Thankful for everyone who has stopped by to read, or say hello, during the last few months.
Thankful for a wonderful family, great friends, and a growing city to call home.
I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Today’s Breeze had another article which caught my eye. I have heard that the Council was planning to vote to repeal the ordinance which puts term limits up for vote in April. Here’s the article, at the Daily Breeze.
If our city’s Charter Review Committee is of the opinion that we should allow residents to vote on term limits, we certainly should be doing so. If there were some sort of problem with the ordinance itself, I could see the necessity to repeal it, and have it rewritten. That does not appear to be the case.
Instead, our City Council is attempting to remove a potential “hot button issue” from the ballot, in order to have fewer voters at the polls in April. This is not an acceptable way to run elections, in my opinion. You do not remove ordinances that are ready to go before the voters, because you are afraid they will affect other ordinances. You should, as guardians of our freedoms and liberties, be appalled by anything that would seek to reduce the voice of the people you are charged to serve.
I’ve often said to our City Council, and staff members, that communication is key. Respect is also key. It is disrespectful to the Citizens of Cape Coral to try and control the voter turn out by limiting which ordinances would appear on the ballot.
The politicians did play?
A few stories piqued my interest during my work induced marathon flights and meetings that occurred over the last few weeks. This one was an interesting flip-flop:
I’ve emailed the mayor to ask for his view on the story of the sudden mind changing that went on over the Attorney General opinion. I was at the original meeting that they decided to seek the opinion. The lack of action on that seemingly simple request is mind boggling, to say the least. I also felt that the December time frame which they provided to the City Attorney’s office was excessive.
I felt that maybe I could help out a bit. This is my rough draft letter, written in less than 10 minutes, “pro bono” for the city:
Dear Attorney General:
Our City has received an audit from the State Auditor General’s office. In the audit they claim violations of Florida Statutes. Our City Staff is of the opinion that the Auditor General may be mistaken. Please review the Auditor General’s Report, related to Cape Coral’s business practices, and the City Manager’s answers to the Auditor General’s report, and provide an opinion based upon these published documents as to whether or not Cape Coral is in violation of State Statutes.
For your convenience, a copy of the report is available from the Cape Coral Website, with all comments attached. You may find that copy here: http://www.capecoral.net/PDF/2006-182.pdf
Thank you for your time,
The People of Cape Coral.
—
That was easy, no? Let’s hope it was of some help, I agreed with the original vote that we should seek out the Attorney General’s opinion. Cape Coral needs to know when we’re screwing up, and fix it promptly. I will share the Mayor’s responses to my email enquiry with you as soon as I receive them.
After a brief break, Mr. Hair provided his PowerPoint presentation. He provided three different options. A buy all option, where the City would outright purchase the golf course, and perhaps turn the club house into a mixed use facility. As a second option, Sell off the club house area, with appropriate land use changes, requiring the buyer to sell the golf course portion to the city, at a much lower rate. The third option was a mix of both of the above.
Mr. Day recommended some additional changes to the motion. He asked that the CM negotiate with the golf course management, reminding them that they owed taxes, and debt service. He recommended that we potentially take over the debt service. He also cautioned that he wanted a temporary solution, one in which we would eventually turn this back over to a private venture.
Mrs. Bertolini asked to be involved as well, because it was in her district. All of these items made it into the motion.
Mayor F recommends a $15 million offer. He requests of Mark Mason, information about whether or not this was possible. Mr. Mason does agree that it is possible for us to finance this debt. Mrs. Bertolini asks that discussions pause, not wanting to “put all of our eggs in one basket.”
Mrs. Lepera expressed concern about adding on expenses, with the potential of a decrease in property values. She stated that she was unwilling to risk her tax payer’s money to become ‘flippers’ of property. She also shared that she saw a change in the 18 months from the previous discussions. She pointed to the fact that noone was complaining about the condo/hotel in this latest round.
Mr. Hair reminded the room that no other park facility makes a profit. He used the “frog in the boiling water” analogy, to remind us that we have spent 15 million on purchasing land for Festival Park.
The motion passed 6 to 1 Lepera was the only dissenting vote.
“Honey does work better than vinegar.” A gentle reminder from an uncharacteristically animated Richard Stevens tonight. Frustration mounted during this evening’s city council meeting, due to the large number of residents stepping forward to speak about the potential golf course sale.
Getting to the bottom of this rather sticky issue requires several key pieces of information. This golf course has been on the market for a significant period of time. Serious mismanagement, coupled with a complete lack of groundskeeping has forced the issue of the golf course into the forefront of resident discussion.
Council member Hair promises a full report, via powerpoint presentation this evening.
For the most part, the residents spoke up with a combination of candor and good will. Again, this method seems to work best in getting results from council, as I have personally proven time and time again. These residents obviously feel the same way, for the most part, and it showed clearly. Be passionate about your issue, but reserve judgement, and contempt, it is unnecessary for the resolution of our problems.
