone PRR] had
come from the Clerks office, then the process would have followed through the way we
had it set up. He also said, Records need to come through the Clerks office,
everybody is supposed to follow that process. And if it would had been followed that
way, we wouldnt had a problem. Mr. Green told the media The breakdown probably
wouldnt have happened had the clerk been handling the request, since its really the
clerks function. 12 The manner in which Mr. Cohen failed to follow the policy in the
processing of the LaGrone PRR has been the norm, not the exception, at least since
Ms. Carson became the City Clerk in September 2012.
Both the current Director of IT and the Computer Operator who processed the City
public records requests for e-mails (LaGrone PRR) stated the Department has never
been responsible for redacting emails they provide to Mr. Cohen for media requests.
This is of particular concern since this is not the first time Mr. Cohen has released PRR
and; therefore, other instances of improper release of exempt or confidential and
exempt records are a possibility.
12
From http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/wpb-mayor-blames-process-breakdown-for-release-of-/nnf5Y/,
posted September 15, 2015, updated September 16, 2015.
Page 12 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Damage Caused by the Improper Release of the Exempt and Confidential and
Exempt Information
Some of the sensitive law enforcement information released involved active
investigations the City Police Department was working with other local and federal
agencies.
The damage related to on-going investigations, include identifying
information of law enforcement personnel and confidential informants. Department
representatives reported concern for the safety of those individuals exposed by the
improper release of information. Additionally, they reported that some law enforcement
agencies were directed to no longer communicate with City Police Department officers
via email concerning police operations.
Corrective Actions Reported by the City to Address the Citys PRR Process
In its October 26, 2015 response to our request for information, the City outlined the
following changes in its PRR process:
1. Media records requests will be processed directly through the City Clerks office;
2. All e-mails compiled by the Citys IT Department will be sent to the primary
department responding to the public record request.
The primary responding
department will review the records and will be responsible for redacting any confidential
and exempt information;
3. The Police Department will be the primary department in any search that deals with
any police matters;
4. Police e-mails will be stored on a server not connected with the City of West Palm
Beachs main server; and
5. The City will continue to review its public records policy to see if any additional
changes can be made to further protect exempt and confidential information.
Allegation (2):
City of West Palm Beach Director of Communications Elliot Cohen used his
position at the City, as well as, City time and resources to conduct his private
business, Cohen Publicity. If supported, the allegation would constitute a
violation of City of West Palm Beach General Administration, Chapter 1,
Computer Policy, Policy 1-28, Computer Hardware/Software, Networks and
Communications Policy, 7.20; City of West Palm Beach Employee Handbook,
Employee Relations, Code of Conduct, Integrity and Honesty, o).
Finding:
The information obtained supports the allegation based on the OIG review of records
and witness interviews. Mr. Cohen was not interviewed due to the referral to the State
Attorneys Office in Allegation (3).
Page 13 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
13
A biometric scanner is used to scan a City employees finger print into KRONOS. For exempt employees, as Mr.
Cohen, one punch in would automatically credit the employee for working an eight hour day.
Page 14 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
logged in15 to his City computer at 9:59AM. At 10:02AM, there was an internal phone
call on Mr. Cohens City desk phone that lasted 7 minutes and 52 seconds. At
10:41AM, Mr. Cohen received a call on his Cohen Publicity cell phone 16 from the Town
of Miami Lakes. The call lasted 27 minutes and 29 seconds. At 11:08AM, there was an
internal phone call on Mr. Cohens City desk phone that lasted 2 minutes and 20
seconds. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at 7:36PM. Mr. Cohen
billed Miami Lakes $131.25 for 45 minutes for Client conference call Client
conference call / working on court decision talking points on this date.
On April 1, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at 8:33AM. At
12:55PM, Mr. Cohen received an email at his Cohen Publicity email address, from
Nicole Lesson [Town of Miami Lakes Communications Manager and Public Information
Officer] This is the statement the Mayor wrote himself. At 1:02PM, Mr. Cohen
received a call on his Cohen Publicity cell phone from the Town of Miami Lakes. The
call lasted 52 seconds. At 1:05PM a call was placed from Mr. Cohens City desk phone
to the Town of Miami Lakes. The call lasted 40 minutes and 16 seconds. Mr. Cohens
vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at 6:02PM. Mr. Cohen billed Miami Lakes
$131.25 for 45 minutes for Client conference call Client conference call / discussion
on how to handle post-verdict Mayor interviews on this date.
On April 13, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at 10:59AM.
At 11:05AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for work. At
12:42PM a call was placed from Mr. Cohens City desk phone to the Town of Miami
Lakes. The call lasted 48 seconds. At 12:54PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens
Cohen Publicity email address to Ms. Lesson, Nicole, here are some small edits to
what you put together Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at
7:19PM.
On June 2, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at 7:53AM. At
7:56AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for work. At
2:44PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens City email address. At 3:14PM a call was
placed from Mr. Cohens City desk phone to Ms. Lesson. The call lasted 5 minutes and
14 seconds. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at 6:28PM.
14
From the Time Detail clock ring sheet for Mr. Cohen as provided by the City from their KRONOS time and
attendance system. This report titles this column as in punch, we will use the more common phrase punch in.
15
The information provided by City IT regarding Mr. Cohens computer access describes this action as LogIN, we
will use the phrase logged in.
16
(561) 676-4949 is shown as the contact phone number on the Cohen Publicity website and the registration for said
site.
Page 15 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On July 2, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at 9:55AM. At
2:19PM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for work. At 2:31PM
a call was placed from Mr. Cohens City desk phone to the City of Pahokee. The call
lasted 1 minute and 39 seconds. At 2:33PM another call was placed from Mr. Cohens
City desk phone to the City of Pahokee. This call lasted 3 minutes and 1 second. At
3:17PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity email address to
Chandler Williamson [City of Pahokee City Manager] Subject: Contacting you at the
request of WPB Deputy Admin Dorritt Miller. [the body of this email when Mr. Cohen
solicits business for Cohen Publicity will be discussed in Allegation (4)] At 3:23PM a
call was placed from Mr. Cohens City desk phone. The call lasted 1 minute and 9
seconds. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at 6:49PM.
On July 29, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at 8:31AM. At
8:37AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for work. At
6:02PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity email address to Mr.
Williamson, Subject: Follow up email. [the body of this email will also be discussed in
Allegation (4)] Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage at 6:42PM.
Mr. Green stated regarding Mr. Cohens use of government property, Yeah, weve
looked into that. Government property, he didnt use, as far as I can tell, his email
account, or his computer, his phone. He stated, Kimberly Rothenberg, the City
Attorney, spent time going through that. We had all the emails printed out. We had all
the phone records pulled. As far as we can tell, that didnt happen. To be honest, we
looked at the dates he billed his clients. He concluded, We couldnt, we didnt find
anything related to government property that he was using.
Chronology of Events Regarding Client Meetings During the Citys Official
Business Day17
For the following five client meetings that we identified, which occurred during the Citys
official business day, we reviewed all City records that were available to us, including:
appointment calendars, emails, time and attendance, and parking records. We also
reviewed Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity: emails and phone records. Records show that
for each day; Mr. Cohen was paid for eight hours of work with no leave taken; he did not
have any City related appointments before or after the official business day; and,
available parking records indicate that Mr. Cohen did not return to the parking garage
after client meetings. Additionally, the Citys October 26, 2015 response to our
Management Inquiry did not provide any documentation that conflicts with our findings.
Furthermore, the manner in which the City tracks exempt employee work hours
precludes anyone from determining actual hours worked.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 5:32PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen
Publicity email address to Sharon McCormick [RMA Director of Marketing] and Kim
Briesemeister [RMA Managing Member], subject: Thurs [March 14, 2013] agenda.
17
Per West Palm Beach General Administration, Chapter 4, Policy 4-6, Work Schedule Policy, Official Business Day
is defined as any day Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Page 16 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
The email starts out, Team, I have two main topics I would like to cover in the morning.
The email ends with, See ya in the morn!
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 10:58PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen
Publicity email address to Ms. Briesemeister, Christopher Brown [RMA Principal-in
Charge] and Ms. McCormick, subject: Summary of todays meeting, Team, Attached
is a summary of what was decided today. Please review it and alert me to any
changes/errors...I think today was critical to setting up our process. Were now in a
position to really get humming. ec OIG comment: these two emails indicate a meeting
took place the morning of March 14, 2015. Time and attendance records reflect that he
was paid eight hours.
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 11:14AM, Mr. Cohen received an email at his Cohen
Publicity email address from Alicia Alleyne [RMA Project & Marketing Coordinator] Hi
all, How is your schedule for Tuesday [March 19, 2013] @ 130p for about 30-45 mins
to meet with Jeremy. Hes going to give us a crash course in our new RMA website, for
editing/updating/uploading etc. Elliot, Jeremy said it is not a wordpress site but you will
be able to insert text directly. Thanks, Alicia At 4:54PM, a reply to Ms. Alleynes email
was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity email address, I will be there Tues [March
19, 2013] @ 1:30pm thx ec
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, time and attendance records reflect that he was paid
eight hours. Mr. Cohen had a scheduled appointment on his calendar from 1:30PM
2:30PM, subject web meeting [see above stated RMA appointment].
On Saturday, January 10, 2015, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity
email address to Diana Young [Town of Miami Lakes Community Affairs Manager]
Lets get together Monday [January 12, 2015] @ 3pm.
On Sunday January 11, 2015, Ms. Young replied to Mr. Cohens email, Okay, lets
shoot for 3pm. If anything changes I will let you know. You will be coming to our Town
Hall, located at 6601 Main Street, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014.
On Monday, January 12, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at
8:53AM. At 9:01AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for work.
At 1:32PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens City email address to David Townsley
[Palm Beach County Convention Center Director of Event Technology] Sure. I am free
between now and 2:45 on my cell. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking
garage at 1:37PM. Telephone records for Mr. Cohens City cell phone identified his
location between the hours of 2:35PM and 5:14PM as Dade County, including Miami
Gardens, Miami, and Hialeah. Mr. Cohen billed Miami Lakes $350.00 for two hours for
a Client meeting on this date.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle did not enter the City parking
garage, nor did he utilize the Citys biometric system to punch in for work. He was paid
Page 17 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
for eight hours worked.18 At 10:21AM, Mr. Cohen received a call on his Cohen Publicity
cell phone from Ms. Lesson. The call lasted 7 minutes 22 seconds. Telephone records
for Mr. Cohens City cell phone identified his location between the hours of 1:59PM and
5:56PM as Broward and Dade County, including Pompano, Coral Springs, Tamarac,
Sunrise, and Miami Lakes. Mr. Cohen billed Miami Lakes $525.00 for three hours for a
Client meeting on this date.
On Thursday, February 5, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage
at 9:33AM. At 9:40AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for
work. At 2:05PM, Mr. Cohen received a call on his Cohen Publicity cell phone from Ms.
Lesson. The call lasted 38 seconds. At 2:09PM, a call was placed from Mr. Cohens
Cohen Publicity cell phone to Ms. Lesson. The call lasted 9 minutes and 52 seconds.
At 4:28PM, another call was placed from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity cell phone to Ms.
Lesson. This call lasted 5 minutes and 25 seconds. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the
Citys parking garage at 5:40PM. Mr. Cohen billed Miami Lakes $87.50 for 30 minutes
for Client communication / emails / phone calls on this date.
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage at
8:29AM. At 10:00AM, Mr. Cohen utilized the Citys biometric system to punch in for
work. At 2:23PM, Mr. Cohen received a call on his Cohen Publicity cell phone from the
Town of Miami Lakes. The call lasted 6 minutes and 25 seconds. At 2:44PM, Mr.
Cohen received a call on his Cohen Publicity cell phone from Ms. Lesson. The call
lasted 3 minutes and 39 seconds. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited the Citys parking garage
at 5:16PM. At 7:30PM, Mr. Cohen received an email at his Cohen Publicity email
address, from Ms. Lesson, My call with the reporter went fine, she said she only was
extending an opportunity for Slaton to comment since Pizzi did. Lets see if info is
correct in the story. See below. Have a good night and will see you tomorrow [March
11, 2015].
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Mr. Cohens vehicle entered the Citys parking garage
at 8:40AM. Mr. Cohen did not utilize the Citys biometric system to punch in for work.
He was paid for eight hours worked. Mr. Cohen had a scheduled appointment on his
calendar from 12:00PM 4:00PM for ML [Miami Lakes]. Mr. Cohens vehicle exited
the Citys parking garage at 12:08PM. At 12:48PM, Mr. Cohen received a call on his
Cohen Publicity cell phone from Ms. Lesson. The call lasted 52 seconds. Telephone
records for Mr. Cohens City cell phone identified his location between the hours of
3:20PM and 4:47PM as Palm Beach, Broward and Dade County, including Hialeah,
Parkland, Pompano Beach, and Boca Raton. Mr. Cohen billed Miami Lakes $350.00 for
two hours for a Client meeting on this date.
18
Authorized City personnel may override the system to indicate that an employee either did not punch in or was
working offsite.
Page 18 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Cohen Publicity emails, phone calls, meetings occurring M-F 8-5 non-Holiday, non-Leave
(2013 2015) and client payments
Phone calls
Emails
Meetings Payments
#
duration
sent/recd
sent
RMA
167
10:01:59
125
65
2
$ 9,159.00
Town of Miami Lakes
43
3:15:02
40
9
3
$ 5,400.00
We asked the Mayor when Mr. Cohen is working in the office if he is he working for her
or is he working for RMA? She replied, When hes working in the office, hes working
for me. She was asked if he was working for any of his clients then? Mayor Muoio
answered, Not that I was aware of. We asked her if that would that be acceptable to
her? She responded, No. Mayor Muoio was then asked if he was doing work for one
of his clients RMA or whoever in the office, would that not be acceptable to her? She
replied, I would not expect that that would occur.
OIG Comment/Conclusion
The fluidity, at times, in which Mr. Cohen intermingled his working for the City and his
Cohen Publicity business during the Citys official business day, using City resources,
and whether in or out of his City office space is troubling. We could not with reasonable
assurance determine whether he was or was not working for his Cohen Publicity
business while being paid by the City. Taxpayers may recognize that many public
servants work outside employment. They do not expect to subsidize public servants in
their outside employment by the use of government time or resources.
Additionally, taxpayers expect public officials to be good stewards of their dollars,
including those surrounding personnel costs (time paid to public servants to work a
days wage for a days pay). Controls are usually in place to account for small dollar
items, like office supplies, so it seems prudent to have adequate controls for the time of
highly paid public officials.
There are several types of internal controls both government and private sector
employers use to account for employees time. While no standard exists, the following
represents some of the controls often used in accounting for employee time: written
policy, work schedules, timesheets/logs, electronic time/attendance software, individual
calendars kept with access to supervisors/second parties, project plans with objectives
and milestones, on-sight observance, checking in and out verbally or by e-mail with a
supervisor/second party (evidence of approval by an authorized official), and completed
tasks. We suggest the City consider implementing more of these controls.
Page 19 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Allegation (3):
City of West Palm Beach Director of Communications Elliot Cohen had a
contractual relationship with City contractor Redevelopment Management
Associates. If supported, the allegation could constitute a violation of F.S.
112.313(7)(a) and would constitute a violation of City of West Palm Beach Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 2, 2-513(a).
Finding:
The information obtained supports the allegation based on the OIG review of records
and witness interviews. Mr. Cohen was not interviewed due to the referral to the State
Attorneys Office in Allegation (3). However, on April 7, 2016, during the PBC COE
executive session, Mr. Cohen argued before the commission that his contract
with RMA was suspended in June 2013, not cancelled.
None of the exemptions to F.S. 112.313(7)(a) as noted in F.S. 112.313(12) are
relevant to the contractual relationship between Mr. Cohen (Cohen Publicity) and RMA.
As mentioned in the previous allegation, Mr. Cohen / Cohen Publicity had a contract
with RMA from January 9, 2013 through September 4, 2014 to provide public relations
& marketing guidance and support in accordance with a mutually agreed upon
marketing plan.
On December 16, 2013, when RMA signed its contract with the City, Mr. Cohen came
into conflict with F.S. 112.313(7)(a), which states, 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. Similarly, City Code of
Ordinances 2-513(a), which states, The mayor, members of the city commission, and
all department heads or directors of the city shall not solicit, accept, nor be employed,
directly or indirectly, by any person, firm or corporation having any contractual relation
with, or rendering any services to the city, or any department or agency thereof.
Mr. Green told us that he was unaware of Mr. Cohens contract with RMA until the fall of
2015. Mr. Green stated that he did not view Mr. Cohens work with RMA as a conflict.
He said, From my standpoint, it would be a conflict if he was doing work for RMA on
jobs that we, the City, assigned RMA to accomplish.
Mayor Muoio stated that she was aware that Mr. Cohen has done work for RMA and
she did not view his relationship as a conflict. She stated, As long as he doesnt work
on anything related to the City. They have multiple clients and if he works for some
other city thats not a conflict. She added, As long as he continues to do the work I
expect him to do as his supervisor and hes there when I need himthen Im ok with
that.
Page 20 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Norman Ostrau19, City Ethics Officer, told us that during a discussion following the
improper records release (in the fall of 2015), He [Mr. Cohen] never told the Mayor, or
Jeff [Green], or anybody. Specifically, that he had the contract [with RMA]. He told me
that. And they [Muoio and Green], said that also. Mr. Ostrau stated, The contract, in
my mind was a violation, just the contract having was a violation of the code. He
continued, It really is a State violation so it should have gone up to the StateBecause
the State says its an absolute prohibition to have any contractual relationship with
anybody doing business with your agency. Theres an absolute prohibition. There is no
exemption under the thing. If you have a contractual relationship, you either got to get
rid of the contractual relationship or leave your agency. So, there is no exemption to it.
Information obtained regarding Allegation (3) as it relates to F.S. 112.313(7)(a) was
referred to the State Attorneys Office and the Florida Commission on Ethics for any
actions they deem appropriate (as well as any other matters of interest within this
report). PBC COE dismissed a complaint (C15-021) against Mr. Cohen on April 7, 2016
after concluding that no probable cause existed to believe that Mr. Cohen had a
relationship with RMA that violated 2-443(d) of the PBC Code of Ethics.
ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS
Based on the information obtained during this investigation, the OIG developed three
additional allegations and they will be presented with numbers consecutive to those
made by our complainants.
Allegation (4):
City of West Palm Beach Director of Communications Elliot Cohen misused his
official public office or employment to solicit business for Cohen Publicity. If
supported, the allegation would constitute a violation of Palm Beach County Code
of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article XIII, 2-443(a).
The OIG will make no finding in this allegation as it was referred to the PBC COE for its
review. Mr. Cohen was not interviewed due to the referral to the State Attorneys Office
in Allegation (3). During our document review related to Allegation (2), we identified
the following information relative to this allegation:
19
OIG Comment it is important to note Mr. Ostraus background prior to becoming the Citys Ethics Officer. He
spent 7 years as the Chairman of Ethics and Elections for the Florida Legislature and 11 years as Broward Countys
Deputy County Attorney. He has also served as the Chairman of the State Ethics Commission and as the Director of
the Public Ethics Academy at Florida Atlantic University.
Page 21 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On July 2, 2015, at 3:17PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity email
address to Mr. Williamson, Subject: Contacting you at the request of WPB Deputy
Admin Dorritt Miller.
Chandler,
Congratulations on your new position with the City of Pahokee.
I am the Director of Communications in the Mayor's Office at the City of West Palm Beach
and Dorritt Miller has asked that I reach out to you.
Ive had a chance to do a short review of your citys communications efforts, and I would be
happy to meet with you to talk about creating some successful tactics and strategies to reach
best your residents and (sometimes more importantly) keep your Mayor and Commission
feeling informed.
I have designed and implemented several successful strategies here in West Palm Beach
(city newsletters for residents, employee communications, positive news coverage, and
more.) I handle all the citys crisis communications (and would be happy to provide
references). I am responsible for the citys social media outreach as well. Under my watch
West Palm Beach has tripled the number of people receiving news from the city via social
media. In effect, I run a small internal news bureau here at the city that specializes in getting
city news directly to residents.