Mrs. Bertolini, whom I am greatful that she is well enough to return to duty, spoke first. She spoke of the rudeness of some of the residents. This rudeness is often the undertaker, the catalyst responsible for non-action. She then discussed the real actions which she had taken for over a year. She reminded us all that she had asked us to “Be careful, we might get something we don’t want.” Her prescient words have rung true. The golf course is “too expensive” in her mind, but she affirmed “I would like to save the golf course.” with the caveat, “The price must be right.”
She also spoke of her discussions with the CRA, and reminded residents that she was “not sitting idle.” This all lead up to a final caution, her concern being “how much will he stiff us for it?”
Mr. Stevens, was emotionally charged in his response, even raising his voice for the first time I had ever seen, in my entire history of council watching. He would prefer a central park environment, which fits well with his ‘green’ mentality that I have seen shine through on many ocassions. He did take a jab at the “Relatively few who would chase a little white ball around”. This uncharacteristic emotional outburst was entirely surprising, to say the least.
Mr. Boyd, speaking from experience in sales, characterized a “purchasing tactic” which used “scare tactics”. He also requested a meeting with the golf club ownership, along with an unnamed professional, who has experience in golf course values. He recommended 1 million dollars per hole, as a starting point, for profitable golf courses. This is a far cry from the over 25 million currently being requested. He then requested a reasonable fix for the problem, follow and enforce code.
Mr. Stewart spoke directly to the code enforcement actions taking place, against the golf course. He provided information that the golf course is “already a repeat offender.” He is concerned about sending city staff out to manicure the property, because we would foot the bill with a lien on the property, until it was sold. He also cautioned that we “must follow procedure.”
Mayor F. also addressed the accusations, saying that it hurt him personally. He admits, however, to learning to not let the accusations bother him. It’s unfortunate that so many of us take the accusation route, when addressing Council. It is entirely ineffective, and will remain so, as long as we are all human beings. He also provided more sapient information, such as the fact that the property currently has the right to develop 4.4 units per acre. He too would like to see the golf course continue, as his primary option. He also spoke to the other possibilities, such as a large amount of green space, and potentially a few schools on the grounds.
Mr. Day agreed with the mixed use style usage, where a guaranteed golf course would remain, and a development of a condo/hotel would be added, to pay for some of the property.
Mrs. Bertolini is currently hospitalized at Cape Coral Hospital, with a blood clot in her leg. Godspeed, and a swift recovery, Mrs. Bertolini!
Rosado made statements to the press today that he would in fact stay absent from his seat for the remainder of the October meetings. It’s not the best answer, but it’s better than the alternative of Rosado remaining on council, and voting on ordinances with the specter of potential conflict of interest.
In addition, the State’s Attorney was quoted today, stating that their top investigator would be looking into the changed date on the check.
Rosado’s legal defense tried again to limit the investigation, by submitting a personal request to the State’s Attorney, asking them to look into whether or not the real estate license was necessary on the Westphal deal. I believe they are pressing this one investigation point, because they feel they have enough proof to block this one case.
These continued attempts to limit the investigation, however, are the real red flag. Why is Rosado so driven to stop deeper digging? If you are willing to take on the responsibility of public office, you gain the rights, but you also gain the consequences. Mr. Rosado is apparently looking to limit the exposure to the consequences. That is unfortunate, but it is also not very likely to succeed.
During the remainder of the evening, the theme continued. Rosado was defensive, often referring to his attorney for questions, and for vindication of his position. However, none of those moments were more spectacular than when Rosado made a complete 180 about the question related to 16-05, as presented by Mrs. Lepera.
Mrs. Lepera stated that the Westphal Property would have “greatly enhanced value” if Ordinance 16-05 would pass. She asked Rosado if he knew that the property was going to be marketed as a car dealership, prior to sponsoring the ordinance. He said that he did.
Soon after this, there was a short recess, prior to public input time. Immediately after this break, Mr. Rosado ‘clarified’ his position by stating that his answer was ‘no’. This is a decidedly interesting turn of events, and a complete reversal of his previous position. It is alleged that the ordinance was so specialized, that only the Westphal property could have possibly taken advantage of the ordinance. It shows potential for yet deeper problems. I’m absolutely certain we’re going to hear more about this particular aspect, in the coming months.
Public input time included only approximately 12 residents, including myself, who spoke. About half wanted Rosado to step down, the other half were more worried about other city business, and felt Rosado was a distraction.
Councilman Day came up with what I felt was an excellent compromise, considering the situation. He asked Rosado to step down, with excused absences, until the investigation was concluded. Rosado stated that he would answer by Friday at 3 PM.
After this, Rosado and his attorney tried several times to have the ordinance modified to limit the investigation as much as possible. They continually referenced specific events, attempting to narrow the scope. Thankfully, none of the other City Council members would be swayed to that tactic, and all voted to open investigations to all of Rosado’s dealings from the date of his swearing in, until present. They also included in that motion the writing of a letter to the State’s Attorney.
There were several sudden calls for motion to adjourn, but the Mayor still had business to attend to. Clearly holding back the harsher of his thoughts, the Mayor made a motion to remove Rosado from all of the board seats which he held. Rosado, in something of a self defense move, resigned all of his seats. (With the exception of the most important one, of course.) The council then moved to vote the Mayor in to the tourism board seat. Rosado, claiming that Mrs. Bertolini wanted the seat, tried to move to have the seat granted to her. She declined, and the Mayor was approved for the seat.