Its always critical that residents know all the good work their city is doing on their behalf, and
its even more important that both residents and Commissioners stay informed.
My complete background can be seen on Linkedin:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/elliotcohen
As an independent consultant, I work with other cities on various communications efforts. I
would like to suggest we meet to talk about how I would be able to improve Pahokees
communications efforts. I offer turnkey government communications solutions from the
design and maintenance of city newsletters to new websites, to press releases and news
media coverage and more. I also can provide video production services to promote the city
on social media, your government station and elsewhere. As I have learned, the best way to
serve a city such as Pahokee is to make communications as low-maintenance as possible so
city leadership can focus on bigger issues. My job is to make sure your residents know about
those bigger issues.
I can be reached at this email, or at the cell number below. Again, congratulations on your
new position. I look forward to the possibility of helping to design and implement a fresh new
communications plan for the city.
Elliot Cohen
cohenpublicity
PR / Video Production/ Crisis Management / Marketing
www.cohenpublicity.com
561-676-4949
Page 22 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On July 29, 2015, at 6:02PM, an email was sent from Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity
email address to Mr. Williamson, Subject: Follow up email.
Chandler,
I am following up on my earlier email. I know you have been contacted by others
recommending my experience in government communications.
For the purposes of clarity, allow me to further expand on my intent. I became aware of your
new position during a city meeting, but after a review of the Pahokees communications I
believe I may be able to help the city as part of my outside work as a government
communications expert.
I work as a consultant for several clients including several cities in South Florida. My work is
both for immediate crisis management as well as for longer term public relations and
communications. Rest assured my work is done with the knowledge and blessing of the city.
I completely understand the financial pressures felt this time of year when preparing next
years budget. That is why I structure my services to be very affordable while providing
significant benefits.
Lets get together and talk about how your elected officials and residents can benefit from
some basic PR strategies.
Look forward to speaking with you.
Elliot Cohen
561-676-4949
On July 29, 2015 at 6:17PM, Mr. Williamson forwarded the above two emails to Ms.
Miller. Mr. Williamson questioned Mr. Cohens contact and stated I dont believe these
were your intentions for the City of Pahokee.
During an interview, Ms. Miller told us, I never recommended anybody to them
[Pahokee] ok. This is what happened now that youve mentioned about itWe had a
meeting, City Managers Association, where he [Chandler Williamson] said to me he
would like, hes trying to do a lot of work in Pahokee, he would to have me be like a
mentoring or partner with some city like West Palm Beach. He said to me that if we
could help. And he talked about HR best practices oh I said absolutely let me know
what you need because we could share services. She further stated, Now, I had a
department head meeting and so it came up where I said ok now we have a big city
here and we have lot of resources and we have this guy out in Pahokee hes trying to
get some work done he wants to build his city. And we could be like a sister to them a
brother to them and so I told him that he could come over here or we could help him
with policies and procedures whatever. And so, the meeting ended and it was the intent
that we could help him with different policies whatever it is.
Ms. Millers comment to City department heads intent was for City staff to assist
the new Pahokee City Manager, not for anyone to solicit private business.
Page 23 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
On July 29, 2015 at 9:35PM, Ms. Miller forwarded Mr. Williamsons email to Mr. Green.
Ms. Miller told us that she met with Mr. Green the next morning, July 30, 2015,
regarding Mr. Cohens emails to Mr. Williamson. She stated that they went to see the
Mayor to discuss this issue. While in the meeting, Mr. Green was the one who brought
it up to the Mayor.
Mr. Green told us he remembered talking to Ms. Miller about this issue stating She was
concerned whether that would be a conflict or not. Didnt come to any conclusion on it.
He said, She was concerned about itI didnt have a concern about it because we had
talked previously and I knew he was going to solicit business from other cities. He was
asked if he talked to the Mayor about this, and he replied I cant recall.
Allegation (5):
Redevelopment Management Associates did not disclose its business
relationship with Elliot Cohen (Cohen Publicity) to the City of West Palm Beach
Procurement Official during the procurement process for RFQL 12-13-407. If
supported, the allegation would constitute a violation of City of West Palm Beach
Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 2, 2-513(b) and Attachment
C, Item 2, in the bid proposal package.
Finding:
The information obtained supports the allegation based on the OIG review of records
and witness interviews.
As previously mentioned in Allegations (2) and (3), Cohen Publicity and RMA entered
into a contract in January 2013 that lasted into September 2014.
Standards
City Code of Ordinances 2-513(b) states, No person, firm or corporation having any
contractual relation with, or rendering any services to the city, or any department or
agency thereof, shall employ, directly or indirectly, the mayor, any member of the city
commission, or any department head or director of the city. No persons, firm or
corporation which has the mayor, member of the city commission, or department
head or director as an employee, shall be eligible to be considered to have a
contractual relation with or to render for any consideration, services to the city.
[emphasis added]
On October 3, 2013 at 4:25PM,
RMA submitted its response to
RFQL 12-13-407, Administration
of Community Redevelopment
Agency
(CRA)
and
City
Redevelopment Activities.
As
part of its proposal, respondents
Page 24 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
According to the Citys procurement personnel, the Prohibited lobbying ordinance is synonymous with cone of
silence as used by Ms. Briesemeister.
Page 25 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrqjDYGW2OE
Page 26 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
know that. I know that theres concern. I guess I would like to assure people that we
are going to do this in the most transparent way and the fairest way possible. And
whoever is the most qualified and has the most potential to give us what we want will
get the contract.
RMA, Mr. Cohen, and Mayor Muoio not disclosing the contractual relationship between
RMA and Mr. Cohen and Mr. Cohens involvement in the procurement process was
contrary to the Citys expressed intent for transparency. If procurement officials would
have been notified of the contractual relationship between RMA and Mr. Cohen, they
would have raised conflict of interest issues.
Consequences of Not Disclosing Mr. Cohens Business Relationship with RMA
Had City procurement officials been made aware of Mr. Cohens business relationship
with RMA, steps would have been taken to investigate and take appropriate actions.
Since these officials were not aware of this relationship, Mr. Cohen was included in the
selection process.
Between August 20, 2013 and December 16, 2013, Mr. Cohen sent, received, and was
copied on several emails pertaining to the selection process. He attended private
meetings with City officials, to include procurement officials, where the selection
process was discussed and decisions were made. His involvement included input
regarding those who would sit on the proposal evaluation committee:
On October 4, 2013 at 3:42PM, Josephine Grosch [City Senior Purchasing Agent] sent
an email to Mr. Cohens City email address and Christopher Roog [City Director of
Economic Development], Elliot & Chris, Attached please find the proposal list. Please
advise your recommended elevation [sic] committee list. Please aware that The Urban
Group has submitted their proposal, so they will not be permitted to be on the
committee. Since we have 6 proposers, are you still target next Friday for evaluation
meeting? It seems rush since we don't have the committee list yet. (this was not public
knowledge)
Page 27 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
As defined in the City of West Palm Beach Code of Ordinances Chapter 66, Article I, 66-4(b), Completed
procurement means the occurrence of the following: the city has executed a contract for the goods, services, or
construction procured; and any appeals regarding the procurement have been resolved; or the city has determined
that such goods, services, or construction are no longer needed and no further procurement solicitation will be
issued.
23
Festus Frank Hayden became the Procurement Official on September 23, 2013. On November 10, 2014, his
position title was changed to Director of Procurement.
24
The Procurement Official position reported to the Director of Finance, Mr. Green, and had been vacant from July 5,
2013 until September 23, 2013 when it was filled by Mr. Hayden. Due to this vacancy, Ms. Grosch reported to Mr.
Green until Mr. Hayden began as the Procurement Official.
Page 28 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Ms. Grosch was asked about the proposals Attachment C and whether or not RMA
mentioned its contract with Cohen. She replied, The proposer need[s] to tell the City,
right, with a statementRMA never mentioned it. Ms. Grosch was asked what would
be some of the actions that she thought should have been taken? She responded, I
would report to my supervisor that I am aware there is a, that Elliot was this proposers
employee. Ms. Grosch was asked if this would also lend itself to the potential of an
unfair advantage? Yeah, looking back now he was copied on everything yes. She
was asked if this gave RMA an unfair advantage? She responded, The perception is
yes.
OIG interview of Frank Hayden, City Procurement Official-at the time
Mr. Hayden, explained to us what a conflict of interest is, Its like you have an unfair
advantage. In terms of the other folks who will [be] playing the game. He was asked if
the onus is on the proposer to disclose to him if they have a conflict? Mr. Hayden said,
Yes...The onus is upon you [the proposer] to bring it to my attentionYou can either do
it by email or you can pick up the phone and give me a call. He said if a possible
conflict was noted, Then it would be on our benefit that wed have to investigate into
that. And if it is a conflict in terms of that, then we should remove whatever that conflict
is.
Mr. Hayden was asked if he was made aware that an employee with the City had a
contract with one of the firms? He said, No. I was not made aware of that. He
continued, No. I did not. Never heard that. Mr. Hayden was asked if he knew during
the procurement process that Mr. Cohen had a contract with RMA? He responded, No
sirand yes, based on what youre saying to me, him having this information [the
names of the selection committee members] could be viewed as a conflict of interest
because now he has knowledge that nobody else who is proposing for this project has
knowledge of. He said, I would view it as a conflict of interest no matter what his
contract was with the company. Mr. Hayden was asked if he felt that Mr. Cohen should
have, if RMA did not, disclosed this contractual relationship? He replied, YesHe
added, as I said to both of you before, process is important to me. Integrity within your
process is important. And when the slightest thing implies that you dont have a fair
process, excuse my language, it pisses me off. Mr. Hayden was asked what if you
were told that during the cone of silence period there was contact between Mr. Cohen
and RMA? He stated, Then Id move past anger and be truly pissed. And its not
about Elliot. It is about, you have to have integrity in terms of what you do. People are
not gonna want to come play in your sandbox if the sandbox is filthy and dirty.
Mr. Hayden was asked if by not disclosing the contractual relationship between Mr.
Cohen and RMA and then RMA was awarded the contract, what happens then? He
said, It would depend, in my opinion, what weight the non disclosure had on whether or
not this firm was awarded the contract. He continued, So, hypothetically, it would
require us to do some investigation and if the investigation turned out that having this
contract with this City employee at the time that they were awarded the contract gave
them an unfair advantage over everybody else, then as far as Im concerned, the
contract would have to be terminated.
Page 29 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 30 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
an affirmative obligation. Mr. Ostrau concluded, After I had the general discussion with
him [Mr. Cohen], I went to the Mayor and said I think theyre both messed up and I think
something should be done. Then that was it, for me.
Allegation (6):
Redevelopment Management Associates did not properly disclose its business
relationship with Elliot Cohen (Cohen Publicity) to the City of West Palm Beach
once it was awarded the contract for RFQL 12-13-407. If supported, the allegation
would constitute a violation of City of West Palm Beach Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 2, 2-513(b) and the Agreement for Management
and Staffing of the West Palm Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and
West Palm Beach Redevelopment Activities, No Conflicts, 19.3.
Finding:
The information obtained supports the allegation based on the OIG review of records
and witness interviews.
As previously discussed in Allegations (2), (3), and (5), Cohen Publicity and RMA
entered into a contract in January 2013 that lasted into September 2014.
On December 16, 2013, the Agreement for Management and Staffing of the West Palm
Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and West Palm Beach Redevelopment
Activities (Contract) was signed by the Mayor for the City and Mr. Brown for RMA.
Standards
City Code of Ordinances 2-513(b), states No person, firm or corporation having
any contractual relation with, or rendering any services to the city, or any
department or agency thereof, shall employ, directly or indirectly, the mayor, any
member of the city commission, or any department head or director of the city. No
persons, firm or corporation which has the mayor, member of the city commission, or
department head or director as an employee, shall be eligible to be considered to have
a contractual relation with or to render for any consideration, services to the city.
[emphasis added]
The Contract, Section 19 NO CONFLICTS, 19.3 RMA represents that it does not
employ, directly or indirectly, the mayor, members of the city commission or any
official, department director, head of any City agency, or member of any board,
committee or agency of the City. [emphasis added] Section 19.9 of the Contract
discusses how RMA must notify the City of all potential conflicts of interests or any
events described in Section 19.
Contact between Mr. Cohen and RMA while their contract was on hold
As previously discussed in Allegation (5), on June 21, 2013, Mr. Cohen told RMA
principal, Ms. Briesemeister, via email regarding Cohen Publicitys contract with RMA,
Page 31 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
that he wanted to until the city completes its process of possibly selecting a firm to
run the CRAits probably best to put it on hold. Additionally, Ms. Briesemeister told
us that we had a business relationship when asked about her relationship with Mr.
Cohen.
On January 31, 2014, a series of emails was sent between Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity
email account and Ms. Briesemeister and Mr. Brown discussing moving forward with
their contractual agreement, culminating with Ms. Briesemeister saying, Im saying
again as much as we want you to start again, your boss (Jeff) [Green] has to agree.
Mr. Cohen responded by saying, Thats great, because he knows and says its
perfectly fine.
There were 30 phone calls
lasting over 3 hours between
Mr. Cohens Cohen Publicity
cell phone and either Ms.
Briesemeister
or
Ms.
McCormick that occurred after
June 21, 2013 and prior to
January 31, 2014 while the
contract
between
Cohen
Publicity and RMA was on
hold.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0:45:00
0:40:00
0:35:00
0:30:00
0:25:00
0:20:00
0:15:00
0:10:00
0:05:00
0:00:00
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
Date
Mr. Ostrau told us RMA had an affirmative obligation to let us [the City] know at the
time that they entered the contract that they had an employment relationship with him
[Mr. Cohen]. They never did. They never said anything. Mr. Ostrau continued, So, if
it was ongoing it would have been an absolute violation and at that time if he had a
contractual relationship it would not only be a violation of that [County Ethics code] but
also the State Ethics code 112.313(7). Mr. Ostrau said he reviewed the file containing
RMAs contract with the City and he said I asked the attorneys in the office if anybody
had gotten, when they did the contract, if they had any disclosures cause I pulled the
contract. There were not any disclosures.
Based on our supported findings in Allegations (3), (5), and (6), and particularly that
RMA did not disclose its business relationship with Mr. Cohen (Cohen Publicity) as
required, we consider the entire amount the City has spent to date on the RMA
Contract, $3,205,611.78 to be questioned costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The OIG recommends the following:
1. Take appropriate personnel actions.
Page 32 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 33 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
OIG Comment: The break down in application of the City of West Palm Beach
Public Records policy was due to Mr. Cohen circumventing said policy. In doing so,
Mr. Cohen assumed the responsibilities of the Custodian of Public Records which
would include the redaction process. Additionally, evidence provided in our report
demonstrated that due to Mr. Cohens experience in dealing with PRRs, he should
have known IT was not responsible for reviewing or redacting. The 2 hours 47
minutes it took Mr. Cohen to receive the LaGrone PRR file from IT (1,073 emails
containing 2,224 pages) would have been insufficient time for anyone to review and
redact this material.
Citys Response, in part (continued): The City believes that no further changes are
needed at this time. The City will, however, continue to review its public records
policy to see if any additional changes can be made to further protect exempt and
confidential information.
OIG Comment: On page 13 of this report, we acknowledge four corrective actions
reported by the City to address its PRR process and that the City will continue to
review.
OIG Recommendation #3: Revise written policies and procedures on outside
employment requiring employees to obtain approval for leave or work schedule
adjustment prior to performing outside employment during the official business day.
They should be clearly communicated to City employees and documented.
Citys Response, in part: The City has many checks and balances to assure that
employees are working during City work hoursSupervisors are expected to
manage their employees in such a manner as to ensure they are expending at least
40 hours per week performing work for the CityThe City does not believe that any
additional changes to its policies are needed at this time.
OIG Comment: We agree with the City that supervisors should be expected to
manage their employees and have adequate internal controls in place to account for
employee time. However, in this particular case, we did not find evidence of
sufficient accounting. This contributed to an environment where Mr. Cohen could
fluidly move from his City employment to his personal Cohen Publicity work during
the official business day using City resources paid for by taxpayer dollars.
We urge the City to reconsider our recommendation.
OIG Recommendation #4: Establish internal controls that accurately represent actual
hours worked by exempt City employees.
Citys Response, in part: The City provides a description of some of its controls to
monitor employee time and states, The City is comfortable with the controls it
already has in place to monitor the actual hours worked by exempt employees.
Page 34 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
25
Reference to page numbers by Mr. Cohen in the OIG Draft report will not match the page numbers in this OIG Final
report as Mr. Cohen only received the pages containing the allegations against him, as required by the IG Ordinance.
Page 35 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Mr. Cohens Response, in part: At no time was Mr. Cohen interviewed or given an
opportunity to provide further information. Mr. Cohen was never afforded the choice
to waive any privilege in the interest of providing information.
OIG Comment: Since some of the allegations have been referred to the State
Attorneys Office for possible criminal investigation, Mr. Cohen was not interviewed.
During the course of our investigation, Mr. Cohen provided, via subpoena, hundreds
of pages of documents/evidence. Contrary to Mr. Cohens assertion, he was
afforded the opportunity to provide additional information and or documents as well
as respond to the allegations which he took advantage of in his attached written
response.
OIG supported finding to Allegation #1: Elliot Cohen improperly disclosed exempt
and confidential and exempt information.
Mr. Cohens Response, in part: the city, which is the only legal entity responsible
formaking the determination if any city policy violation occurred
OIG Comment: The OIG has authority to determine whether any city policy
violations occur. Section 2-422 of Palm Beach County, Florida Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 2 Administration, ARTICLE XII INSPECTOR GENERAL
states, The inspector general shall initiate, conduct, supervise and coordinate
investigations designed to detect, deter, prevent and eradicate fraud, waste,
mismanagement, misconduct, and other abuses by elected and appointed county
and municipal officials and employees. Section 2-423(2) states, The inspector
general shall conduct investigations and audits in accordance with applicable laws,
rules, regulations, policies and past practices. Therefore, Mr. Cohen incorrectly
asserts that the City is the only legal entity responsible formaking the
determination if any city policy violation occurred
Mr. Cohen is correct in stating the City is responsible for enforcing all city policies.
He is also correct in that the Citys October 26, 2015 response to our Management
Inquiry stated that the release of the confidential and exempt information was a
break down in application of the City of West Palm Beach Public Records policy.
From our further investigation, we concluded the root cause of the break down was
Mr. Cohen not following the written policy.
Mr. Cohens Response, in part: the citydetermined a year ago there was no
violation of policy. A third party OIG opinion a year after the fact and expressed in
this report does not change that determination.
OIG Comment: The OIG is not a third party, but an independent investigative
office as described in Section 2-422 of Palm Beach County, Florida Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 2 Administration, ARTICLE XII INSPECTOR GENERAL.
As mentioned in our report and above in our response to the City, the break down in
application of the City of West Palm Beach Public Records policy was due to Mr.
Page 36 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 37 of 40
No work was
CASE # 2016-0002
Page 38 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
OIG Comment: The Agreement for Management and Staffing of the West Palm
Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and West Palm Beach Redevelopment
Activities does not give Mr. Green as the City Manager nor any other City employee
the authority to waive RMAs obligation to disclose under 19.3 or 19.9 of their
agreement. Moreover, Mr. Green as the City Manager nor any other City employee
has the authority to waive RMAs obligation to adhere to the requirement of the City
of West Palm Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 2, 2513(b).
RMAs assertion regarding antilobbying violations
RMAs assertion, in part: It is curious to note that there are no allegations of contact
between Cohen and RMA until December 11, 2013The records show that Cohen
(as a representative of the City) had contacted Briesemeister on December 11th to
advise her that the Mayor would be recommending RMA for award of the CRA
contractMoreover, the City had been in contact with Briesemeister before
December 11, 2013the City Manager, and Assistant City Attorney Suzanne
Payson had frequent discussions with RMA regarding a potential agreement
between the two parties during the months of November and December 2013.