The council adjourned shortly after, and the media moved in for reactions and interviews.
Rosado and his attorney reiterated that they felt Rosado was already tried and convicted. I’m not sure why they would feel the necessity to take this tact. It clearly was not the case. The only thing the Council needed was ‘reasonable doubt’ about Rosado’s statements. They did not need to prove anything to launch an investigation. After all, the very act of investigating is to find out if there are facts. Failing to keep that in perspective was to fail yet another test of ethical consideration. An investigation is just that. Rosado’s actions have left a reasonable enough doubt to warrant in investigation. The outcome of that will prove irrevocably one way or another, if Rosado has any wrong doings.
Mrs. Bertolini was first of the council members to speak. She spoke of “Protection for my citizens” this was followed by a loud applause. It was tempered by the ever present Mr. Villalobos, who warned that it may be setting a precedent. Mrs. Bertolini shrugged this off, stating that her life was ‘an open book’ now that she is a public representative.
Mr. Boyd then tried to determine if the parties involved in transactions knew that Mr. Rosado was a council member, would that make it City Business? This will of course, require legal diligence. I’m sure the answer will come out. He also asked what specifically was requested to be investigated by the DBPR. Rosado’s counsel pointed out that it was sent to Real Estate Licensing for investigation. The Mayor then asked if the SEC was involved, because the letter claimed a stock sale. The attorney stated that the SEC had not been contacted.
Mr. Boyd then spoke of the courage that it took for Westphal and others to come forward. He said that “noone wants to have their business name dragged through the mud”. It was then requested several times that the individuals in question in these different land deals be named. Rosado claimed that they were in his log book, and that residents were welcome to go through his log book.
Rosado stated that he wouldn’t provide “confidential information.” When he was pressed to name names. He was asked if there was a confidentiality document on file with the Business Development Office, in regards to these individuals. There was none stated.
Next, Mr. Rosado was questioned about his involvement in Paradise Preserve. Apparently, this too is a long standing project which Mr. Rosado characterized as having an “active interest” in. An accusation was leveled that he again disregarded charter, and went directly to a director, asking that a motion be brought forward to council, even if staff objected. Terry Stewart made a call to Mr. Rosado, with Mark Mason as a witness. This call was to explain to Mr. Rosado that he should not work with directors, without first clearing it with the City Manager. Rosado seemed to claim that a Bill Nolan, the named representative of Paradise Preserve was in his office, during the call. This exchange went back and forth. I’m not certain that this gentleman was in the office at the time of the call. He may have been. This is but one of many cloudy moments throughout the evening.
Mr. Rosado again appeared to admit to breaking charter, by speaking to a Julie Harringer directly. He requested lapel pins, and brochures, for his trip to Puerto Rico.
Rosado again went on the offensive, claiming that the CM Duties were violated. Mr. Stewart pointed out a number of times during the evening that there was not enough information at any point in time to level an accusation, prior to the facts being released in the news Media.
When asked if he received any monies during the Westphal transaction, Rosado answered “Yes” and explained that it was “private business”. Timelines got dicey, as Mr. Rosado’s company was apparently not incorporated until after the documents were signed. This by itself is not criminal, but it could shift the liability Mr. Rosado has from these dealings. It certainly removes any corporate veil protection he may have wanted to assert, on the $261,000 transaction that was referenced in the signed contract.
Tom Hair gained a tremendous amount of respect from me during the evening, with a well thought out, carefully placed question. He asked whether or not it was a third degree felony to profit from a real estate transaction without a license. The City Attorney agreed that it was, if the person was found guilty.
As the evening continued to drag on, two different $10,000 checks were placed on the overhead. The first, to MRM, LLC from a “Top Two Development, Inc” referenced an invoice number that was nearly illegible, but appeared to be #10313. The second check, made out to Mr. Rosado was altered. It was never stated publicly who made the alterations, but the date was clearly changed from March 31, to March 21. The check was cashed on March 28th. This was apparently the catalyst for the check writer to come forward to the press, about Mr. Rosado’s alleged dealings.
It’s not over yet, I still have three more pages of notes to slog through. For tonight, I will leave you with this part of the story. Tomorrow, I will endeavor to finish.
Next the Counsel for Mr. Rosado was able to present.
He immediately shared that Mr. Rosado had submitted himself to an inquiry of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The ’so what’ moment that followed, evidenced by murmurs from the crowd was extremely telling. Residents are demanding full satisfaction for Mr. Rosado’s dealings. A single act in apparent good faith does not reach deep enough to quell the audience.
He spoke of his ‘unfortunate need to protect’ his client. He then tried for the first, of many times during the evening, to limit the depths of the investigation. I wrote a question to myself “Who draws that distinction?” when he began discussing the separation between Mr. Rosado’s personal business dealings, and his dealings as a council member. My impression is one that Mr. Rosado’s dealings, as an elected public officer, extend to his every dealing, regardless of whether he has drawn a personal line or not.
He then warned against the path of using “taxpayers dollars to duplicate investigation”. This led to a raucous outburst from the residents attending.