OIG Comment: As a point of fact, neither our Draft report nor our Final report
contains an allegation of prohibited lobbying. Because RMA has addressed this
issue, we will comment. The City of West Palm Beach Code of Ordinances Chapter
66, Article I, 66-8 - Prohibited lobbying, states:
No person, firm, corporation, or others representing such person, firm, or
corporation shall contact or lobby the mayor, the city commissioner, city
staff, or evaluation committee member in person, by telephone, in writing, by
e-mail, or any other means of communication, regarding the procurement
of goods, services, or construction from the time the intent to procure
such goods, services, or construction is advertised to the time of
completed procurement.26 The only permissible contact regarding a
procurement solicitation shall be with the procurement official or with
the evaluation committee at a duly noticed public meeting. [emphasis
added]
RFQL 12-13-407 was posted on the Citys Procurement website on September 4,
2013 which would be the start of the no lobbying period as defined by the time the
intent to procure such goods, services, or construction is advertised. December 16,
2013, was the date the City had an executed contract which would be the end of the
no lobbying period as defined by Completed procurement means the occurrence of
26
As defined in the City of West Palm Beach Code of Ordinances Chapter 66, Article I, 66-4(b), Completed
procurement means the occurrence of the following: the city has executed a contract for the goods, services, or
construction procured; and any appeals regarding the procurement have been resolved; or the city has determined
that such goods, services, or construction are no longer needed and no further procurement solicitation will be
issued.
Page 39 of 40
CASE # 2016-0002
the following: the city has executed a contract for the goods, services, or
construction procured. Many of these contacts admitted to by RMA in its response
appear to be in conflict with the Citys Prohibited lobbying ordinance.
Page 40 of 40
ATTACHMENT A
Individuals Mentioned in this Report
Individual
Alleyne, Alicia
Bernhardt, David
Brevik, Christine
Briesemeister, Kim
Brown, Christopher
Carson, Hazeline Hazel
Cohen, Elliot
Davila, Danielle
Green, Jeffrey
Gregory, Sylvia
Grosch, Josephine
Hayden, Festus Frank
Johnson, Venice
Kummerlen, Bryan
LaGrone, Katie
Lesson, Nicole
McCormick, Sharon
McKenna, Claudia
McNeil, Jomekeyia
Miller, Dorritt
Muoio, Geraldine Jeri
Nardoni, Renato
Ostrau, Norman
Roog, Christopher
Rothenberg, Kimberly
Sackmann, Rita
Stone, Susan
Townsley, David
Williamson, Chandler
Young, Diana
Title
RMA Project & Marketing Coordinator
City Police Captain
City Assistant Director of IT-at the time
RMA Managing Member
RMA Principal-in Charge
City Clerk
City Director of Communications
City Police Services Supervisor
City Administrator
City Compensation and Employment Manager-at the time
City Senior Purchasing Agent
City Procurement Official-at the time
City Deputy City Clerk-at the time
City Chief of Police
WPTV Reporter
Town of Miami Lakes Communications Manager and Public
Information Officer
RMA Director of Marketing
City Attorney-at the time
City Deputy Clerk
City Deputy City Administrator
City Mayor
City Interim Director of IT-at the time
City Ethics Officer
City Director of Economic Development
City Attorney
City Computer Operator
City Systems Administrator
PBC Convention Center Director of Event Technology
City of Pahokee City Manager
Town of Miami Lakes Community Affairs Manager
ATTACHMENT B
was
no
violation
of
policy.
A
third
party
OIG
opinion
a
year
after
the
fact
and
expressed
in
this
report
does
not
change
that
determination.
Following
an
internal
investigation,
and
detailed
in
a
letter
to
the
OIG
dated
October
26,
2015
the
city
informed
the
OIG
the
resulting
release
of
information
was
a
break
down
in
the
Citys
process.
(OIG
Attachment
B)
There
is
no
evidence
that
any
improper
information
was
intentionally
released.
The
media
request
was
handled
by
the
PIO
office,
per
city
policy.
City
of
West
Palm
Beach
General
Administration
Policy
1-2,
entitled
Public
Records
Request
signed
into
effect
December
3,
2009
was
the
policy
in
effect
September
2015.
It
clearly
states
requests
from
media
organizations,
e.g.
newspapers,
television
stations,
and
radio
stations,
shall
be
[emphasis
added]
coordinated
with
the
Citys
Public
Information
Officer.
The
OIG
report
states
previous
instances
demonstrate
Mr.
Cohens
knowledge
of:
the
need
for
review
and
redaction.
(OIG
pg.
8)
The
issue
was
not
whether
anyone
knew
the
emails
required
review.
The
issue
was
who
was
responsible
for
doing
the
reviewing.
The
OIG
report
itself
quotes
West
Palm
Beach
Mayor
Jeri
Muoio
as
saying
redaction
was
not
something
[Mr.
Cohen
was]
responsible
for.
(OIG
pg.
5)
The
break
down
in
process
occurred
in
the
IT
department.
For
many
years,
media
email
requests
were
handled
by
one
individual
in
the
IT
department.
The
IT
department
would
process
the
request,
send
it
to
any
relevant
department
for
redaction
and
provide
the
redacted
information.
It
was
not
the
practice
for
the
PIO
to
review
the
material.
The
PIO
is
not
qualified
or
required
to
determine
what
information
should
be
redacted.
For
example,
if
a
request
included
emails
from
the
legal
department,
it
was
up
to
city
attorneys
to
review
the
information
and
determine
what
was
considered
privileged
information.
A
PIO
is
not
qualified
or
expected
to
make
such
legal
determinations.
The
individual
who
had
been
handling
email
requests
left
the
city
IT
department,
and
the
break
down
occurred
when
his
replacement
was
not
properly
trained
or
supervised
under
a
new
IT
director
as
to
how
to
handle
the
requests.
Finding
(2)
A
PRIOR
REVIEW
AND
THE
OIG
-
FOUND
NO
VIOLATIONS
OIG
EXCLUDED
RECORDS
SHOWING
ADDITIONAL
CITY-RELATED
WORK
The
city,
which
is
the
only
legal
entity
responsible
for
enforcing
all
city
policies
and
making
the
determination
if
any
city
policy
violation
occurred
determined
a
year
ago
there
was
no
violation
of
policy.
A
third
party
OIG
opinion
a
year
after
the
fact
and
expressed
in
this
report
does
not
change
that
determination.
The
OIG
itself
admits
it
could
not
with
reasonable
assurance
determine
(pg.
18)
if
any
city
policy
had
been
violated.
City
policy
does
not
prohibit
personal
calls
on
city
office
phones.
Infrequent
non-
city
related
calls
are
allowed.
Following
an
internal
investigation
in
2015,
and
detailed
in
a
letter
to
the
OIG
dated
October
26,
2015
the
city
stated:
Based
on
the
information
reviewed,
there
has
been
no
evidence
found
to
support
the
allegation
that
Elliot
Cohen
is
operating
a
private
business
during
his
City
work
hours.
(OIG
Attachment
B)
FLEX
HOURS
PERMITTED
The
October
26,
2015
letter
further
states:
Elliot
Cohen
does
not
work
a
regular
work
schedule
but
rather
works
a
flexible
work
schedule
with
the
approval
of
the
Mayor
and
City
Administrator.
As
an
exempt
employee,
Elliot
Cohen
is
required
to
be
available
whenever
needed.
His
day
could
start
well
before
8:00
a.m.
or
stretch
well
beyond
5:00
p.m.
For
example,
in
December
of
2014,
Elliot
Cohen
was
on
vacation
from
December
22nd
through
December
29th.
However,
during
that
time
Elliot
Cohen
was
available
to
administration
and
responded
to
inquiries
including
requests
from
Deputy
City
Administrator
Dorritt
Miller
and
Mayor
Muoio.
He
also
works
on
Holidays,
weekends,
and
while
taking
sick
and
vacation
time.
(OIG
Attachment
B)
A
MORE
ACCURATE
REVIEW
OF
TIME
SPENT
The
OIG
report
reconstructs
several
timelines
that
give
the
impression
of
something
improper.
Included
in
the
OIG
reconstruction
is
a
review
of
personal
cell
phone
records.
(It
should
be
noted
that
nothing
prohibits
the
making
or
receiving
of
personal
calls
on
a
personal
cell
phone
during
the
work
day).
What
the
OIG
has
excluded
for
the
same
period
of
time
are
the
city
cell
phone
records
that
document
when
city-related
business
was
taking
place.
These
records
were
provided
to
the
OIG.
The
OIGs
motive
for
excluding
these
records
is
unclear.
Although
noted
again
is
the
fact
that
the
OIG
and
City
of
West
Palm
Beach
continue
to
fight
each
other
in
a
multi-year
legal
battle
during
which
the
city
has
refused
to
fund
the
OIGs
office.
The
OIG
itself
admits
it
could
not
with
reasonable
assurance
determine
whether
he
was
or
was
not
working
for
his
Cohen
Publicity
business
while
being
paid
by
the
city
(pg.18).
The
OIG
raises
the
issue
of
time
paid
to
public
servants
to
work
a
days
wage
for
a
days
pay
(OIG
pg.
18)
Yet
a
more
thorough
review,
which
includes
a
review
of
Mr.
Cohens
city
cell
phone
records
indicates
numerous
examples
of
public
work
conducted
on
behalf
of
taxpayers
before
and
after
regular
business
hours,
on
weekends,
while
on
vacation,
during
holidays
and
out
sick.
Exempt
employees
receive
no
additional
compensation
or
overtime
for
work
done
outside
regular
business
hours.
Therefore,
a
more
complete
review
of
all
available
records
portrays
a
vastly
different
picture.
Below
is
a
list
of
calls
related
to
city
business
conducted
before
and
after
regular
business
hours,
on
weekends,
while
on
vacation,
during
holidays
and
while
on
sick
leave.
The
representative
time
period
(March,
2015
July
2015)
corresponds
to
the
weeks/months
in
2015
detailed
by
the
OIG.
(Other
phone
records
were
not
available
during
the
limited
ten-day
window
provided
to
respond
to
the
OIG
report.)
Date
March
25,
2015
March
25,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
March
26,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
6,
2015
April
7,
2015
April
7,
2015
April
8,
2015
Time
Number
5:34pm
5:39pm
8:58am
8:59am
10:57am
1:25pm
1:54pm
1:56pm
3:13pm
3:14pm
3:37pm
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
1:17pm
2:59pm
3:01pm
4:32pm
4:33pm
4:35pm
4:38pm
4:47pm
4:50pm
6:26pm
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
AFTER
HOURS
9:04pm
9:08pm
7:43am
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
8,
2015
April
10,
2015
April
14,
2015
April
14,
2015
April
14,
2015
April
14,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
15,
2015
April
16,
2015
April
17,
2015
April
20,
2015
April
20,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
21,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
April
22,
2015
7:53am
5:01pm
6:09pm
6:23pm
8:24pm
8:28pm
8:29pm
8:30pm
9:09pm
9:14pm
9:28pm
7:28am
6:54pm
6:56pm
6:58pm
7:37pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
7:52am
7:54am
7:56am
5:11pm
5:12pm
5:14pm
5:35pm
5:29pm
6:28pm
7:58am
7:59am
7:38am
7:53am
5:21pm
5:40pm
6:09pm
6:16pm
7:13pm
7:58pm
9:08pm
9:14pm
9:16pm
9:26pm
9:42pm
7:40am
7:44am
7:45am
7:46am
7:55am
7:58am
6:31pm
6:52pm
6:55pm
5:02pm
6:44pm
7:10pm
7:21pm
7:24pm
7:46pm
7:54pm
10:51m
10:55pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
5:23pm
6:41pm
11:14pm
5:02pm
5:26pm
5:27pm
5:30pm
5:59pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
5:25pm
6:45pm
11:08am
11:11am
11:13am
11:45am
11:52am
12:28pm
12:32pm
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
11:20am
11:24am
11:27am
11:28am
11:32am
12:50pm
1:39pm
1:40pm
1:44pm
1:45pm
1:49pm
2:32pm
3:02pm
3:03pm
3:04pm
3:30pm
3:40pm
3:51pm
4:53pm
4:54pm
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
ON
VACATION
city
voicemail
city
hall
city
hall
city
hall
city
hall
city
voicemail
city
hall
city
hall
city
hall
city
hall
city
department
director
News
media
call
city
department
director
city
hall
city
department
director
city
voicemail
city
hall
city
hall
News
media
call
News
media
call
city
vendor
mayor
mayor
city
department
director
city
department
director
News
media
call
city
administrator
News
media
call
News
media
call
city
commissioner
News
media
call
News
media
call
city
commissioner
News
media
call
May
5,
2015
May
5,
2015
May
6,
2015
May
7,
2015
May
8,
2015
May
10,
2015
May
11,
2015
May
12,
2015
May
13,
2015
May
13,
2015
May
14,
2015
May
19,
2015
May
19,
2015
May
19,
2015
May
20,
2015
May
21,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
22,
2015
May
27,
2015
May
28,
2015
May
28,
2015
May
28,
2015
May
28,
2015
May
28,
2015
May
29,
2015
May
29,
2015
June
1,
2015
June
1,
2015
June
1,
2015
June
2,
2015
June
2,
2015
June
2,
2015
June
2,
2015
4:55pm
5:25pm
7:12pm
7:01pm
5:54pm
10:47pm
5:04pm
6:12pm
5:12pm
5:34pm
5:04pm
7:13am
7:42am
6:18pm
7:55am
6:08pm
7:25am
7:34am
7:50am
7:59pm
8:12pm
8:14pm
8:21pm
6:07pm
7:48am
7:59am
5:05pm
5:12pm
5:36pm
5:02pm
5:15pm
6:16pm
6:31pm
7:02pm
5:55pm
6:05pm
6:07pm
6:49pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
mayor
News
media
call
mayor
DDA
June
3,
2015
June
8,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
9,
2015
June
10,
2015
June
10,
2015
June
10,
2015
June
11,
2015
June
11,
2015
June
23,
2015
June
23,
2015
June
26,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
3,
2015
July
6,
2015
July
6,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
8,
2015
July
9,
2015
July
9,
2015
July
9,
2015
July
9,
2015
July
9,
2015
5:39pm
7:29pm
5:07pm
5:22pm
5:31pm
7:20pm
7:21pm
10:51pm
10:52pm
10:54pm
10:56pm
11:10pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
7:36am
7:37am
6:10pm
5:58pm
6:00pm
6:07pm
6:42pm
7:30am
9:27am
10:09am
10:15am
10:45am
10:49am
10:49am
11:02am
11:29am
12:05pm
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
9:27am
8:25pm
10:30am
10:33am
10:35am
11:08am
11:17am
11:21am
11:24am
11:27am
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
8:45am
2:03pm
2:12pm
2:26pm
4:14pm
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
city
hall
city
voicemail
News
media
call
News
media
call
city
department
director
city
staff
city
department
director
city
staff
city
department
director
city
department
director
city
department
director
city
department
director
city
staff
city
department
director
July
9,
2015
July
11,
2015
July
11,
2015
July
11,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
13,
2015
July
14,
2015
July
14,
2015
July
16,
2015
July
16,
2015
July
20,
2015
July
21,
2015
July
21,
2015
July
23,
2015
July
23,
2015
July
23,
2015
July
23,
2015
July
24,
2015
July
24,
2015
July
25,
2015
July
25,
2015
4:15pm
OUT SICK
city hall
9:48am
9:54am
10:00am
WEEKEND
WEEKEND
WEEKEND
city
voicemail
All
Aboard
Florida
rep
News
media
call
9:25am
9:37am
9:39am
11:37am
11:40am
11:42am
11:43am
11:57am
1:41pm
1:42pm
1:44pm
1:46pm
1:47pm
1:49pm
1:50pm
1:52pm
1:53pm
1:56pm
1:57pm
2:14pm
3:59pm
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
OUT
SICK
6:04pm
6:24pm
5:08pm
5:39pm
6:28pm
5:21pm
6:23pm
6:53pm
6:56pm
7:33pm
7:34pm
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
AFTER
HOURS
7:45am
7:56am
9:33am
11:28am
WEEKEND
WEEKEND
mayor
city
department
director
A
more
comprehensive
review
of
all
records
related
to
time
spent
working
clearly
indicates
Mr.
Cohens
work
days
frequently
began
before
the
traditional
work
day
and
stretched
into
the
evening
hours.
He
consistently
worked
early
mornings,
nights,
weekends,
while
out
sick,
during
holidays
or
on
vacation.
Viewed
in
the
context
of
the
citys
permission
to
work
flex
hours,
the
OIGs
observations
are
incomplete
and
the
OIGs
conclusions
are
not
supported
once
all
evidence
is
examined.
In
addition,
the
OIGs
own
timeline
seems
to
prove
Mr.
Cohen
remained
at
City
Hall
after
regular
business
hours
on
multiple
occasions.
According
to
the
OIG
report,
on
March
30,
2015
Mr.
Cohen
exited
the
city
garage
at
7:36pm.
This
followed
an
after-hours
City
Commission
meeting
that
ended
after
7
p.m.
that
evening.
According
to
the
OIG
report,
on
April
13,
2015
Mr.
Cohen
exited
the
city
garage
at
7:19
p.m.
This
followed
another
after-hours
City
Commission
meeting
that
ended
after
7
p.m.
that
evening.
According
to
the
OIGs
own
report,
Mr.
Cohen
also
remained
at
city
hall
after
regular
business
hours
on
February
5,
2015,
March
10,
2015,
April
1,
2015,
June
2,
2015,
July
2,
2015,
and
July
29,
2015.
Finding
(3):
THIS
MATTER
WAS
ALREADY
CLEARED
BY
THE
PALM
BEACH
COUNTY
COMMISSION
ON
ETHICS
THE
PALM
BEACH
COUNTY
COMMISSION
ON
ETHICS
FOUND
NO
PROBABLE
CAUSE
AND
DISMISSED
THE
CASE
Matters
concerning
work
for
Redevelopment
Management
Associates
were
thoroughly
investigated
by
the
Palm
Beach
County
Commission
on
Ethics.
Following
an
investigation
by
the
Commission
and
a
probable
cause
hearing
before
Commissioners,
the
Commission
concluded
no
probable
cause
exists
to
believe
any
violation
occurred.
(PBC
CoE,
C15-021)
The
complaint
was
dismissed.
A
copy
of
the
dismissal
order
is
attached.
Finding
(4):
NO
WORK
WAS
PERFORMED
No
action
was
taken
on
this
matter.
No
work
was
performed.
Attachments:
Commissioners
Michael S. Kridel, Chair
Clevis Headley, Vice Chair
Michael F. Loffredo
Judy M. Pierman
Sarah L. Shullman
Executive Director
Mark E. Bannon
C15-021
April7, 2016.
By:
Michael S. Kridel, Chair
Section 2-258. Powers and duties. (a) The commission on ethics shall be authorized to exercise such powers and shall be required to perform such duties as are hereinafter
provided. The commission on ethics shall be empowered to review, interpret, render advisory opinions and enforce the :
(1) County Code of Ethics;
FAX: 561.355.1904
required to identify the name of any officer, director, employee or agent of the proposer who is also an
employee or official of the City of West Palm Beach. Admittedly, Cohen was employed by the City when
RMA submitted its proposal on October 13, 2013, but he did not have any of the enumerated relationships
with the proposer necessitating disclosure by RMA.
Finally, as to the assertion that RMA contacted or lobbied City officials or employees while the antilobbying period was in effect, it is not supported by the evidence. As evidence of improper contact, the
Report identifies phone calls between Cohen and Kim Briesemeister (Briesemeister), Managing Member
of RMA. However, the only purported contact between them began on December 11, 2013 and ended
on December 15, 2013. The initial phone call on December 11th was placed by Cohen on behalf of the City
to Briesemeister advising her that the Mayor had selected her company to manage the West Palm Beach
CRA. The other concern with respect to highlighting these phone calls and not presenting them in the
proper context is the fact that the Report does not identify other phone calls between City officials and
RMA predating December 11, 2013 (possibly as early as November 2013) when the City Managers Office
and the City Attorneys Office were in regular contact with RMA for purposes of negotiation an agreement.
The purpose of the no contact or no lobbying provision is to preclude the proposer from attempting to
influence the procurement process by contacting or lobbying the decision-makers. Since the no contact
language is not meant to cover contacts initiated by City staff and RMA would have had no reason to lobby
the City once it was advised it was recommended for award and was in the negotiation stage, RMA
complied with both the no contact and anti-lobbying rules throughout this process.
RMAS RESPONSE TO OIG FINDINGS
NONDISCLOSURE OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
As a City employee and its Director of Communications, Cohen was authorized to engage in outside
employment as of May 18, 2012 when he received permission from the Mayor Muoio. On January 9,
2013, Cohen Publicity signed a professional services agreement with RMA to provide general public
relations services and marketing for the company. From February 2013 to June 2013, Cohen Publicity
was paid a total of $5,159 for these services. In an email from Cohen to Briesemeister dated June 21,
2013, Cohen suggested that the parties should suspend their relationship due to the fact the City
would be discussing the future of its CRA and may be selecting on outside firm to run the CRA.1 He
further advised her in this email that he would have no involvement whatsoever in deciding the future
of the CRA or playing a role in the selection process.
Based on this email, Cohen Publicity did not perform any additional services for RMA until May of
2014. At the time RMA submitted its proposal on October 13, 2013, it accurately stated it had no
business relationship with Cohen Publicity. The business relationship disclosure provision contained
in Section 2-513(b) of the City Code disqualifies a firm seeking to do business with the City if the firm
employs a City official or City employee. In order to violate the section, there must a showing that
the City official is employed by the proposer and there is employment relationship during the
procurement process.
The business relationship disclosure provision operates in the present tense and only captures current
relationships. In the instant case, Cohen was never employed by RMA, as he was retained as an
independent contractor to provide professional services.2 Assuming for the sake of argument that
the definition of employment could be extended to incorporate the type of work performed by Cohen
for RMA, he most certainly was not employed by the RMA from September 2013 to December 2013,
warranting disclosure to the City. The records reflect the fact that from the date of advertisement
through the date of award, Cohen performed no work for RMA, was not entitled to receive his
monthly retainer, nor did he receive any form of compensation from RMA. It should be noted that
utilization of Cohens professional services was resumed many months after the selection of RMA to
manage the CRA. 3 Therefore, RMA was not compelled to either disclose a prior business relationship
at the time its submitted it proposal or disclose this relationship once the contract was awarded.
It should also be noted that RMA proceeded with extreme caution once it was awarded the CRA
contract in terms of its relationship with Cohen. Before agreeing to resume its consulting agreement
with Cohen, RMA, in an email dated January 31, 2014, raised the issue whether RMAs selection as
the CRA Administrator would affect RMAs re-engaging of Cohen. Cohen assured Briesemeister that
the City Manager was perfectly fine with the parties renewing their relationship.4 Therefore, based
on Cohens representations that the City Manager had approved this arrangement, Cohen provided
RMA with professional services for a brief time in 2014 for work unrelated to the City of West Palm
Beach or the West Palm Beach CRA.
The nature of the relationship between Cohen and RMA was also examined by the Palm County
Commission on Ethics (Ethics Commission) when it considered whether Cohen violated Section 2443(d) of the Palm Beach Ethics Code. 5 The Ethics Commission found that Cohen and RMA had no
prohibited contractual relationship in either early 2013 when the consulting agreement commenced
or in the spring of 2014 after the parties resumed their relationship. As a result of this finding, the
Ethics Commission dismissed the complaint against Cohen on April 7, 2016. 6
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Attachment C of the solicitation required all proposers to sign the attachment indicating they have no
conflict of interest in the present or that could develop with respect to providing services under this
Cohen was paid a total of $4,000 between the months of May and August 2014 for work commenced in 2014.
See January 31, 2014 email exchange between Briesemeister and Cohen.
5
Section 2-443(d) states in pertinent part as follows: No official or employee shall into any contract or other
transaction for goods or services with their respective county or municipality. This prohibition extends to all
contracts or transactions between the county or municipality as applicable or any person, agency or entity acting
for the county or municipality as applicable, and the official or employee, directly or indirectly, or the official or
employees outside employer or business.
6
Public Order Finding No Probable Cause and Order of Dismissal C15-021 In Re; Elliot Cohen
4
solicitation.7 Presumably, a conflict of interest is also created if an officer, director, employee or agent
of the proposer is an employee or official of the City of West Palm Beach. RMAs understanding with
Cohen was that his professional services entailed promoting RMA as a separate entity and he would
not take on any assignments involving the City of West Palm Beach or the CRA.8 Given that his duties
with the City included servicing the public relations and marketing efforts for the City, there was no
overlap between his public duties for the City of West Palm Beach and his consulting work for RMA.
Moreover, Cohen did not participate in the selection of RMA as a City contractor and his position with
the City did not include contract oversight or contract enforcement for the CRA. Consequently, based
on the scope of his consulting work for RMA in early 2013 and in the spring of 2014, his responsibilities
with the City, and the fact that the parties severed their relations during the CRA solicitation, there
would have been no legal basis for RMA to disclose an actual or potential conflict of interest because
no such conflict of interest ever existed between RMA and any City officials or employees.
Furthermore, there would have been no reason for RMA to have identified Cohen as a City employee
who also held a position as an officer, director, employee or agent of RMA because he never held any
of these positions with the company as a professional consultant.
ANTILOBBYING VIOLATIONS
The OIG Report cites evidence of impermissible contact and/or lobbying between RMA and Cohen by
referring to 14 calls placed between Briesemeister and Cohen beginning on December 11, 2013 and
ending on December 15, 2013. The inference drawn from this information is that RMA must have
violated Section 66-8 of the City Code by contacting or lobbying City officials or staff during the
ongoing procurement process and that such contact was tied to this procurement.
If the premise is accepted that the contact was related to the CRA procurement, it is important to
take into account Ms. Briesemeisters statement when she was interviewed by the Office of Inspector
General.9 Although Briesemeister refers to the anti-lobbying rule as a Cone of Silence she was
intimately familiar with its purpose and understood the consequences of violating this provision. It is
curious to note that there are no allegations of contact between Cohen and RMA until December 11,
2013. The December 11, 2013 date is significant because Briesemeister received an email from Eliot
Kleinberg of the Palm Beach Post at 11:24 a.m. on that day advising her that Mayor Muoio had
selected RMA as the CRA contractor.10 The records show that Cohen (as a representative of the City)
had contacted Briesemeister on December 11th to advise her that the Mayor would be
recommending RMA for award of the CRA contract. Therefore, since the initial Cohen contact
regarding this procurement was initiated by the City and it was simply to inform the company of the
Mayors choice, it would seem grossly unfair to enforce the no contact rule against RMA when all
Briesemeister did was accept Cohens phone call. Moreover, the City had been in contact with
7
Briesemeister before December 11, 2013, when the Mayor instructed City staff to commence
negotiations with RMA.11 Based on the Mayors authority to direct negotiations, the City Manager,
and Assistant City Attorney Suzanne Payson had frequent discussions with RMA regarding a potential
agreement between the two parties during the months of November and December 2013.
Returning to the December 11-15 timeframe, there is no denying that additional calls were placed
during this four-day period, but they were related to process and procedure and to gain an
understanding of when final action would be taken regarding the contract award to CRA. Given RMAs
interest in this matter, RMA was alerted to the special city commission meeting set for December 16,
2013.12 At this meeting, the City Commission approved RMA as the administrator for the West Palm
Beach CRA.
Not only is there no showing of RMAs intentionally breaching the no contact rule, there is no evidence
that the company sought to exert influence over the Citys decision-makers by attempting to lobby
them. When the City-initiated calls were placed as early as November 2103, RMA was under the
impression that all of the critical players had indicated their preference for RMA and the only
remaining entity to finalize the contract was the City Commission. Although it was unnecessary, RMA
could have lobbied the City Commission at the December 16th meeting because it was a duly-notice
public meeting and would not have violated the anti-lobbying rules. All things considered, RMA
principally adhered to no contact and anti-lobbying provisions throughout this process and only
engaged in contact with City staff after it had been informed that the City wished to enter into
negotiations as a precursor to its selection as the CRA Administrator.
CONCLUSION
RMA, in response to the OIG Report acted appropriately and in good faith during the procurement
process for RFQL 12-13-407 as it had no duty to disclose a non-existent business relationship; did not
have to report or identify a conflict of interest because no such conflict was ever created between
RMA and City staff and complied with the Citys no contact and anti-lobbying rule during this
solicitation. Moreover, RMA urges the OIG to take notice of the findings of the Palm Beach County
Commission on Ethics regarding its interpretation of contractual relationships between the parties.
Under the circumstances, RMA respectfully requests that the OIG drafts a Final Report which
incorporates this response.
11
The City Manager contacted RMA as early as November 2013 (after the November City Commission Meeting) to
advise the company that the City wished to enter into negotiations. These negotiations took place regularly
throughout the month of November and into the month of December.
12
City of West Palm Beach Special Commission Meeting of December 16, 2013
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A:
Kleinberg (Palm Beach Post) Emails to Briesemeister dated December 11th and
December 13th
Exhibit B:
December 16, 2013 City of West Palm Beach Special Commission Meeting
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Emails between City Staff and RMA Beginning November Regarding Negotiations
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
MAYOR
GERALDINE MUOIO
CITY COMMISSION
PRESIDENT KEITH JAMES
COMMISSIONER KIMBERLY MITCHELL
COMMISSIONER SYLVIA MOFFETT
ADMINISTRATION
CITY ADMINISTRATOR JEFFREY L. GREEN
CITY ATTORNEY CLAUDIA M. MCKENNA
CITY CLERK - HAZELINE F. CARSON
CALL TO ORDER:
INVOCATION:
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
C O M M I S S I O N AGENDA
Page No. 2
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CIVILITY AND DECORUM: The City of West Palm Beach is committed to civility and
decorum by its officials, employees and members of the public who attend this meeting. The
City Code, Sees. 2-31(8), 2-31(18) and 2-31(22), provides in pertinent part:
Officials shall be recognized by the Chair and shall not interrupt a speaker.
Public comment shall be'addressed to the City Commission as a whole and not to any.
individual on the dais or in the audience.
Displays of anger, rudeness, ridicule, impatience, lack of respect and personal attacks are
strictly prohibited.
Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, whistles, yells and similar
demonstrations shall not be permitted.
RESOLUTION:
1.
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 3
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 4
will increase to $78,000.00 per month (the "Fee"). For services outside of the Scope of
Services in the Agreement, such as assistance with bond and long term financing
projections, and public/private partnership negotiations, these services will be assigned
by work authorization based upon the hourly rates or a fixed lump sum.
Resolution No. 361-13 approves the contract with RMA for a term of three years with the
right to renew for two additional years.
INTERLOCAL FOR FUNDING
Article V of the By-laws of the West Palm Beach Community Redevelopment Agency,
as amended and restated February 11, 2008, provides that an interlocal agreement
between the City and CRA shall provide for staff support and services by the City for the
CRA as deemed necessary to undertake and carry out redevelopment activities and
projects in the CRA's redevelopment areas.
Resolution No. 362-13 approves an interlocal agreement between the City and the CRA
pursuant to which the CRA will fund those services related to the administration and
management of CRA projects and activities provided by RMA to CRA under the City
contract.
Resolution No. 363-13(F) appropriates funds in the City.budget for the RMA contract.
2.
Resolution No. 353-13 approving and authorizing the submission of the City's
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for fiscal year
2012-2013 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
authorizing the execution and submission of any related documents.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012-20i3; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED
DOCUMENTS; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO SUBMIT THE CAPER
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Agenda Cover Memorandum No.: 19687
Staff Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. 353-13.
Background:
The City of West Palm Beach is a recipient of federal funds through the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships
(HOME) Program and the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 5
Program. As a condition for receipt of such funds, the City must comply with federal
regulations pertaining to the submission of an annual progress report entitled
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Miami Field Office.
The CAPER formally reports to HUD the progress that the City has made in carrying out
its Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. The CAPER must include programmatic,
financial, geographic and demographic data. It must also include the actions that the City
has taken to affirmatively further fair housing and Section 3 concerns. The CAPER must
be submitted to HUD within 90 days after the close of the City's program year, or
December 27, 2013.
Upon receipt of the CAPER, the HUD Miami Field Office will review the document for
compliance matters, progress made towards goals, and accuracy of information. Once
reviewed, HUD will issue its determination in writing to the City. A notice to the public
was published in the Palm Beach Post Newspaper on November 15, 2013 pertaining to
the availability of the CAPER for public review and comment.
Attached is Resolution No. 353-13 which (1) Approves the Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report Program Year 2012, (2) Authorizes the Mayor to
execute all related documents; and (3) Authorizes and directs the Department of Housing
and Community Development to submit the CAPER for program year 2012 to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for its review and approval.
Fiscal Note:
No fiscal impact.
ADJOURNMENT:
NOTICE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE CITY
COMMISSION AT THIS MEETING, THAT PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO
BE BASED. THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH DOES NOT PREPARE OR
PROVIDE SUCH A RECORD.
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
RESOLUTION:
1.
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 2
Muoio stated that she thinks that the model being presented will bring a
variety of personnel to help with the critical goals outlined in the City's
five year plan. She went on to state that our CRA has been one of the
most successful in the State and that this will put us on the cutting edge
of what CRA agencies are supposed to be doing. She also noted that
they will address some of the questions raised by the press and in the
newspaper regarding travel expense, health care and a federal housing
project. She advised that the City considered what was proposed with
an open mind. Every bidder was considered carefully and after the
presentations to the City Commissioners, selections were narrowed
down to two bidders. Both presented and were interviewed by her and
City Administrator Green and RMA was selected as the best choice for
the City. Mayor Muoio asked Mr. Green to address questions raised in
the newspaper.
City Administrator Jeff Green explained the travel as set out in the
contract and read the language into the record. He advised that the
contract does provide for mileage reimbursement if an RMA consultant
travels on behalf of the CRA for related business.
Mayor Muoio stated that all expenses will be approved by the Finance
Director through the approval process.
Commissioner Materio asked if a request by the City for a RMA
employee to attend a conference have to be presented to the City
Commission for approval.
Mr. Green responded that the budget has been approved for travel and
training, so it would not be presented to the City Commission.
Commissioner Moffett mentioned long distance telephone calls and
because of the use of cell phones, asked to strike language mentioned in
the contract.
Commissioner Mitchell stated that they may have to set up conference
calls and may have to make long distance calls from a landline.
Mayor Muoio addressed the issue with the housing project ran by Mr.
Ward. She said we are not hiring Mr. Ward, but RMA.
Commissioner James asked that a presentation of the business case be
made for making this move. He wanted to know the fiscal impact for
justifying this decision.
Mayor Muoio stated that the City is contracting for personnel for the
budget allotted; additional money is not being spent. She also stated that
Mr. Green has a list of positions that this will buy and they are positions
we do not currently have.
Mr. Green explained the basic business concept for the funds. He stated
that the budget is approximately $960,000.00 which is approximately
$80,000.00 a month that funds nine positions, including benefits. He said
this plan gives the City a more flexible organization and the ability to
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 3
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 4
operational function. She further stated that RMA has to provide the
City with someone who will serve as the Executive Director and the City
has the sole discretion to say whether that is a good choice. She said this
person has not yet been identified, but RMA has had discussions with
the Mayor and Mr. Green about a selection.
Commissioner James stated that he feels it is more appropriate for the
City Commission as a body to make the decision of who the Executive
Director will be.
Ms. McKenna stated that the contracting body is the municipal
corporation. She then stated that the Charter provides that the Mayor
shall supervise and direct the operations of the department's divisions
and agencies of the City. Historically, a City employee has served as the
Executive Director of the CRA which has been selected by the Mayor.
Mayor Muoio stated that they will not identify a director at this time.
She further stated that the City Commission will have the opportunity
to meet whomever RMA selects.
Commissioner Materio stated that she thought the Statute was clear on
the CRA's purview. She said if they are approving a contract, she feels
that they should all participate in selecting the CRA Director. She also
feels that they should have been able to participate in making the final
selection.
Commissioner Mitchell agrees that the CRA Statute is clear on the role
of the CRA Board. She feels that the CRA Board is distinct from the
City and suggested removing language from the contract relating to the
selection of the Executive Director so that they can move forward with a
vote. She then noted that the City Commission wants the right to decide
on who the Executive Director for the CRA will be.
Mayor Muoio stated that the CRA employees are employees of the City
and the CRA enters into an Interlocal Agreement with the City to
provide for the CRA implementation.
Ms. McKenna read a portion of the Statute governing employees of the
CRA relating to the employment of agency employees.
Commissioner Materio stated that there is a section of the Statute that is
not being read. She then stated that she is not comfortable with
approving this contract and would like an opinion from Mr. Lewis or
the Commission's attorney. She requests the contract be denied until
such time as an opinion is received.
Commissioner James wanted to know why the contract is between the
City and RMA as oppose to the CRA and RMA.
Mayor Muoio stated that the City hires the personnel for the CRA
according to an Interlocal Agreement it has with the City.
Ms. McKenna advised that the CRA cannot take any action inconsistent
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 5
with the City's Charter. She said that the City's Charter controls the
departments, divisions and agencies of the City. She said in 1992 when
the City decided to move to a strong Mayor form of government, the
policy decision made by the voters was that there would be one person
accountable for City business. She also said that City business includes
CRA business, even though it is an agency that is allowed to be created
by Statute. She stated that from 1984 forward when the CRA was
established, one of the first resolutions adopted was that the City would
staff the CRA; however, that changed in 1992 when the City became a
strong Mayor form of government. She said the Commission can seek a
Charter change to have the CRA structure separate and apart from the
City.
Commissioner James stated that the Charter did not contemplate
outsourcing the management of one of the departments.
Mayor Muoio stated that this gives us an opportunity to do something
innovative and creative. She believes they should move forward. She
further asked that the language in dispute can be removed from the
contract.
Commissioner Materio agrees with removing that language from the
contract. She stated that for purposes of clarification for the future, she
wants an opinion from the Commission's General Counsel.
Motion was made by Commissioner Materio, seconded by
Commissioner Robinson, to request the Commission's General Counsel
for an opinion on the City's Special Districts; and thereafter it was
voted as follows: Ayes: Commissioners James, Materio, Mitchell,
Moffett and Robinson. Motion therefore carried unanimously.
Commissioner Mitchell stated that the CRA did not make the decision
to hire Ms. Briesemeister; it was the purview of the Mayor. The
Commission only discussed the salary.
Ms. McKenna stated that the Commission is not approving a contract
for administration of the CRA, but for staffing. She said the Mayor will
continue to administer the day to day operations of the CRA. She also
said that the principals of RMA will direct their employees. We are not
hiring RMA to administer the CRA.
Commissioner James stated that in Section 1.1 of the contract it states
that RMA shall provide all services necessary to operate, administer
and manage the CRA.
Ms. McKenna responded that the word "administer" should be
removed from the contract because RMA will administer their staff as
they will be staffing the functions needed to achieve the CRA's
objectives.
There was discussion on a performance matrix, quarterly review,
measurable goals, objectives and standards, incorporating language in
the contract on benchmarks, the task list, and a work plan.
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 6
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 7
by
asked
if
the
entity
agrees
with
the
Kim Briesemeister, of RMA, stated that they have not been able to talk
to the Commission for four months and a lot of things they talked about
today would have been resolved. She stated that accountability is
important to them. She advised that the tasks are listed on the wall at
the CRA and includes details of how the tasks will be completed. This
can be made available to the Commission in any format. She also noted
that this is an ongoing initiative and changes monthly requiring them to
have meetings every two to three months tracking whether or not
benchmarks are being met. She noted that they will be able to work
through the operational concerns.
Commissioner James asked Ms. Briesemeister if a decision to approve
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 8
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
P a g e N o . 9.
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 1 3
Page No. 10
by
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 10:37:34 AM
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E